Coal Diver Everything you wanted to know about coal, but were afraid to ask.

This is a text-only version of the document "Wright Area Coal Lease - Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Vol 1 and 2 of 2 - 2009". To see the original version of the document click here.

BLM

DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications
Volume 1 of 2
Chapters 1 - 3

Wyoming State Office – High Plains District

West Loadout Facilities Black Thunder Mine, Wyoming

Elk on Reclaimed Rangeland Jacobs Ranch Mine, Wyoming

Elk on Reclaimed Rangeland Black Thunder Mine, Wyoming

Loadout Facilities in Porcupine Creek Valley North Antelope Rochelle Mine, Wyoming

June 2009

The BLM manages more land – 258 million acres – than any other Federal agency. This land, known as the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western States, including Alaska. The Bureau, with a budget of about $1 billion, also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands.

BLM/WY/PL-09/026+1320

June 17, 2009

WRIGHT AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS
DRAFT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Prepared by WWC Engineering
Sheridan, Wyoming
Under the Direction of U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
High Plains District Office
Casper, Wyoming
and Cooperating Agencies U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
Denver, Colorado
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and
Thunder Basin National Grassland
Douglas, Wyoming
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Land Quality and Air Quality Divisions
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Wyoming Department of Transportation
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Converse County Board of Commissioners
Douglas, Wyoming

June 2009

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WRIGHT AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS
CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING
ABSTRACT

Lead Agency: USDI Bureau of Land Management, High Plains District Office, Casper, Wyoming USDI Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland, Douglas, Wyoming Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality and Air Quality Divisions, Cheyenne, Wyoming Wyoming Department of Transportation, Cheyenne, Wyoming Converse County Board of Commissioners, Douglas, Wyoming For Further Information Contact: Sarah Bucklin, Bureau of Land Management, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, WY 82604 (307) 261-7541

Cooperating Agencies:

Abstract: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assesses the environmental consequences of decisions to hold competitive, sealed-bid sales and issue leases for six federal coal maintenance tracts

in Campbell County, Wyoming as a result of coal lease applications submitted by Ark Land Company, Jacobs Ranch Coal Company, and BTU Western Resources, Inc. As applied for, the
Wright Area Coal Lease by Application (LBA) Tracts include approximately 18,021.73 acres containing approximately 2.570 billion tons of federal coal. The tracts are referred to as the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. The applicants propose to mine the tracts as maintenance leases for the existing adjacent mines, if lease sales are held and the applicant mines acquire the leases. The adjacent mines include the Black Thunder Mine, Jacobs Ranch Mine, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine. This Draft EIS describes the physical, biological, cultural, historic, and socioeconomic resources in and around the existing mines and the LBA tracts. The alternatives in the Draft EIS consider the impacts of leasing the tracts as applied for, leasing reconfigured tracts in order to avoid bypassing federal coal or to increase competitive interest in the tracts, and not leasing the tracts. The focus for the impact analysis was based upon resource issues and concerns identified during previous coal leasing analyses and public scoping conducted for these lease applications. Recent concerns related to leasing coal and its subsequent development include: impacts to groundwater, air quality, wildlife, cultural resources, socioeconomics, and transportation routes; coal loss during rail transport; conflicts with oil and gas development; cumulative impacts related to ongoing surface coal mining and other proposed development in the Wyoming Powder River Basin; greenhouse gas emissions; ozone; and climate change. Other Environmental Review or Consultation Requirements: This Draft EIS, in compliance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act as amended, identifies any endangered or threatened species which are likely to be affected by the Proposed Action.

Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)1 analyzes the environmental impacts of leasing six tracts of federal coal reserves adjacent to the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. All are operating surface coal mines in the southern Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming, near the town of Wright. The operators of the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines filed four applications to lease the six tracts of federal coal included in maintenance coal tracts under the regulations at 43 CFR 3425, Leasing On Application. The Division of Minerals and Lands at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Office reviewed all four applications and determined that the lease applications met the regulatory requirements for Lease by Applications (LBAs). These maintenance coal tracts, which would continue or extend the life of the applicant mines, are referred to as the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, the North Porcupine LBA Tract, and the South Porcupine LBA Tract. Figure ES-1 shows the six LBA tracts, other currently pending LBA tracts, and the existing federal leases, including previously leased LBA tracts, in the Wyoming PRB. On October 7, 2005, Ark Land Company (ALC) filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in two separate tracts located north and southwest of and immediately adjacent to the Black Thunder Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming. The tracts are referred to as the North Hilight Field and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts. The North Hilight Field tract is located approximately 5.5 miles east of Wright, Wyoming and the South Hilight Field tract is located approximately 7 miles southeast of Wright (Figures ES-1, ES-2 and ES-3). The federal coal reserves were applied for as maintenance tracts for the Black Thunder Mine. BLM determined that the two tracts in the application would be processed separately and, if the decision is made to conduct a lease sale, would be offered for sale separately. ALC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc. The Black Thunder 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. ALC’s coal lease application was assigned case file numbers WYW164812 (North Hilight Field) and WYW174596 (South Hilight Field). On January 17, 2006, ALC filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in a tract located west of and immediately adjacent to the Black Thunder Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 4 miles southeast of Wright, Wyoming (Figures ES-1 and ES-4). The tract, which is referred to as the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, was assigned case file number WYW172388.

Refer to page xxvi for a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this document.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-1

Executive Summary

14 16

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 (Proposed or Under Construction)
14 90

Crook County

GILLETTE

MOORCROFT

Campbell County

Caballo West Belle Ayr North
Campbell County

Belle Ayr Mine

Johnson County

Maysdorf II

Cordero Rojo Mine

West Coal Creek

Coal Creek Mine

Weston County

Caballo Mine

116

NORTH HILIGHT FIELD WEST JACOBS RANCH
RENO JUNCTION

WRIGHT

SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD
387

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

NORTH PORCUPINE SOUTH PORCUPINE
387

Campbell County Converse County

West Antelope II Antelope Mine

Weston County Converse County Niobrara County

SCALE: 1"= 10 MILES

To Douglas 46 Miles

Figure ES-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts.

ES-2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

To Newcastle 29 Miles

WEST HILIGHT FIELD

Jacobs Ranch Mine
450

Executive Summary
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
BNSF & UP RR

Hili ght Road

Kee line

Road

Jacobs

Shroyer Road

Road

Small Road
26
25

T. 44
N.

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

T. 43
N. 3

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

S ta
11

Hig

hwa y

450

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for Additional Area Evaluated Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
0 3000 6000 12000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure ES-2. North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-3

Executive Summary
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
8 9

Hilight Road

BNSF & UP RR

Sta te

Hig

hw ay

45 0

T. 43
N. T. 42
N.

Hilight Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road

Antel ope R oad

BNSF & UP RR

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for Additional Area Evaluated Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
0 3000 6000 12000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure ES-3. South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

ES-4

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary
Hilight Road

R. 71 W.

Shroyer Road

Black Thunder Mine's Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area
29 28 27

Small Road
26

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

T. 44
N.

T. 43
2 N.

State Highway 450

LEGEND
18 17 16 15 14

Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for

Additional Area Evaluated Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative Additional Area Evaluated
Under Alternative 3

BNSF & UP RR

T. 43
N. T. 42 N.

T. 43
N. T. 42
N.
0 3000 6000
12000

Matheson Road

Hilight Road

Ed wa rd s 5
Ro ad

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

R. 71 W.

Figure ES-4. West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-5

Executive Summary The federal coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract for the Black Thunder Mine. On March 22, 2006, Jacobs Ranch Coal Company (JRCC) filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in a tract located approximately 0.75 mile west of the Jacobs Ranch Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming. The tract, which is referred to as the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, is located approximately 2.5 miles east of Wright, Wyoming (Figures ES-1 and ES-5). The federal coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract for the Jacobs Ranch Mine. The Jacobs Ranch Mine is operated by JRCC, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto Energy America (RTEA). JRCC’s coal lease application was assigned case file number WYW172685. On September 29, 2006, BTU Western Resources, Inc. (BTU) filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in three separate tracts located west, northwest, and north of and immediately adjacent to the North Antelope Rochelle Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming. The two tracts on the north side of the mine were referred to as the North Porcupine LBA Tract, and the tract on the west side of the mine was referred to as the South Porcupine LBA Tract. On October 12, 2007, BTU filed a request with the BLM to modify the Porcupine LBA Tract configuration to increase the lease area and coal volume. The North Porcupine LBA Tract, which is located approximately 12 miles southeast of Wright, Wyoming, was combined into one tract and its size was increased with additional lands (Figures ES-1 and ES-6). The South Porcupine LBA Tract, which is located approximately 14 miles southeast of Wright, was also increased in size with additional lands (Figure ES-1 and ES 7). BLM reviewed the modified tract configuration and notified the company that their application had been modified. The federal coal reserves were applied for as maintenance tracts for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. BLM determined that the two tracts in the application would be processed separately and, if the decision is made to conduct a lease sale, would be offered for sale separately. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine is operated by Powder River Coal, LLC (PRC), a subsidiary of Peabody Energy Corporation (PEC). BTU is also a subsidiary of PEC, and in this EIS, BTU is referred to as the applicant and PRC is referred to in discussions of mine operations. BTU’s coal lease application was assigned case file numbers WYW173408 (North Porcupine) and WYW176095 (South Porcupine). The Powder River Regional Coal Team (PRRCT), a federal/state advisory board established to develop recommendations concerning management of federal coal in the PRB, reviewed the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, and West Jacobs Ranch maintenance coal lease applications at a public meeting held on April 19, 2006 in Casper, Wyoming. The PRRCT reviewed the Porcupine maintenance coal lease application at a public meeting held on January 18, 2007 in Casper, Wyoming. The PRRCT recommended that the BLM process all four lease applications at those respective meetings.

ES-6

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
12 7 8

BNSF & UP RR

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
11 12 7

Hilight Road

Shroyer Road

Small Road
26 25 30

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State

Highway 450

S ta
10 11

Hig hw ay

450
7

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Boundary Existing Jacobs Ranch Mine Federal Coal Leases West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for Additional Area Evaluated Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary ALC's Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

3000

6000

12000

Figure ES-5. West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-7

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
14 13 18 16 17 15 14 13

B NS F & UP RR

Antelope Road

B NS F & UP RR

Antelope Road

ES-8
15

Reno Road

Executive Summary

22 19 20 21 22

24 23

Matheson

Road

Mackey Road

28 30 29 28

Mackey Road

Figure ES-6. North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives.
34 31 32 35 36 33 34 35 36

T. 42 N.
Matheson Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

T. 41 N.
3 6 2 1 5

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary Existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine Federal Coal Leases North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for Additional Area Evaluated Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
12000

3000

6000

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Executive Summary
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
27 26 25 30 29 28 27

Matheson Road

Antel ope R oad

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Matheson

Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

BNSF & UP RR

Campbell County
28

30 26 25

Converse County

Road

Antelope

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary Existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine Federal Coal Leases South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for
0 3000 6000 12000

Additional Area Evaluated Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure ES-7. South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-9

Executive Summary EVALUATION PROCESS In order to process an LBA, BLM must evaluate the quantity, quality, maximum economic recovery, and fair market value of the federal coal and fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) by evaluating the environmental consequences of leasing the federal coal. To evaluate the environmental impacts of leasing the coal, BLM must prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an EIS to evaluate the site-specific and cumulative environmental and socioeconomic impacts of leasing and developing the federal coal in an application area. Due to the proximity of the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, BLM made a decision to prepare a single EIS to evaluate the environmental impacts of coal mining that would be expected to result if leases are issued for these maintenance coal tracts. BLM does not authorize mining by issuing a lease for federal coal, but the impacts of mining the coal are considered in this EIS because it is a logical consequence of issuing a maintenance lease to an existing mine. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will publish a notice announcing the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in the Federal Register. BLM will publish a Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Hearing in the Federal Register. A 60-day comment period on the DEIS will commence with publication of the EPA’s Notice of Availability. The BLM’s Federal Register notice will be used to solicit public comments on the DEIS and on the fair market value, the maximum economic recovery, and the proposed competitive sale of coal from the LBA tracts. A formal public hearing will be held during the 60-day comment period. All comments received on the DEIS will be included, with agency responses, in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). BLM will use the analysis in this EIS to decide whether or not to hold a coal lease sale for each of the federal coal tracts and issue federal coal leases. The LBA sale process is, by law and regulation, an open, public, competitive sealed-bid process. Bidding at a lease sale would be open to any qualified bidder. If a separate lease sale is held for each of these six (North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine) LBA Tracts, the applicants (ALC, JRCC and BTU) may not be the successful high bidders. If a lease sale is held for the federal coal included in each of the six LBA tracts, a federal sale panel selects the highest bidder at the sale. In order to be awarded a federal coal lease, the highest bid must meet or exceed the fair market value of the coal. The fair market value is determined by an economic evaluation done by the BLM. Additionally, the high bidder cannot have any antitrust violations. These are determined by the U.S. Department of Justice.

ES-10

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary Cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EIS include the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (USFS), and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ). Other agencies, including OSM, will also use this analysis to make decisions related to leasing and mining the federal coal in these six tracts. Not all of the coal included in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for is considered mineable at this time. Some of the coal included in the tract is located within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe & Union Pacific (BNSF & UP) railroad right-of-way (ROW). TBCC does not consider the coal underlying the railroad ROW to be recoverable at this time because the cost that would be associated with moving the railroad would make it economically unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. In addition to the railroad, two county roads border or cross some of the coal included in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. The Small Road (Campbell County Road 89) crosses the LBA tract, and the Shroyer Road (Campbell County Road 116) borders the LBA tract. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) prohibits mining within 100 feet on either side of the ROW of any public road unless the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected public and landowners will be protected (30 CFR 761.11(d)). JRCC has obtained approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners, the authorized agency, to close the Small Road. The coal underlying the portion of Shroyer Road, its ROW and the 100-foot buffer zone within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract is included for consideration for leasing because that coal could be mined if the Campbell County Commissioners determines that the road can be closed or relocated (43 CFR 3461.5(c)(2)(iii)). If the road is not moved, including the coal underlying the road in the lease would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to the 100-foot buffer zone on either side of the road ROW. Not all of the coal included in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for is considered mineable at this time. Some of the coal included in the tract is located within the BNSF & UP railroad ROW. TBCC does not consider the coal underlying the railroad ROW to be recoverable at this time because the cost that would be associated with moving the railroad would make it economically unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. Not all of the coal included in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for is considered mineable at this time. A portion of Wyoming State Highway 450 borders the tract; therefore, the highway and its ROW overlie some of the coal included in the tract. SMCRA prohibits mining within 100 feet on either side of the ROW of any public road. However, the appropriate public road authority can allow the road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected public and landowners will be protected [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. For State Highway 450 west of the BNSF & UP railroad mainline, an unsuitability decision (43 CFR 3461) is Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications ES-11

Executive Summary deferred subject to a finding under this process (BLM 2001). The coal underlying the portion of Highway 450, its ROW, and the 100-foot buffer zone within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract is included for consideration for leasing. That coal could be mined if the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT), the authorized agency, determines that the road can be moved [43 CFR 3461.5(c)(2)(iii)]. Including the coal underlying the highway in the lease would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to the 100-foot buffer zone beside the highway ROW if the highway is not moved. Not all of the coal included in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for is considered mineable at this time. A portion of Wyoming State Highway 450 and a portion of the Hilight Road (Campbell County Road 52) overlie some of the coal included in the tract. SMCRA prohibits mining within 100 feet on either side of the ROW of any public road. However, the appropriate public road authority can allow the road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected public and landowners will be protected [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. For State Highway 450 west of the BNSF & UP railroad mainline (Figure ES-5), an unsuitability decision (43 CFR 3461) is deferred subject to a finding under this process (BLM 2001). The coal underlying the portions of Highway 450 and the Hilight Road, their ROWs, and the associated 100-foot buffer zones within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is included for consideration for leasing. That coal could be mined if WYDOT and/or the Campbell County Board of Commissioners (authorized agencies), determine that the roads can be moved [43 CFR 3461.5(c)(2)(iii)]. Including the coal underlying the highway and Hilight Road in the lease would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to the 100-foot buffer zones beside the highway and road ROWs if the State Highway and Hilight Road are not moved. Not all of the coal included in the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for is considered mineable at this time. Some of the coal included in the tract is located within the BNSF & UP railroad ROW. PRC does not consider the coal underlying the railroad ROW to be recoverable at this time because the cost that would be associated with moving the railroad would make it economically unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. Moreover, the coal beneath those portions of the BNSF & UP railroad ROW on federally administered surface lands in the North Porcupine tract was determined to be unsuitable for mining according to the coal mining Unsuitability Criteria (43 CFR 3461). Some of the coal included in the North Porcupine tract is located within the Teckla Substation layback buffer zone. Due to the requirement that no blasting operations be conducted within 500 feet of a substation, the coal underlying the substation buffer zone is not considered mineable at this time by PRC because the cost that would be associated with moving the substation would make it economically unfeasible to recover. In addition to the railroad and substation, three county roads cross or border some of the coal included in the North Porcupine LBA Tract. The Antelope Road (Campbell County Road 4) overlies the tract; the Matheson Road (Campbell County Road 70) borders the tract; and the Mackey Road (Campbell County Road 69, Alternate 1) crosses ES-12 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary and borders the tract. SMCRA prohibits mining within 100 feet on either side of the ROW of any public road unless the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected public and landowners will be protected (30 CFR 761.11(d)). The coal underlying those portions of these roads, their ROWs, and the associated 100-foot buffer zones within the North Porcupine tract is included for consideration for leasing because that coal could be mined if the Campbell County Board of Commissioners, the authorized agency, determines that the roads can be closed or relocated (43 CFR 3461.5(c)(2)(iii)). PRC has obtained approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to close and relocate those portions of the Antelope and Matheson roads that cross and border the North Porcupine LBA Tract. If the Mackey Road is not closed or relocated, including the coal underlying the road in the lease would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to the 100-foot buffer zone on either side of the road ROW. PRC is evaluating the feasibility of relocating the Mackey Road. Not all of the coal included in the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for is considered mineable at this time. The BNSF & UP railroad line lies just west of the tract, and some of the coal included in the tract is located within a 1,000 foot wide layback buffer zone on the east side of the railroad ROW centerline. PRC does not consider the coal underlying the railroad layback buffer zone to be recoverable at this time because the cost that would be associated with moving the railroad would make it economically unfeasible to recover that coal. In addition to the railroad buffer, a portion of the Antelope Road (Campbell County Road 4) crosses some of the coal included in the South Porcupine LBA Tract. SMCRA prohibits mining within 100 feet on either side of the ROW of any public road unless the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected public and landowners will be protected (30 CFR 761.11(d)). The coal underlying the portion of Antelope Road, its ROW, and the 100-foot buffer zone within the South Porcupine LBA Tract is included for consideration for leasing because it could be mined if the Campbell County Board of Commissioners (authorized agency) determine that the road can be closed or relocated (43 CFR 3461.5(c)(2)(iii)). PRC has obtained approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to close and relocate a portion (approximately 1.25 miles) of Antelope Road that crosses the tract. PRC plans to apply for approval to close and relocate the remainder (approximately 2.25 miles) of Antelope Road that crosses the South Porcupine tract. Including the coal underlying the 2.25-mile portion of Antelope Road in the lease would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to the 100-foot buffer zone on either side of the road if the remainder of the road is not moved. PRC is evaluating the feasibility of relocating the remainder of this county road. A decision to lease the federal coal lands in these applications would be in conformance with the Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office (BLM Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications ES-13

Executive Summary 2001a) and with the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Thunder Basin National Grassland, Medicine Bow-Routte National Forest (USFS 2001). ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Actions and alternatives to those actions are analyzed in detail in this DEIS.


Proposed Action - The Proposed Action for each LBA tract is to hold a competitive coal lease sale and issue a maintenance lease to the successful bidder for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts as applied for (Figures ES-2 through ES-7, respectively). The applicant mines’ estimates of the coal reserve, lease area and surface disturbance area for each tract as applied for are included in Tables ES 1 through ES-12. The applicant mines’ estimated future coal production, remaining mine life, and employment are also given in Tables ES-1 through ES-12. Alternative 1 - Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative for each tract, the LBA tracts would not be leased, but the existing leases at the adjacent Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines would be developed according to the existing approved mining plans. The applicant mines’ remaining coal reserves, lease areas, future coal production rates, and employments are included in Table ES-1 through ES-12. Rejection of the lease applications would not preclude applications to lease the tracts in the future. Alternatives 2 and 3 - Under Alternative 2 for each of the six LBA Tracts and Alternative 3 for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, BLM would reconfigure the tract, hold a competitive coal lease sale for the lands included in the reconfigured tract, and issue a maintenance lease to the successful bidder for a tract that is larger than the applied-for tract. BLM identified a study area for each LBA tract in order to evaluate the potential that an alternate configuration of the tract would provide more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the tract, and/or reduce the potential that some of the remaining unleased federal coal in this area would be bypassed in the future. The BLM study area includes the tract as applied for plus adjacent unleased federal coal, which is depicted as the additional area evaluated under Alternatives 2 and 3 in Figures ES-2 through ES-7. These different tract configurations are considered as Alternatives 2 and 3 in this EIS. Alternative 2, holding a competitive sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s Preferred Alternative for each of these six LBA tracts. The applicant mines’ estimates of the coal reserve, lease area and surface disturbance area for each tract under Alternative 2 and for the West Hilight Field tract under Alternative 3 are included in Tables ES-1 through ES-12.



ES-14

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary Table ES-1. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Shroyer Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2008) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees (by 2013)4 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)5 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)6
1 2 3

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing Black Thunder Mine) 1,344.0 mmt 1,344.0 mmt 1,236.4 mmt 1,071.0 mmt 17,856.0 ac 26,812.0 ac 29,201.0 ac 135 mmt 10.2 yrs 1,324 $2,091.2 mm $1,629.4 mm

Added by Proposed Action 319.7 mmt 286.3 mmt 263.4 mmt -2,613.5 ac 5,053.0 ac 5,053.0 ac 0 mmt 2.0 yrs 0 $488.5 – $584.4 mm $390.1 – $486.0 mm

Added by Alternative 2 756.9 mmt 709.6 mmt 652.8 mmt - 7,139.4 ac 12,908.8 ac 12,908.8 ac 0 mmt 4.8 yrs 0 $1,210.5 – $1,448.3 mm $966.8 – $1,204.5 mm

4 5

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath the BNSF & UP railroad ROW and associated buffer zone and Shroyer Road ROW and associated buffer zone. Assumes 92 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation. The lease area figure includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed area exceeds the leased area (total federal and state) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundaries. The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description. The mine projects to increase employment from 1,080 to 1,324 as projected production increases. Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production taxes (ad valorem), sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees and bonus bid payments. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.372 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus bid payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid payments. Federal revenues are based on a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.4 percent, plus $11.06 per ton price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payments on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-15

Executive Summary Table ES-2. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Shroyer Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.
Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing Black Thunder Mine) 1,344.0 mmt 1,344.0 mmt 1,236.4 mmt 1,071.0 mmt 17,856.0 ac 26,812.0 ac 29,201.0 ac 135 mmt 10.2 yrs 1,324 $2,091.2 mm $1,629.4 mm Added by Proposed Action 319.7 mmt 295.8 mmt 272.1 mmt -2,613.5 ac 5,053.0 ac 5,053.0 ac 0 mmt 2.0 yrs 0 $504.6 – $603.7 mm $403.0 – $502.1 mm Added by Alternative 2 756.9 mmt 727.5 mmt 669.3 mmt - 7,139.4 ac 12,908.8 ac 12,908.8 ac 0 mmt 5.0 yrs 0 $1,241.1 – $1,484.9 mm $991.2 – $1,234.9 mm

Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2008) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees4 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)5 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)6
1 2 3

4 5

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath BNSF & UP railroad ROW and associated buffer zone. Assumes 92 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation. The lease area figure includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed area exceeds the leased area (total federal and state) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundaries. The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description. The mine projects to increase employment from 1,080 to 1,324 as projected production increases. Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production taxes (ad valorem), sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees and bonus bid payments. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.372 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus bid payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid payments. Federal revenues are based on a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.4 percent, plus $11.06 per ton price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payments on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Reno Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2008) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees (by 2013)4 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)5 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)6
1 2 3

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing Black Thunder Mine) 1,344.0 mmt 1,344.0 mmt 1,236.4 mmt 1,071.0 mmt 17,856.0 ac 26,812.0 ac 29,201.0 ac 135 mmt 10.2 yrs 1,324 $2,091.2 mm $1,629.4 mm

Added by Proposed Action 273.3 mmt 232.2 mmt 213.6 mmt -1,976.7 ac 1,126.0 ac 1,126.0 ac 0 mmt 1.6 yrs 0 $396.1 – $473.9 mm $316.3 – $394.1 mm

Added by Alternative 2 406.5 mmt 330.8 mmt 304.3 mmt - 2,922.4 ac 2,731.4 ac 2,731.4 ac 0 mmt 2.3 yrs 0 $564.3 – $675.1 mm $450.7 – $561.5 mm

4 5

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath BNSF & UP railroad ROW and associated buffer zone. Under Alternative 2, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath Reno Road ROW and associated buffer zone. Assumes 92 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation. The lease area figure includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed area exceeds the leased area (total federal and state) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundaries. The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description. The mine projects to increase employment from 1,080 to 1,324 as projected production increases. Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production taxes (ad valorem), sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees and bonus bid payments. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.372 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus bid payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid payments. Federal revenues are based on a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.4 percent, plus $11.06 per ton price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payments on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-17

Executive Summary Table ES-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Reno Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2008) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees (by 2013)4 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)5 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)6
1 2 3

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing Black Thunder Mine) 1,344.0 mmt 1,344.0 mmt 1,236.4 mmt 1,071.0 mmt 17,856.0 ac 26,812.0 ac 29,201.0 ac 135 mmt 10.2 yrs 1,324 $2,091.2 mm $1,629.4 mm

Added by Proposed Action 273.3 mmt 232.2 mmt 213.6 mmt -1,976.7 ac 1,126.0 ac 1,126.0 ac 0 mmt 1.6 yrs 0 $396.1 – $473.9 mm $316.3 – $394.1 mm

Added by Alternative 2 406.5 mmt 347.8 mmt 320.0 mmt - 2,922.4 ac 2,731.4 ac 2,731.4 ac 0 mmt 2.4 yrs 0 $593.4 – $709.9 mm $473.9 – $590.4 mm

4 5

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary Table ES-5. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2008) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees (by 2013)4 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)5 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)6
1

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative (Existing Black Thunder Mine) 1,344.0 mmt 1,344.0 mmt 1,236.4 mmt 1,071.0 mmt 17,856.0 ac 26,812.0 ac 29,201.0 ac 135 mmt 10.2 yrs 1,324 $2,091.2 mm $1,629.4 mm

Added by Proposed Action 440.4 mmt 410.8 mmt 377.9 mmt -2,370.5 ac 6,351.4 ac 6,351.4 ac 0 mmt 2.8 yrs 0 $700.8 – $838.4 mm $559.7 – $697.3 mm

Added by Alternative 2 1,147.9 mmt 1,049.1 mmt 965.2 mmt -7,191.3 ac 10,250.8 ac 10,250.8 ac 0 mmt 7.1 yrs 0 $1,789.9 – $2,141.3 mm

Added by Alternative 3 1,373.4 mmt 1,049.1 mmt 965.2 mmt - 8,570.1 ac 10,250.8 ac 10,250.8 ac 0 mmt 7.1 yrs 0 $1,789.9 – $2,141.3 mm

$1,429.4 – $1,780.8 mm $1,429.4 – $1,780.8 mm

2 3

4 5

Under the Proposed Action, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath State Highway 450 ROW and associated buffer zone. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath State Highway 450 and Hilight Road ROWs and associated buffer zones. Under Alternative 3, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath the Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area. Assumes 92 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation. The lease area figure includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed area exceeds the leased area (total federal and state) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundaries. The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description. The mine projects to increase employment from 1,080 to 1,324 as projected production increases. Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production taxes (ad valorem), sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees and bonus bid payments. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.372 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus bid payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid payments. Federal revenues are based on a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.4 percent, plus $11.06 per ton price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payments on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-19

Executive Summary Table ES-6. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2008) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees (by 2013)4 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)5 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)6
1 2 3

Added by Proposed Action 440.4 mmt 440.4 mmt 405.2 mmt - 2,370.5 ac 6,351.4 ac 6,351.4 ac 0 mmt 3.0 yrs 0 $751.4 – $898.9 mm $600.1 – $747.6 mm

Added by Alternative 2 1,147.9 mmt 1,147.9 mmt 1,056.1 mmt - 7,191.3 ac 11,629.5 ac 11,629.5 ac 0 mmt 7.8 yrs 0

Added by Alternative 3 1,373.4 mmt 1,147.9 mmt 1,056.1 mmt - 8,570.1 ac 11,629.5 ac 11,629.5 ac 0 mmt 7.8 yrs 0

$1,958.4 – $2,343.0 mm $1,958.4 – $2,343.0 mm $1,564.0 – $1,948.6 mm $1,564.0 – $1,948.6 mm

4 5

Under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3, the mineable coal figure includes all coal that would be mined beneath State Highway 450 and Hilight Road ROWs and associated buffer zones. Under Alternative 3, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath the Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area. Assumes 92 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation. The lease area figure includes federal coal leases only and does not include state coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed area exceeds the leased area (total federal and state) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundaries. The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description. The mine projects to increase employment from 1,080 to 1,324 as projected production increases. Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production taxes (ad valorem), sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees and bonus bid payments. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.372 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus bid payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid payments. Federal revenues are based on a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.4 percent, plus $11.06 per ton price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payments on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary Table ES-7. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance Mine Life, and Revenues for West Jacobs , Ranch LBA Tract and Jacobs Ranch Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered.
Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing Jacobs Ranch Mine) 450.0 mmt 450.0 mmt 423.0 mmt 629.0 mmt 8,399.5 ac 14,853.0 ac 15,625.0 ac 40 mmt 10.6 yrs 630 $715.4 mm $557.5 mm Added by Proposed Action 957.0 mmt 744.0 mmt 669.6 mmt - 5,944.4 ac 7,023.0 ac 8,066.0 ac 0 mmt 16.7 yrs 155 $1,244.1 – $1,493.4 mm $994.1 – $1,243.3 mm Added by Alternative 2 1,269.0 mmt 1,014.0 mmt 912.6 mmt - 8,076.2 ac 9,370.0 ac 10,766.0 ac 0 mmt 22.8 yrs 155 $1,695.6 – $2,035.3 mm $1,354.8 – $1,694.5 mm

Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2007) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)4 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)5
1 2 3

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath State Highway 450 and Hilight Road ROWs and associated buffer zones. Assumes 94 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation under Alternative 1, and 90 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. The lease area figure includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed area exceeds the leased area (total federal and state) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundaries. The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description. Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production taxes (ad valorem), sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees and bonus bid payments. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.372 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus bid payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid payments. Federal revenues are based on a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.0 percent, plus $11.06 per ton price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payments on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-21

Executive Summary Table ES-8. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract and Jacobs Ranch Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2007) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)4 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)5
1 2 3

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing Jacobs Ranch Mine) 450.0 mmt 450.0 mmt 423.0 mmt 629.0 mmt 8,399.5 ac 14,853.0 ac 15,625.0 ac 40.0 mmt 10.6 yrs 630 $715.4 mm $557.5 mm

Added by Proposed Action 957.0 mmt 957.0 mmt 861.3 mmt - 5,944.4 ac 7,023.0 ac 8,066.0 ac 0 mmt 21.5 yrs 155 $1,600.3 – $1,920.9 mm $1,278.6 – $1,599.2 mm

Added by Alternative 2 1,269.0 mmt 1,269.0 mmt 1,142.1 mmt - 8,076.2 ac 9,370.0 ac 10,766.0 ac 0 mmt 28.6 yrs 155 $2,122.0 – $2,547.2 mm $1,695.5 – $2,120.6 mm

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the mineable coal figure includes all coal that would be mined beneath State Highway 450 and Hilight Road ROWs and associated buffer zones. Assumes 94 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation under Alternative 1, and 90 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. The lease area figure includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed area exceeds the leased area (total federal and state) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundaries. The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description. Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production taxes (ad valorem), sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees and bonus bid payments. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.372 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus bid payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid payments. Federal revenues are based on a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.4 percent, plus $11.06 per ton price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payments on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary Table ES-9. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – Mackey Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered.
Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine) 1,156.0 mmt 1,121.1 mmt 1,031.4 mmt 1,133.2 mmt 16,666.1 ac 27,443.0 ac 45,975.0 ac 95 mmt 10.9 yrs 1,150 $1,744.5 mm $1,359.3 mm Added by Proposed Action 756.9 mmt 653.5 mmt 601.2 mmt -5,795.8 ac 9,864.0 ac 1,760.0 ac 0 mmt 6.3 yrs 0 $1,114.9 – $1,333.8 mm $890.3 – $1,109.3 mm Added by Alternative 2 955.8 mmt 810.2 mmt 745.4 mmt - 7,366.8 ac 11,444.0 ac 3,120.0 ac 0 mmt 7.8 yrs 0 $1,382.3 – $1,653.7 mm $1,103.9 – $1,375.3 mm

Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2007) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)4 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)5
1

2 3

Under the Proposed Action, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath BNSF & UP railroad ROW and associated buffer zone, Teckla Substation buffer zone, and Mackey Road ROW and associated buffer zone. Under Alternative 2, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath BNSF & UP railroad ROW and associated buffer zone, Teckla Substation buffer zone, a portion of Matheson Road ROW and associated buffer zone, and Mackey Road ROW and associated buffer zone. Assumes 92 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation. The lease area figure includes federal coal leases only and does not include state coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed area exceeds the leased area (total federal and state) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundaries. The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description. Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production taxes (ad valorem), sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees and bonus bid payments. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.372 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus bid payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid payments. Federal revenues are based on a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.4 percent, plus $11.06 per ton price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payments on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-23

Executive Summary Table ES-10. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – Mackey Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2007) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)4 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)5
1

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine) 1,156.0 mmt 1,121.1 mmt 1,031.4 mmt 1,133.2 mmt 16,666.1 ac 27,443.0 ac 45,975.0 ac 95 mmt 10.9 yrs 1,150 $1,744.5 mm $1,359.3 mm

Added by Proposed Action 756.9 mmt 688.3 mmt 633.3 mmt -5,795.8 ac 10,167.0 ac 1,760.0 ac 0 mmt 6.7 yrs 0 $1,174.4 – $1,405.0 mm $937.9 – $1,168.4 mm

Added by Alternative 2 955.8 mmt 845.0 mmt 777.4 mmt - 7,366.8 ac 11,767.0 ac 3,120.0 ac 0 mmt 8.2 yrs 0 $1,441.6 – $1,724.7 mm $1,151.3 – $1,434.4 mm

2 3

Under the Proposed Action, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath BNSF & UP railroad ROW and associated buffer zone and Teckla Substation buffer zone. Under Alternative 2, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath BNSF & UP railroad ROW and associated buffer zone, Teckla Substation buffer zone, and a portion of Matheson Road ROW and associated buffer zone. Assumes 92 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation. The lease area figure includes federal coal leases only and does not include state coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed area exceeds the leased area (total federal and state) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundaries. The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description. Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production taxes (ad valorem), sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees and bonus bid payments. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.372 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus bid payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid payments. Federal revenues are based on a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.4 percent, plus $11.06 per ton price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.35 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payments on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary Table ES-11. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – 2.25-Mile Section of Antelope Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2007) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)4 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)5
1 2 3

Added by Proposed Action 422.2 mmt 336.6 mmt 309.7 mmt - 3,186.0 ac 3,366.0 ac 200.0 ac 0 mmt 3.3 yrs 0 $574.3 – $687.1 mm $458.6 – $571.4 mm

Added by Alternative 2 470.9 mmt 368.8 mmt 339.3 mmt - 3,568.0 ac 4,068.0 ac 400.0 ac 0 mmt 3.6 yrs 0 $629.2 – $752.7 mm $502.5 – $626.0 mm

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath BNSF & UP railroad ROW and associated buffer zone and 2.25-mile section of Antelope Road and associated buffer zone. Assumes 92 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation. The lease area figure includes federal coal leases only and does not include state coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed area exceeds the leased area (total federal and state) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundaries. The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description. Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production taxes (ad valorem), sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees and bonus bid payments. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.372 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus bid payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid payments. Federal revenues are based on a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.4 percent, plus $11.06 per ton price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payments on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-25

Executive Summary Table ES-12. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – 2.25-Mile Section of Antelope Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2007) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)4 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)5
1 2 3

Added by Proposed Action 422.2 mmt 408.4 mmt 375.7 mmt - 3,186.0 ac 3,908.0 ac 200.0 ac 0 mmt 4.0 yrs 0 $696.7 – $833.5 mm $556.4 – $693.2 mm

Added by Alternative 2 470.9 mmt 440.6 mmt 405.4 mmt - 3,568.0 ac 4,610.0 ac 400.0 ac 0 mmt 4.3 yrs 0 $751.8 – $899.4 mm $600.4 – $748.0 mm

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath BNSF & UP railroad ROW and associated buffer zone. Assumes 92 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation. The lease area figure includes federal coal leases only and does not include state coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed area exceeds the leased area (total federal and state) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundaries. The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description. Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production taxes (ad valorem), sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees and bonus bid payments. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.372 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus bid payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid payments. Federal revenues are based on a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.4 percent, plus $11.06 per ton price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payments on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary The applicant mines’ projected rates of coal production and employment would be similar to the Proposed Actions, although the life of the existing mines would be extended for a period of time, depending on if the public highway and/or county roads are or are not moved. The analysis in this EIS assumes that ALC would be the successful bidder on the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts; JRCC would be the successful bidder on the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract; and BTU would be the successful bidder on the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. Under the Proposed Actions and Alternatives 2 and 3, the leases would be subject to the standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB and for these tracts, which are listed in Appendix D of this EIS. One alternative that was considered but not analyzed in detail included holding competitive coal lease sales and issuing leases for one or more of the LBA tracts to the successful bidder (not the applicants) for the purpose of developing new stand-alone mines. Another alternative that was not analyzed in detail called for delaying the competitive sales of one or more of the LBA tracts as applied for to increase the benefit to the public afforded by higher coal prices and/or to allow more complete recovery of the potential coal bed natural gas (CBNG) resources in the tracts prior to mining. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Critical elements of the human environment (BLM 1988) that could be affected by the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 and 3 include air quality, cultural resources, Native American religious concerns, threatened and endangered (T&E) plant and animal species, migratory birds, hazardous or solid waste, water quality (both surface and ground), wetlands/riparian zones, environmental justice, and invasive non-native species. Five other critical elements (areas of critical environmental concern, prime and unique farmland, floodplains, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness) are not present in the general Wright analysis area and are not addressed further. In addition to the critical elements that are potentially present in the general Wright analysis area, this EIS discusses the status and potential effects of mining the LBA tracts on topography and physiography, geology and mineral resources, soils, water quantity and quality, alluvial valley floors (AVFs), vegetation, wildlife, land use and recreation, paleontological resources, visual resources, noise, transportation resources, and socioeconomics. The environmental impacts of mining each of the LBA tracts would be similar under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3. The general analysis area for each of these six LBA tracts is defined as the BLM study area plus surrounding lands within a ¼-mile perimeter that could be disturbed by mining the coal within the BLM study area where future mining disturbance could occur. For the purpose of this analysis, the general Wright Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications ES-27

Executive Summary analysis area is defined as the area encompassing all six of these LBA tracts’ general analysis areas. Topography The general Wright analysis area (the general area around and including the general analysis area for each of the six LBA tracts) is located in the PRB, a part of the Northern Great Plains that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. The North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are located in the southeastern part of the PRB, in an area consisting primarily of a gently rolling upland terrain of low relief, broken by minor drainages and internally-drained playa areas. Drainage densities are quite low, and the playas are common topographic and hydrologic features. Land surface elevations range from about 4,690 to 5,170 feet above sea level. Gently rolling uplands comprise most of the general Wright analysis area; most of the land surface (between 75 and 90 percent, depending on the particular LBA tract) seldom exceeds a 5 percent slope. The steepest slopes typically occur near the highest elevations along the ridge lines and drainage divides, at the breaks or the broken land dissected by small ravines and gullies, or at the transitions between uplands and bottom lands. The existing topography on each LBA tract that is leased would be substantially changed during mining. A highwall with a vertical height equal to overburden plus coal thickness would exist in the active pits. Following reclamation, the average surface elevation would be lower due to removal of the coal. The reclaimed land surface would approximate premining contours, and the basic drainage network would be retained; however, the reclaimed surface would typically contain fewer and gentler topographic features. This could contribute to reduced habitat diversity and wildlife carrying capacity on the LBA tracts. These topographic changes would not conflict with regional land use, and the postmining topography would adequately support anticipated postmining land use for each tract. Geology The mineable coal seams in the PRB are part of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation. The nomenclature of the mineable coal seams in the Tongue River Member varies from mine operator to mine operator in the eastern PRB and are locally referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, Roland and Smith, Wyodak-Anderson, and Wyodak. Operators of the mines in the general Wright analysis area refer to the mineable coal zone as either the Wyodak (Upper Wyodak, Middle Wyodak and Lower Wyodak) or the WyodakAnderson. The number of coal seams varies from tract to tract. The combined average thicknesses of the mineable coal seams range between 61 feet within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract to 104 feet within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. Interburden thickness between the coal seams varies from 0 (West Jacobs Ranch) to around 94 feet (South Hilight Field), and average overburden ES-28 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary thickness on each tract ranges from around 246 feet (North Hilight Field) to around 480 feet (West Jacobs Ranch). The geology from the base of the coal to the land surface would be subject to considerable permanent change on each LBA tract under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 and 3. After removal of the coal, the replaced overburden would be a relatively homogeneous mixture compared to the premining layered overburden. Other Mineral Resources Development of other minerals potentially present on the LBA tracts could not occur during mining but could occur after mining. According to the January 2008 reserve estimate of conventional oil and gas resources that was prepared by Allen & Crouch Petroleum Engineers, Inc. of Casper, Wyoming, of the 33 wells capable of producing oil or conventional gas that are located within these six LBA tracts, each configured under Alternative 2, 16 wells are considered to have recoverable reserves using in-place recovery methods. Estimated remaining recoverable reserves from these 16 wells are approximately 43,308 barrels of oil and 1.654 million cubic feet (mmcf) of natural gas (A&C 2008). Any oil and conventional gas wells on the tracts would have to be plugged and abandoned during mining but could be recompleted after mining if the remaining reserves justify the expense of the recompletion. Extensive development of coal bed natural gas (CBNG) in the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone has occurred in the general Wright analysis area. Although CBNG has been produced in this area for about 10 years, there are still some undrilled 80-acre spacing units in and around the general Wright analysis area. However, there has been little recent interest in drilling additional wells for completion in the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone in this area. CBNG is also being produced locally from other deeper seams in the PRB (e.g., Cook, Wall, and Pawnee coal seams of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation)., although no wells have been completed in the deeper seams on and immediately west of the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts (WOGCC 2008a). The Wyoming BLM State Office-Reservoir Management Group (WSO-RMG) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have collected coal gas content data from coal cores near the mines and in other areas of the PRB. Measured gas content was minimal in all of the Wyodak-Anderson coal cores collected in 2000 at locations near the surface coal mines, indicating that the coal seams were already substantially depleted of CBNG in the vicinity of the mines at that time. Average total gas content from the core desorption analyses was approximately 6.8 standard cubic feet per ton (scf/ton) near the coal mines in 2000, compared with an average measured gas content of 37.6 scf/ton from coal Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications ES-29

Executive Summary cores taken outside the mining areas. Analyses by WSO-RMG, USGS, CBNG operators, and others have shown that dewatering of the coal beds, by both CBNG production and mine dewatering, reduces the hydrostatic pressure in the coals and allows the CBNG to desorb and escape from the coal. These effects have been ongoing and it is likely that desorption has continued since 2000; as a result, coal gas content and the gas-in-place adjacent to the existing mines would currently be expected to be less than in 2000. According to the WOGCC database as of May 2008, a total of 287 wells have been drilled for CBNG production and 248 were capable of producing within the six LBA tracts as applied for and the lands added by the respective BLM study areas included in this analysis (WOGCC 2008a). CBNG resources that are not recovered prior to mining, albeit slight, 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. Paleontology Significant or unique paleontological resources have not been reported by the three applicant mines in the general Wright analysis area. Air Quality Surface coal mining activities generate fugitive dust and particulate and gaseous tailpipe emissions from large mining equipment. Specifically, activities such as blasting, excavating, loading and hauling of overburden and coal, and wind erosion of disturbed and unreclaimed mining areas produce fugitive dust. Coal crushing, storage, and handling facilities are the most common stationary or point sources associated with surface coal mining and preparation. Particulate matter is the pollutant emitted from coal mine point sources. Since 1989, the regulated particulate pollutant in Wyoming has been PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less). Wyoming also adopted a fine particulate, PM2.5 (particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less), standard in March 2000. EPA has revoked the annual PM10 standard of 50 µg/m3 but retained the 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 µg/m3. Until the State of Wyoming enters into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS, the annual PM10 standard of 50 µg/m3 is still effective. Blasting is also responsible for another type of emission from surface coal mining. Overburden and coal blasting sometimes produces gaseous, orangecolored clouds that contain nitrous dioxide (NO2). Exposure to NO2 may have adverse health effects. NO2 is one of several products resulting from the incomplete combustion of explosives used in the blasting process. Other existing air pollutant emission sources within the region include: ES-30 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary
 



 



CO and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from internal combustion engines used at natural gas and CBNG pipeline compressor stations; CO, NOx, particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from gasoline and diesel vehicle tailpipe emissions; Particulate matter (dust) generated by vehicle travel on unpaved graded roads, agricultural activities such as plowing, and paved road sanding during the winter months, as well as windblown dust from neighboring areas; NO2 and PM10 emissions from railroad locomotives used to haul coal; SO2 and NOx from power plants. The closest coal-fired power plants are the Dave Johnston plant, located about 40-60 miles south-southwest of these six LBA tracts, and the Wyodak, Wygen, and Neil Simpson plants, located about 35-55 miles north of these six LBA tracts; and Air pollutants transported from emission sources located outside the PRB.

Moderately adverse short-term impacts to air quality would be extended onto the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts during the time the tracts are mined if leases are issued. Modeling for the current Black Thunder Mine permit predicted no exceedances of the annual PM10 Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) at the permitted production level of 135 million tons per year (mmtpy). The dispersion model showed a maximum concentration on the Black Thunder Mine LNCM (lands necessary to conduct mining) boundary of 49.96 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) in 2017 (Figure ES-8). Moderately adverse short-term impacts to air quality would be extended onto the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract during the time the tract is mined if a lease is issued. Modeling for the current Jacobs Ranch Mine permit predicted no exceedances of the annual PM10 WAAQS and NAAQS at the permitted production level of 55 mmtpy. The dispersion model showed a maximum concentration on the Jacobs Ranch Mine LNCM boundary of 49.61 µg/m3 in 2015 (Figure ES-9). Moderately adverse short-term impacts to air quality would be extended onto the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts during the time the tracts are mined if leases are issued. Modeling for the current North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit predicted no exceedances of the annual PM10 WAAQS and NAAQS at the permitted production level of 99 mmtpy. The dispersion model showed a maximum concentration on the North Antelope Rochelle Mine LNCM boundary of 38.00 µg/m3 in 2015 (Figure ES-10). There would be an increase in stripping ratio in each of the LBA tracts compared to the applicant mines’ current leases, which could result in an increase in fugitive emissions per ton of coal mined from current levels due to the increased volume of overburden that would have to be removed to recover the coal. The increase in fugitive dust emissions could potentially be Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications ES-31

Executive Summary
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
14 13 18 17 16 15 14

Hilight Road

Ke elin e

Ro 13 ad

Jacobs Road

Shroyer Road
23 24 19

PM10=49.96 µg/m
30 29 28

NO x=52.5 µg/m
T. 44 N. T. 43 N.
31 32 33

Small Road

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450

BNSF & UP RR

Sta

High

way

450

T. 42 N.

Hilight Road

T. 43 N.

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Matheson Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road

Antel ope R oad

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Reno Road

LEGEND

Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases Haul Roads Area Source Ambient Air Boundary Receptor Location
0 5000 10000 20000

North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for
North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2,
BLM's Preferred Alternative
West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for
West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2,
BLM's Preferred Alternative
West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 3
South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for
South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2,
BLM's Preferred Alternative

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure ES-8. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NO X Concentrations at the Black Thunder Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2017.

ES-32

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary
30 29 28 27 26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R.70W. R.69W. T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Keeline Road

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

PM10=49.61 µg/m 3 (2015)
4 3 2

PM10=44.70 µg/m 3 (2013)
11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

Ke elin e

Jacobs Road

Ro 13 ad

Shroyer Road
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20

Small Road
26

T. 44 31 N. T. 43 N.

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

Sta

High

way

450

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R.70W. R.69W.

LEGEND
Haul Roads Area Source (2013) Area Source (2015) Ambient Air Boundary Receptor Location
0 5000 10000 20000

Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Boundary Existing Jacobs Ranch Mine Federal Coal Leases West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure ES-9. Maximum Modeled PM 10 Concentrations at the Jacobs Ranch Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Years 2013 and 2015.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-33

Executive Summary
Hilight Road
2

Edwards Road

Reno Road
Sc

ek l Cre hoo
12

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
1 6

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
1 6

BNSF & UP RR

Antel ope R oad

Reno Road

Mackey Road

MathesonRoad
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27

MIDDLE PIT

Mackey Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

EAST PIT

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Matheson
4 3

Road
2 1 6 5 4 3

NORTH PIT
2 1 6 5

WEST PIT
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

Campbell County Converse County
29

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.
8

PM10=38.0 µg/m 3
33 34

NO x=26.0 µg/m 3
3 2 1

T. 41 N.
5

te An
9 10 11

pe lo

ad
6 5 4

T. 40 N.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
Haul Roads Area Source Ambient Air Boundary Receptor Location
0 5000 10000 20000

North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary Existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine Federal Coal Leases North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure ES-10. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NO X Concentrations at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2015.

ES-34

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary moderated somewhat if removal of the larger volume of overburden material results in a slower rate of mining advancement through the LBA tracts, thus decreasing the total annual disturbance acreage and causing haul distances to increase more slowly. Particulate emissions are nevertheless expected to remain within daily and annual limits. There have been no exceedances of the annual PM10 standards documented by the Black Thunder Mine through 2007. From 2001 through 2006, there were a total of nine exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 particulate standards associated with the three applicant mines (six exceedances at Black Thunder, one exceedance at Jacobs Ranch, and two exceedances at the North Antelope Rochelle). In 2007, a total of three 24-hour PM10 exceedances were reported at these three mines (one at Black Thunder, none at Jacobs Ranch, and two at North Antelope Rochelle). Prior to 2007, there was no mechanism in place to account for exceedances demonstrated to be the result of natural events. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD) collaborated with the Wyoming Mining Association (WMA) to develop a Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP) for the coal mines of the PRB, based on EPA Natural Event Policy guidance. Under certain conditions, excessive PM10 concentrations resulting from dust raised by exceptionally high winds or other natural events will be treated as uncontrollable natural events. All of the nine exceedances that occurred at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines between 2001 and 2006 were associated with elevated wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, which could have qualified as a high wind event under the NEAP. The two exceedances reported in 2007 at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine have been flagged by EPA as exceptional events under the NEAP and will not be considered when determining the region’s air quality designation. The one exceedance reported at the Black Thunder Mine in 2007 is currently under review by EPA and may be flagged as an exceptional event under the NEAP. Low-lying, gaseous orange clouds containing nitrogen oxides (NOx) that can be transported by wind can sometimes form from overburden blasting prior to coal removal. EPA has expressed concerns that NOx levels in some blasting clouds may be sufficiently high at times to cause human health effects. Because of these incidents, Wyoming Department of Environment Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD) has directed some mines to take steps designed to mitigate the effects of NO2 emissions occurring from overburden blasting. To date, there have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting activities at the Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle mines. The WDEQ has not required the mines to implement any specific measures to control or limit public exposure to NO2 from blasting, although the mines have instituted voluntary blasting restrictions to avoid NOx impact to the public. Black Thunder Mine received several reports of public exposure to NO2 from blasting prior to 2001. Measures to control or limit future such incidences, which are part of Black Thunder Mine’s settlement agreement, have been instituted when large overburden blasts are planned at that mine. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications ES-35

Executive Summary WDEQ/AQD has determined that an assessment of annual NOx impacts must be included as part of an air quality permitting analysis for new surface coal mines and existing mine plan revisions. NOx modeling was also conducted in support of the three applicant mines’ most recent air quality permit applications, and impacts from the worst-case years fall well below the annual NO2 NAAQS. Public exposure to emissions from surface mining operations is most likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the areas of mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. Roads, highways, occupied dwellings, businesses, and school bus stops in the vicinity of the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are shown in Figure ES-11 through ES-16, respectively. Groundwater Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and the aquifers in the overburden above the coal within the Wright area LBA tracts (North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine). The coal aquifer and any water-bearing strata in the overburden would be removed and replaced with unconsolidated backfill. A continuous cone of depression currently exists around the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope mines due to their proximity to each other and due to the large drawdowns caused to the west by groundwater discharge from CBNG development. The extent of groundwater level drawdown in the Wyodak coal aquifer that is specifically attributable to mine dewatering alone can no longer be defined due to much greater and areally extensive drawdown caused by CBNG development that ongoing adjacent to and west of the mines. Roughly 30 years of surface mining and the more recent CBNG development have resulted in complete dewatering of the coal aquifer in localized areas, particularly near the mines’ pits and where the coal seams are structurally highest. Figure ES-17 depicts the extrapolated extent of the 5-feet cumulative drawdown contour within the Wyodak coal aquifer resulting from the four mines (Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope) in the Wright subregion with the addition of the Wright area LBA tracts. The extent of the 5-feet drawdown contour is used by WDEQ/LQD to assess the cumulative extent of the impact to the groundwater system caused by mining operations. The rate and extent of the actual drawdown in the coal is currently much greater than the predicted life-of-mine drawdown. This has occurred as drawdown caused by extensive CBNG development west of the existing mine permit areas has overlapped with drawdown caused by mining operations. Continued drawdown effects from CBNG withdrawals will be likely; therefore, future drawdown to the Wyodak coal aquifer from mining the approved leases and the Wright area LBA tracts would be expected to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered in the general Wright analysis area. The area of drawdown in the discontinuous overburden aquifers would be smaller. ES-36 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
Road
20

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
20 21 22 23 24 19

BNSF & UP RR

Breen Road

Lawver Road

Hilight

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

B
32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

Keeline Road

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Jacobs Road

Shroyer

Road
20 21 22 23

B
24 19

Small Road

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450

BLACK THUNDER MINE OFFICE
8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

JACOBS RANCH MINE OFFICE
17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18

Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
B School Bus Stop Single Occupied Residence Multiple Occupied Residences Exist Within this Area (Boundaries are Approximate) 3 Mile Buffer
0 5000 10000 20000

Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure ES-11. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-37

Executive Summary
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
25 30

Road

Small Road
26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
25 30 29 28

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

Hilight

BLACK THUNDER MINE OFFICE
6 5

JACOBS RANCH MINE OFFICE
4 3 2

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450

T. 42 N.

Road

T. 43 N.

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Hilight

Matheson Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road

BNSF & UP RR

Antel ope R oad

Reno Road

Mackey Road

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative Single Occupied Residence
0 5000 10000 20000

3 Mile Buffer No school bus stops exist within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure ES-12. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2.

ES-38

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary
Hilight Road

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
13 18 17 16 15

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
Shroyer Road
23 24 19 14 13 18

Jacobs Road

State Highway 59

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

Wright, Wyoming Town Site 28 87 y3 wa ig h eH tat
33 34

Small Road
26

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

BUSINESS

State Highway 450

BUSINESS
9 10

ty Road r Coun C os n e
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

BLACK THUNDER MINE OFFICE
25 30

Hilight Road

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

B
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32

T.
33 43

Matheson Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road

T. 42 N.

BNSF & UP RR

Hig

Antel ope

State

R oad

hw a y

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
B School Bus Stop Single Occupied Residence Multiple Occupied Residences Exist Within this Area (Boundaries are Approximate) 3 Mile Buffer
0 5000 10000 20000

Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 3

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure ES-13. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities
Within 3 Miles of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2 .

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-39

Executive Summary
28 27 26

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
State Highwa y 59

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Keeline

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Hilight Road

ad
6 5

Jacobs Road

Shroyer Road
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

B
24 19 20

BUSINESS
Wright, Wyoming Town Site 87 3 28 ay hw 27 Hi g te S ta
Small Road
26

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

BNSF & UP RR

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

BUSINESS

BUSINESS
9 10

State Highway 450
7 8 9 10 11

S ta

te Hig hw ay

450

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

C os n e

ty Road r C ou n

State Highway 59

BLACK THUNDER MINE OFFICE
26 25 30 29 28

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
B School Bus Stop Single Occupied Residence Multiple Occupied Residences, Businesses, and Roads Exist Within this Area (Boundaries are Approximate) Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Boundary Existing Jacobs Ranch Mine Federal Coal Leases West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

5000

10000

20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure ES-14. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2 .

ES-40

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary
24 19 20 21 22 23

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
25 30

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
Sta te
25 30

Highway
29

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

450
28

T. 42 N.
12

Cre ek

Ro ad

T. 43 N.

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.
9

Edwards Road
7 8 9 10 11

Reno Road
12 7 8 10 11 12

ol 6 ho Sc
7

Matheson Road

Antel ope R oad

Reno Road

Mackey Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.
12

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.
9

Matheson
6 5 4 3

Road
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

NORTH ANTELOPE ROCHELLE MINE OFFICE 11 12
9 10

BUSINESS
Campbell County
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

Converse County

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.

6 7

5 8

4 9

3 10

2 11

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

l te An

e op

ad
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 8

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary Existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine Federal Coal Leases North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
0 6000 12000 24000

No occupied residences, school bus stops, or other publicly accessible facilities exist within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure ES-15. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-41

Executive Summary
Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
2

Edwards Road

Reno Road

oad k R ee Cr

Matheson Road

Antel ope R oad

BNSF & UP RR

School

Reno Road

Mackey Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Matheson
6 5 4 3

Road
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

NORTH ANTELOPE ROCHELLE 11 MINE OFFICE
9 10

BUSINESS
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

ANTELOPE MINE OFFICE
30 29 28 27 26 25 30

Campbell County
29 28 27 26 25

Converse County

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.

te An
7 8 9 10 11

pe lo

ad
6 5 4

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary Existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine Federal Coal Leases South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
0 5000 10000 20000

No occupied residences or school bus stops exist within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure ES-16. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2.

ES-42

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary
R. 75 W. T. 46 N. R. 74 W. R. 73 W. R. 72 W.
59

R. 71 W.
H oadley Road

R. 70 W.

R. 69 W. T. 46 N.

Highway

5
Savageton Road

Wagensen Road

State

Lawver Road

Mills Road

BNSF & UP RR

T. 45 N.

Breen Road

Lawver Road

T. 45 N.

Keeline

Clarkelen Road

Campbell County
Mackey Road

Weston County

Ro ad

T. 44 N.
Mo

or e

d Roa

TOWN OF
WRIGHT

T. 44 N.

Jacobs Road

State Highway 50

Todd Road

ner C os

ad C ounty Ro

Hilight Road

T. 43 N.

e at St

87 y3 wa gh Hi

State Highway 450

T. 43 N.

Matheson Road

Antelope Road

T. 42 N.
te H Sta

Edwards
Road

Reno Road

7 y 38 wa ig h

T. 42 N.

State

H ig h way 59
Matheson Road

T. 41 N.

Campbell County
Converse County

T. 41 N.

T. 40 N.

e elop Ant d R oa

T. 40 N.

T. 39 N.

5
R. 75 W. R. 74 W. R. 73 W. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

T. 39 N.

LEGEND

Extent of WDEQ's Cumulative and Extrapolated Life of Mine Drawdown (5 feet) with Wright Area Coal LBA Tracts Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop

Existing Lease Boundary North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for

Clinker Groundwater cumulative impact area information taken from Plate 1 in WDEQ-CHIA-19 (Ogle and Calle 2006). Clinker and coal outcrop information modified from Plate 1 in Heffern and Coates (2000).
0 18000 36000 72000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure ES-17. Extrapolated Extent of Life of Mine Cumulative Drawdown Within the Wyodak Coal Aquifer With the Addition of Wright Area Coal LBA Tracts.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-43

Executive Summary The data available indicate that, after reclamation, the hydraulic properties of the backfill would be comparable to the properties of the premining overburden and coal aquifers. Total dissolved solids (TDS) levels in groundwater from the backfill could initially be expected to be higher than in the premining overburden and coal aquifers, but would be expected to meet Wyoming Class III standards for use as livestock water. Mining does not directly disturb aquifers below the mineable coal, but many PRB mines use them for industrial water supply wells. In a few cases there have been drawdowns in the subcoal aquifer due to leakage into mine pits, dewatering, and CBNG development (BLM 2001). All three of the applicant mines located within the general Wright analysis area utilize water supply wells completed in aquifers stratigraphically below the Wyodak coal. If these six Wright area LBA tracts are leased by the applicant mines, water would be produced from these wells for a longer period of time and the mines would probably not require additional sub-coal wells to mine and reclaim the LBA tracts. Surface Water Tributary streams of the Cheyenne River drain the general Wright analysis area. From north to south, the general Wright analysis area is drained by Black Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, Little Thunder Creek, Porcupine Creek, Horse Creek, and Antelope Creek. North Prong Little Thunder Creek is a tributary of Little Thunder Creek, which is a tributary of Black Thunder Creek. Porcupine Creek and Horse Creek are tributaries of the Antelope Creek. Black Thunder Creek and Antelope Creek are both major tributaries of the Cheyenne River. Typical of this semi-arid area, these streams, with the exception of Antelope Creek, are all ephemeral, receiving flow contributions primarily from convective thunderstorm runoff and, to a lesser extent, from snowmelt runoff in the spring. Surface water quality varies with flow and/or season. Playas that are formed by natural topographic depressions are common in the general Wright analysis area and portions of each tract’s general analysis area are internally drained. Springs are uncommon in this area and none have been identified within the general analysis areas of these six LBA tracts. Changes in runoff characteristics and sediment discharges would occur during mining of the LBA tracts as a result of the destruction and reconstruction of drainage channels and the use of sediment control structures to manage discharges of surface water. In accordance with the SMCRA and Wyoming State Statutes, the major channels would be restored after surface mining operations are completed on the Wright area LBA tracts. Surface water flow, quality, and sediment discharge would approximate premining conditions.

ES-44

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary Alluvial Valley Floors AVF investigations conducted within and near the general Wright analysis area have identified AVFs that occur along Little Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, and Porcupine Creek; however, those lands are located at considerable distances downstream of the six Wright area LBA tracts. Based on existing and preliminary AVF evaluations within the general Wright analysis area, AVF characteristics on drainages are negligible. An AVF assessment would be part of the mine permitting process if a tract is leased and proposed for mining, and formal declarations of the presence or absence of an AVF, its significance to agriculture, and the appropriate perimeter (areal extent) would be made by the WDEQ/LQD. AVFs that are not significant to agriculture can be disturbed during mining but must be restored as part of the reclamation process. It is reasonable to assume that the WDEQ/LQD would determine that no AVFs are present within any of the Wright area LBA tracts that are leased. Should declarations be made within any LBA tracts that are leased, it is reasonable to assume that mining would be permitted because all of the proposed lease areas consist entirely of undeveloped rangeland. Wetlands Formal wetland delineations have been confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. (OWUS) included in the general analysis areas for the Wright area LBA tracts that lie within the applicant mines’ existing permit areas. Preliminary wetlands inventories of the LBA tracts’ general analysis areas that have not been formally evaluated, based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, vegetation mapping, review of color infrared aerial photographs, and field survey reconnaissance were conducted in 2007 and 2008. Based on those previous wetland delineation surveys and the preliminary wetland inventories of the general analysis areas for the six Wright area LBA tracts, a maximum of approximately 602 acres of wetlands and OWUS would be disturbed if all the LBA tracts are leased and subsequently mined under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract. These wetlands and OWUS were found within five general land categories: ephemeral streams, playas, ponds/reservoirs, isolated depressions, and excavated upland areas. At this time, a distinction has not been made between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional acreages of wetlands and OWUS since only the COE has the authorization to make such determination. Formal wetland inventories covering the remainder of the general analysis areas for the LBA tracts that are leased would be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the process of obtaining a surface mining permit. In Wyoming, once the delineation has been verified, it is made a part of the mine permit document. The reclamation plan is then revised to incorporate the replacement of at least equal types and number of jurisdictional wetland acreages. Disturbed non-jurisdictional wetlands would be restored as required by the authorized federal or state agency or private surface land owner as Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications ES-45

Executive Summary specified in the mine permit, which would have to be approved by WDEQ/LQD before mining operations could be conducted on the LBA tracts that are leased. Soils Baseline soil surveys cover the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts. All soil surveys were completed to the Order 1-2 or Order 3 level of intensity in accordance with criteria contained in WDEQ/LQD Guideline No. 1. Consequences from the salvage and redistribution of soils during mining and reclamation of each LBA tract that is leased would include changes in physical, biological, and chemical properties of the soil resources. Following reclamation, the soils would be unlike premining soils in texture, structure, color, accumulation of clays, organic matter, microbial populations, and chemical composition. In reclaimed areas, soil chemistry and soil nutrient distribution would generally be more uniform, and average topsoil quality would be improved because soil material that is not suitable to support plant growth would not be salvaged for use in reclamation. This would result in more uniform vegetative productivity on reclaimed land. The baseline soils analyses indicate that the amount of suitable topsoil that would be available for redistribution on all disturbed acres within the six general analysis areas during reclamation would vary from an average depth of 2-3 feet. The redistributed soil would be more uniform in type, thickness, and texture, and it would be adequate in quantity and quality to support planned postmining land uses (i.e., wildlife habitat and rangeland). Vegetation The vegetation analysis area for each of the six LBA tracts is the respective tract’s general analysis area. These vegetation analysis areas are either partially located within, contiguous to, or completely within applicant mines’ existing permit boundaries. Consequently, portions or all of these vegetation analysis areas were previously mapped and sampled in accordance with the current WDEQ/LQD mine permitting requirements. The balance of the vegetation assessments were completed in 2007. In terms of total acres of occurrence within the combined vegetation analysis areas, the predominant vegetation types are the Big Sage Shrubland (42.2 percent), Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland (27.8 percent), and Crested Wheatgrass/Agricultural Pastureland (15.3 percent). The most common plant species on these types include Wyoming big sagebrush, western wheatgrass, needleandthread, blue grama, crested wheatgrass, red threeawn, Sandberg bluegrass, prairie junegrass, cheatgrass brome, sixweeksgrass, and upland sedges. Wyoming big sagebrush is the dominant shrub in the Big Sage Shrubland and Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland vegetation communities. Annual grasses and forbs, lichens, and manyspine plains pricklypear cactus are frequently large components of the vegetation cover. ES-46 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary Mining would progressively remove this native vegetation. Reclamation, including revegetation of mined areas, would occur contemporaneously with mining on adjacent lands. Reestablished vegetation would be dominated by species mandated in the reclamation seed mixtures, which are approved by the WDEQ/LQD. The majority of these species would be native to the LBA tracts. Initially, the reclaimed land would be dominated by grassland vegetation, which would be less diverse than the premining vegetation. Estimates for the time it would take to restore sagebrush to premining density levels range from 20 to 100 years. A reduction in shrubs would result in a long-term reduction of habitat carrying capacity for some species and may delay use of the reclaimed area by shrub-dependent species. Following completion of reclamation (seeding with the approved seed mixture) and before release of the reclamation bond (a minimum of 10 years), a diverse, effective, and permanent vegetative cover would be established on the LBA tracts. The decrease in plant diversity would not seriously affect the potential productivity of the reclaimed areas, and the proposed postmining land uses (wildlife habitat and rangeland) should be achieved even with the changes in vegetation composition and diversity. The reclamation plans for the LBA tracts would also include steps to control invasion by weedy (invasive, nonnative) plant species. Wildlife Background information on wildlife in the general Wright analysis area was drawn from several sources, including Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) records, the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD), recent PRB federal coal lease application EIS documents (available for public review on Wyoming BLM’s website at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en.html), and personal contacts with WGFD and USFWS biologists. Site-specific data for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts were obtained from several sources, including baseline information contained in WDEQ/LQD mine permit applications and annual wildlife monitoring reports for the applicant mines and nearby coal mines. In accordance with the current WDEQ/LQD mine permitting requirements, wildlife baseline surveys and annual monitoring surveys extend 1 to 2 miles beyond the mine permit area, depending on the mine and the species. In addition, TBCC conducted baseline investigations during 2006 and early 2007 specifically for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract with additional surveys targeting the North and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts in 2007 and 2008; JRCC conducted baseline investigations in 2007 and 2008 expressly for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract; and PRC conducted baseline investigations during 2007 and early 2008 specifically for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. These surveys covered the respective general analysis areas, and surveys for selected wildlife information such as raptor nest and Greater sagegrouse lek locations included in a 2-mile perimeter surrounding the general analysis areas. Site-specific surveys for each lease area and appropriate perimeters would be part of the mine permitting process if the tracts are leased. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications ES-47

Executive Summary Mining directly and indirectly impacts local wildlife populations. These impacts are both short term (until successful reclamation is achieved) and long term (persisting beyond successful completion of reclamation). Direct impacts of surface coal mining on wildlife occur during mining and are therefore short term. They include road kills by mine-related traffic, direct losses of less mobile wildlife species, restrictions on wildlife movement created by fences, spoil piles and pits, displacement of wildlife from active mining areas (including abandonment of nests or nesting and breeding habitat for birds), increased competition between animals in areas adjacent to mining operations, and increased noise, dust, and human presence. Habitat for aquatic species would also be lost during mining operations. Displaced animals by find equally suitable habitat that is not occupied by other animals, or occupy poorer quality habitat than that from which they were displaced. Indirect impacts are longer term and include alterations in topography and vegetative cover, particularly the reduction in shrub density, and could cause a decrease in carrying capacity for some species and a decrease in vegetation diversity. Mining companies have initiated efforts in recent years to increase the diversity of post-mine topography and to increase the amount of sagebrush in the reclamation. The six Wright area LBA tracts do not include any unique or crucial big game habitat or migration corridors. The two big game species that are common in suitable habitat throughout the general Wright analysis area are pronghorn and mule deer. Habitat disturbance and big game displacement would be incremental, occurring over several years and allowing for gradual changes in distribution patterns. Big game have continued to occupy areas adjacent to and within active mining operations, suggesting that some animals may become habituated to such disturbances. Those raptor species that commonly nest in the general Wright analysis area are the golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and great horned owl. American kestrels, northern harriers, and short-eared owls intermittently nest in the area, as occasional sightings of recently fledged young indicate that such activities do occur within the general Wright analysis area for one or more of those species, though the nest sites themselves may not have been locate. Habitat is limited for those species that nest exclusively in trees or on cliffs, but several species have adapted to nesting on the ground, creek banks, buttes, mine highwalls, or rock outcrops. Roughlegged hawks are winter residents in northeast Wyoming, and breed in the arctic regions. Mining the LBA tracts would not impact overall regional raptor populations; however, individual birds or pairs may be impacted. Mining within or near raptor territories would impact availability of foraging habitat for nesting birds. However, increased acreage of reclamation within the permit areas would offset new habitat loss as mining progresses. All three applicant mines operate under a current USFWS approved Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for raptors and other migratory bird species of management concern, and have successfully executed mitigation techniques to protect nest productivity. Their respective plans would be amended to include the associated LBA tracts ES-48 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary if they are leased and permitted for mining. The amended plans would be subject to review and approval by the USFWS before the amended mine plans are approved. The sage-grouse, is a species of concern throughout the West and is considered a “landscape species”, which means that large expanses of unfragmented land are required in order to provide all the habitat components for their annual life cycle. Relying on sagebrush for food, cover, and shelter, sage-grouse require sagebrush habitat year-round and for every phase of their life cycle, and exhibit seasonal movements to utilize discrete sagebrush habitats. Since 1999, the USFWS has received eight petitions requesting that the sage-grouse be listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered. Three of the petitions requested that sage-grouse be listed as endangered across its entire range. On January 12, 2005, following a 12-month status review on the species, the USFWS concluded that listing was not warranted at that time. On December 4, 2007, U.S. District Court, District of Idaho, ruled that the USFWS 12-month petition finding on sage-grouse was in error and remanded the case back to the Service for further reconsideration. On February 26, 2008, the USFWS announced the initiation of another status review for the Greater sagegrouse. In 2007, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal commissioned a Statewide Sage-grouse Implementation Team which emerged from the Governor’s 2007 Sage-Grouse Summit. On March 17, 2008, the Implementation Team preliminarily identified and mapped recommended sagegrouse core breeding areas in Wyoming in an effort to better understand what types of habitat the grouse prefer and what areas should be protected. The general Wright analysis area is not located within the mapped core breeding areas. The Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines have conducted surveys of known sage-grouse leks and searches for new leks as part of their wildlife baseline inventories and wildlife monitoring programs since the early 1980s. As a result, most of the general analysis areas for the six Wright area LBA tracts have been included in previous regular survey efforts. A total of 10 sage-grouse leks have been documented on and within 2 miles of the six combined general analysis areas. Four of the leks have been active during recent survey years and are classified as occupied; two leks have not been attended by displaying grouse for at least the last 10 years and are classified as unoccupied/abandoned; two leks have been removed by mining activities and are classified as unoccupied/destroyed; there has been no documented activity for the last 10 years at two leks, but survey information is insufficient to designate them as unoccupied, so they are classified as undetermined. Two of the four occupied leks likely represent a shift in lekking activity rather than two distinct leks. When mining occurs in potential sage-grouse habitat, there is a short term loss of potential nesting habitat and potential disturbance to breeding activities, especially when mining operations occur in proximity to sage-grouse leks. Following reclamation, there may be a long term loss of nesting and winter Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications ES-49

Executive Summary habitat, depending on the amount of sagebrush that is restored relative to the amount of sagebrush that is present before mining. Should these six LBA tracts be leased, mined and reclaimed, alterations in the topography and vegetative communities would likely result in such changes in species composition from pre-mine conditions. Until sagebrush returns to its premining density levels, there would be a reduction in potential habitat for wildlife species associated with the habitat in the general Wright analysis area. However, given the limited presence of sage stands in the area, it is not likely that many sagebrush obligates would be affected. Two of the four occupied leks are within the BLM study areas for the North Hilight Field and North Porcupine LBA Tracts and are therefore likely to be directly impacted if these two tracts are leased and mined under the Proposed Action and/or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative. The 3-mile radii of concern for the other two occupied leks (which are likely only one strutting ground that has been relocated slightly), overlap the North Porcupine LBA Tract. If the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for and/or the additional areas evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2, the BLM’s preferred alternative, is leased and mined, potential nesting habitat for grouse that were bred at these leks would likely be affected by mining activity in those areas. Threatened and Endangered Species T&E plant and animal species that could be present on the Wright area LBA tracts include the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (threatened) and the black-footed ferret (endangered). The habitat requirements for, occurrences of, and potential project effects on these species are included in Appendix G. Dormant Ute ladies’-tresses plants typically persist underground for one to many years and can only be reliably documented after several years of repeated surveys. Recent USFWS guidelines therefore recommend that multiple surveys of all potentially suitable habitat be conducted within the last 3 years. Areas of suitable habitat for the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid within the general analysis areas for the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts were surveyed by qualified professionals in 2008 and none were found. In order to adequately determine the presence of the species in the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, an additional survey is scheduled during the closest known populations’ flowering period (mid-August to early September) in 2009. Areas of suitable habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses within the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract were surveyed by qualified professionals in early and mid-August of 2007 and again in early and mid-August of 2008 and no orchids were found. Areas of potential suitable habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses were surveyed by qualified professionals along streams on USFS lands within the North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current permit area (most of the general analysis areas for the ES-50 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts lie within the mine’s permit area) in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and no orchids were found. Those surveys covered only areas of suitable habitat on USFS lands and therefore did not include all areas of suitable habitat (on both USFS and private lands) within the general analysis areas for both the North and South Porcupine tracts. Therefore, additional surveys of potential habitat within the tracts’ entire general analysis areas are scheduled to be conducted in 2009 and 2010 in order to satisfy USFWS’s recommended survey guidelines to adequately determine the presence of the species. The black-footed ferret is a nocturnally active mammal that depends almost entirely upon the prairie dog for its survival. A total of 33 occupied prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 1,490.2 non-contiguous acres were present on and within 2 miles of the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts in 2007. A total of six prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 148.6 acres are located entirely within the six combined general analysis areas. Of these six colonies, none were large enough in size to meet the 120-acre minimum threshold for supporting a breeding female ferret and her litter, and only one colony, which is located within the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, meets the 80-acre minimum requirement for black-footed ferret habitat. Black-footed ferrets have never been documented at the applicant mines or in the surrounding region during surveys conducted over the last 30 years by a variety of private, state, and federal entities. Historic and recent survey efforts, as well as other area data and information, leads to the conclusion that ferrets are not present in the general Wright analysis area. Land Use and Recreation Leasing and subsequently mining the Wright area LBA tracts would preclude other land uses. The temporary reduction of livestock grazing, incremental loss of wildlife habitat (particularly big game), and curtailment of oil and gas development while the areas are being mined and reclaimed would result. This would include the incremental removal of all existing oil and gas surface and downhole production and transportation equipment and facilities. The loss of accessibility to these lands would be long term (during mining and reclamation), but not permanent. The six Wright area LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract, include approximately 12,481 acres of TBNG surface, which is administered by the USFS; approximately 7,288 acres of which are currently accessible to the public. None of the lands included in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under Alternative 2 are managed by the USFS; thus, no federal lands would be removed from public access if that LBA tract were leased. Access to the 12,481 acres of federal grazing leases on TBNG surface, which are currently held by the Thunder Basin Grazing Association, would be suspended during mining and reclamation operations on the other five LBA tracts. According to the USFS Douglas Ranger District, each mine can close access in areas that are actively mined for human health and safety reasons. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications ES-51

Executive Summary Hunting and other recreational activities on the LBA tracts, including the federal surface, would be eliminated during mining and reclamation. The federal lands actually represent a relatively small portion of the currently accessible public surface lands for recreational opportunity within TBNG. The cumulative impacts of energy development (coal mining, oil and gas) in the PRB will continue to contribute to a reduction in hunting opportunities for some animals (pronghorn, mule deer, and sage-grouse). Within 10 years after initiation of each reclamation phase, rangeland and wildlife use (the historic land uses) would return to near premining levels. Following reclamation bond release, management of the privately owned surface would revert to the private surface owner and management of the federally owned surface would revert to the federal surface managing agency (USFS). Public access to federal lands would be restored after mining and reclamation are complete. Cultural Resources The general analysis areas of the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts have been entirely surveyed for cultural resources at a Class III level. A total of 245 cultural sites have been document within the six combined general analysis areas (a total of approximately 43,445 acres). Of those 245 sites, 154 are prehistoric cultural remains, 72 historic cultural remains, 12 multicomponent (both historic and prehistoric) remains, and 7 are of indeterminate age and cultural affiliation. Of those 245 sites, there are a total of 131 sites that have been evaluated as not eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and no further work is required at those sites. Twenty-one sites have been determined to be eligible for the NRHP by SHPO and will have to be avoided or a mitigation plan approved and implemented prior to any disturbance. The remaining 93 sites are currently considered unevaluated by SHPO and will require additional evaluation and/or Native American consultation. The unevaluated sites are to be given the same protections as eligible sites and are to be avoided until a determination of eligibility have been made. Data recovery plans are required for all sites recommended eligible to the National Register following testing and consultation with the SHPO. Until full consultation with the SHPO has been completed and agreement regarding NRHP eligibility has been reached, all cultural sites within the LBA tract’s general analysis area would be protected from disturbance. No sites of Native American religious or cultural importance have been identified on the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. If such sites or localities are identified at a later date, appropriate action must be taken to address concerns related to those sites. ES-52 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary Visual Resources Currently, mine facilities and mining activities at the Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope mines are visible from various public-use roads in the general Wright analysis area, including State Highway 450, Jacobs Road, Shroyer Road, Keeline Road, Hilight Road, Edwards Road, Reno Road, Antelope Road, Mackey Road, and Matheson Road. Some mining activities on the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts would be visible from State Highway 450. Some of the existing mining operations at the Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch mines are currently visible from this highway. Some mining activities on the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would be visible from State Highway 450. Portions of the West Hilight Field and West Jacobs Ranch tracts may also be visible from State Highway 59. Not all of the mining activities on these four LBA tracts would be visible from these major highways because of the rolling terrain. Portions of these four LBA tracts would also be visible from Keeline Road, Jacobs Road, Shroyer Road, Hilight Road, Edwards Road, Reno Road, and Matheson Road. Some mining activities on both the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts would be visible from Antelope Road and Matheson Road. Some mining activities on the North Porcupine tract would also be visible from the Edwards Road, Reno Road, and Mackey Road. Some of the existing mining operations at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine are currently visible from these public roads. Due to the existing mining activities in the general Wright analysis area, the predominant BLM visual resources management (VRM) class is Class IV. This classification would not be altered by the leasing and subsequent mining and reclamation of the six LBA tracts under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 and 3. No unique visual resources have been identified on or near the LBA tracts. Noise Noise levels on the Wright area LBA tracts would be increased considerably by mining activities such as blasting, loading, hauling, and possibly in-pit crushing. The BNSF & UP rail line currently borders and/or traverses all six LBA tracts; therefore, rail traffic noise on the tracts would continue to be proportionate to the rate of coal production from the PRB mines in the future. Due to the remoteness of the LBA tracts and because mining is already ongoing in the area, noise would have few off-site impacts. The five occupied dwellings that are located within the tracts (two within the North Hilight Field tract and three within the West Jacobs Ranch tract) would be vacated prior to advancing mining activities. No occupied dwellings would experience adverse noise impacts from mining activities if the South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are leased as applied for or under Alternative 2. The two occupied dwellings that are located immediately adjacent to the North Hilight Field tract would experience adverse noise Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications ES-53

Executive Summary impacts if mining activities (particularly blasting) occur within 2,500 feet of them. Wildlife in the immediate vicinity of mining may be adversely affected; however, anecdotal observations at surface coal mines in the area indicate that some wildlife may adapt to increased noise associated with coal mining activity. After mining and reclamation are completed, noise would return to premining levels. Transportation Essentially all of the coal mined on the Wright area LBA tracts would be transported by rail system. Since the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts would be an extension of the operating applicant mines, the existing rail facilities and infrastructure would be used during mining of the proposed lease areas. BNSF & UP have upgraded and will continue to upgrade their rail capacities to handle the increasing coal volume projected from the PRB, with or without the leasing of these LBA tracts. The construction of the proposed DM&E Railroad expansion into this area is not dependent on leasing one or more of the six LBA tracts. Some of the coal included in each of the six LBA tracts under both the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration, is overlain by portions of various public roads. SMCRA prohibits mining within 100 feet of the outside ROW line of any public road unless the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected public and landowners will be protected. As a result, the coal underlying the public road ROWs and adjacent buffer zones has been determined to be unsuitable for mining; however, it would be included in the LBA tract that is offered for lease in order to allow efficient recovery of economically mineable coal outside of the ROW and buffer zone. Stipulations stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portion(s) of the lease within the public road ROW(s) and buffer zone(s) unless the authorized public road authorities determine that the road(s) could be abandoned or relocated will be attached if a lease is issued for an LBA tract. The applicant mines are currently evaluating options to close and/or relocate several county roads in order to recover the coal in the proposed leases. Vehicular traffic to and from the mines would continue at existing or slightly higher levels for an extended period of time, depending on which LBA tracts are leased and which alternatives are selected. Active pipelines and utility/power transmission lines would have to be relocated in accordance with previous agreements, or agreements would have to be negotiated for their removal or relocation.

ES-54

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary Socioeconomics Royalty and bonus payments for the coal in the LBA tracts would be collected by the federal government and split with the state. Assuming an average coal price of $11.06 per ton recovered and a potential range of bonus payments of 30 to 97 cents per ton, the potential additional federal revenues from the six Wright area LBA tracts would range from approximately $3.6 to $7.2 billion, depending on the alternative selected and the bonus price at the time the coal is leased. The potential additional revenue to the State of Wyoming from the six LBA tracts would range from approximately $4.5 to $8.7 billion, depending on the alternative selected, the bonus price at the time the coal is leased, and the selling price of the coal. Mine life and employment (at or slightly above current levels) would be extended for over nearly 23 additional years, depending on the LBA tracts involved and which alternatives are selected. Environmental Justice With regard to Environmental Justice issues, it was determined that potentially adverse impacts do not disproportionately affect minorities, low-income groups or Native American tribes or groups. No tribal lands or Native American communities are included in the general Wright analysis area, and no Native American treaty rights or Native American trust resources are known to exist for this area. No Action Alternatives (Alternative 1) Under the No Action Alternatives, the coal lease applications would be rejected and the areas contained in the applications would not be offered for lease at this time. The tracts could be nominated for lease again in the future. Under the No Action Alternatives, the impacts described in the preceding paragraphs to topography and physiology, geology and minerals, air quality, water resources, AVFs, wetlands, soils, vegetation, wildlife, T&E species, land use and recreation, cultural resources, Native American concerns, visual resources, noise, transportation, and socioeconomics would occur due to mining the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mine coal leases, but these impacts would not be extended by mining onto the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. Mitigation The Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines currently approved mining permits include extensive baseline information, ongoing monitoring information and commitments, and mitigation measures that are required by SMCRA and Wyoming State Law. Compliance, mitigation, and monitoring measures that are required by regulation are considered to be part of the Proposed Actions and Alternatives considered in this EIS. These regulatory requirements, mitigation measures and monitoring commitments Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications ES-55

Executive Summary are in place for the No Action Alternative as part of the currently approved mining and reclamation plans for the three applicant mines and would be included in the permitting processes that would be required to mine the six Wright area LBA tracts. If impacts are identified during the leasing process that are not mitigated by existing required mitigation measures, BLM can include additional mitigation measures in the form of stipulations on a new lease, within the limits of its regulatory authority. Any special stipulations identified by BLM where additional or increased monitoring measures are recommended to be added to the BLM leases are included in Appendix D of this EIS document. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impacts of an action added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who is responsible for such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions occurring over time. Since decertification of the Powder River Federal Coal Region in 1990, 20 coal leases containing approximately 5.8 billion tons of federal coal have been issued following competitive sealed-bid sales. Three exchanges of federal coal in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Federal Coal Region have also been completed. Twelve additional coal lease applications, including the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine tract applications, are currently pending. The pending LBA applications contain over 3.8 billion tons of coal. Currently, BLM is completing a regional technical study, called the PRB Coal Review, to help evaluate the cumulative impacts of coal and other mineral development in the PRB. The study evaluates current conditions as of a baseline year (2002 or 2003) and projects development levels and potential associated cumulative impacts related to coal and coal-related development, oil and gas and related development, and other development through 2020. Due to variables associated with future coal production, two projected coal production scenarios (representing an upper and a lower production level) were developed. The projected development levels are based on projected demand and coal market forecasts and include production at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines during the baseline year and projected production for 2010, 2015, and 2020. The Wyoming portion of the PRB is the primary focus of the PRB Coal Review, but the Montana portion of the PRB is included in some studies. A series of reports have been prepared, or are being prepared, to present the result of the PRB Coal Review studies. The results of the PRB Coal Review studies that have been completed are summarized in Section 4.0 of this EIS.

ES-56

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary Cumulative impacts vary by resource, with potential impacts to air quality, groundwater quantity, wildlife habitat, and socioeconomics generally being the greatest concerns. The PRB Coal Review air quality study documents the modeled air quality impact of existing operations during a baseline year, 2002, and of projected development activities in 2010. BLM recently updated the model and conducted the cumulative air quality impact analysis using a revised baseline year of 2004 with development levels projected for year 2015. The model was used to evaluate impacts of existing and projected source emissions on several source groups, including near-field receptors in Wyoming and Montana, receptors in nearby federally designated “Class I” areas, and receptors at “Class II” sensitive areas. The EPA guideline CALPUFF model system was used for the modeling analysis. The existing regional air quality conditions generally are very good in the PRB, but the modeling showed substantial impacts at some receptors for years 2004 and 2015. Table ES-13 presents the maximum modeled impacts on ambient air quality at the near-field receptors in Wyoming and Montana for the baseline year (2004) and for the 2015 upper and lower coal development scenarios. Table ES-14 lists the projected modeled visibility impacts for 2004 for all analyzed Class I and sensitive Class II areas. For the upper and lower coal production scenarios, it shows the number of additional days that the impacts were projected to be greater than 1.0 deciview (dv) (10 percent in extinction) for each site in 2015. The PRB Coal Review provides an assessment of the cumulative impact to surface and ground water resources associated with future projected levels of coal mining, coal mine dewatering, CBNG groundwater withdrawal and surface disposal, and coal mine and conventional oil and gas surface disposal of groundwater. The groundwater portion of the impact analysis has not yet been completed. The surface water analysis addresses the cumulative impacts to surface water quality and channel stability as a result of surface discharge of groundwater by CBNG development and coal mine dewatering. The surface water quality portion of this analysis has been completed, but the channel stability portion is not yet complete. A number of modeling analyses have previously been conducted to help predict the impacts of surface coal mining on groundwater resources in the PRB. In addition, each mine must monitor groundwater levels in the coal and underlying and overlying aquifers and assess the probable hydrologic consequences of mining as part of the mine permitting process. The monitoring programs track the extent of groundwater drawdown propagation to the west and the extent of recharge and quality of the water in the backfill areas of the mines. The monitoring data indicate that recharge is occurring in the backfill and that water from the backfill will generally be acceptable for premining uses, which was primarily livestock watering. Modeling and monitoring indicate that the groundwater drawdown impacts of coal mining and CBNG development are overlapping. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications ES-57

Executive Summary Table ES-13. Projected Maximum Potential Near-field Impacts (µg/m3).
Base Year (2004) Impacts 31.3 15.3 112.3 462.0 38.4 250.4 3.3 409.0 1.6 16.1 65.0 162.9 2.8 29.1 2015 Lower 2015 Upper Coal Coal Development Development Scenario Scenario Impacts Impacts Wyoming Near-field 46.7 47.4 16.2 119.6 814.1 16.2 119.6 814.1 PSD Class II Increments 25 20 91 512 17 30 25 --20 91 512 --17 30

Pollutant NO2 SO2

Averaging Time Annual Annual 24-hour 3-hour Annual 24-hour Annual 1-hour Annual 24-hour 3-hour 1-hour Annual 24-hour

NAAQS 100 80 365 1,300 --150 100 --80 365 1,300 ----150

Wyoming AAQS 100 60 260 1,300 50 150 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Montana AAQS --1 -- -- -- -- -- 100 564 80 365 1,300 1,300 50 150

PM10

NO2

53.5 61.0 512.8 512.9 Montana Near-field 6.5 6.5 826.3 826.4 1.7 16.5 66.5 166.6 5.2 44.0 1.7 16.6 66.5 166.6 5.3 58.5

SO2

PM10
1

No standard or increment. Value units are micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) Bold values indicate projected exceedance of AAQS Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2008h)

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Executive Summary Table ES-14. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas.
Base Year (2004) No. of Days >10% 2015 Lower Coal Development Scenario Change in No. of Days >10% 2015 Upper Coal Development Scenario Change in No. of Days >10%

Location Badlands National Park Bob Marshall WA Bridger WA Fitzpatrick WA Fort Peck Indian Reservation Gates of the Mountain WA Grand Teton National Par North Absaroka WA North Cheyenne Indian Reservation Red Rock Lakes Scapegoat WA Teton W Theodore Roosevelt National Park UL Bend WA Washakie WA Wind Cave National Park Yellowstone National Park Absaroka Beartooth WA Agate Fossil Beds National Monument Big Horn Canyon National Rec. Area Black Elk WA Cloud Peak WA Crow Indian Reservation Devils Tower National Monument Fort Belknap Indian Reservation Fort Laramie National Historic Site Jedediah Smith WA Jewel Cave National Monument Lee Metcalf WA Mount Naomi WA Mount Rushmore National Monument Popo Agie WA Soldier Creek WA Wellsville Mountain WA Wind River Indian Reservation
Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2008h)

Class I Areas
218 8 144 91 105 55 70 61 243 42 27 57 178 77 83 262 84 101 251 331 236 126 360 274 66 260 79 261 97 51 222 139 268 130 217 26 0 2 2 10 0 2 3 32 2 1 4 5 8 5 18 2 2 20 1 34 18 4 25 6 10 1 19 2 1 36 4 18 10 2 26 0 2 2 10 0 2 3 47 2 1 4 9 10 5 19 2 3 20 3 36 18 4 25 7 10 1 21 2 1 36 4 18 10 5

Sensitive Class II Areas

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

ES-59

Executive Summary The PRB Coal Review studies include an evaluation of the impacts to wildlife and aquatic species as of 2003 and an evaluation of the projected levels of disturbance in the PRB in 2010, 2015, and 2020, based on the projected development levels in those years. As discussed above, impacts to wildlife and fisheries can be classified as short-term and long-term. Short-term impacts are related to habitat disturbance during project development and operation. Long-term impacts result from changes in habitat after reclamation is completed. Habitat fragmentation can result from activities such as roads, well pads, mines, pipelines, and electrical power lines, as well as increased noise, elevated human presence, dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species, and dust from unpaved road traffic. The cumulative impacts of energy development (coal, oil and gas) in the PRB are and will continue to contribute to a reduction in hunting opportunities for some animals (pronghorn, mule deer, and sage grouse). The PRB Coal Review used the Regional Economic Models Inc. (REMI) Policy Insight regional economic model to project cumulative employment and population levels and associated impacts in the PRB for the upper and lower coal production scenarios in 2010, 2015, and 2020. Table ES-15 presents the recent and projected population levels for the counties included in the PRB Coal Review socioeconomic analysis. This EIS presents BLM’s analysis of environmental impacts under authority of the NEPA and associated rules and guidelines. BLM will use this analysis to make a leasing decision. The decision to lease these lands is a necessary requisite for mining, but is not in itself the enabling action that will allow mining. The most detailed analysis prior to mine development would occur after the lease is issued, when the lessee files an application for a surface mining permit and mining plan approval, supported by extensive mining and reclamation plans, to the WDEQ/LQD. Table ES-15.
Year 2000 2003 2007 2010 2015 2020 2010 2015 2020

Recent and Projected PRB Population.
Converse County Crook Johnson Sheridan County County County Census 12,104 5,895 7,108 26,606 12,314 5,986 7,554 27,115 12,868 6,284 8,142 27,998 Lower Coal Production Scenario 13,103 6,542 8,389 28,459 13,671 6,759 8,867 30,016 14,193 6,989 9,326 31,467 Upper Coal Production Scenario 13,160 6,570 8,424 28,579 13,763 6,802 8,924 30,214 14,313 7,045 9,403 31,733 Weston County 6,642 6,671 6,854 7,108 7,174 7,208 7,137 7,219 7,266 Total Study Area 92,053 96,078 102,579 109,526 115,392 120,178 111,532 118,480 124,703

Campbell County 33,698 36,438 40,433 45,925 48,905 50,995 47,662 51,558 54,943

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2006a) and PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005f)

ES-60

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMARY ................................................................................ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Background............................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 North and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts ........................ 1-5 1.1.2 West Hilight Field LBA Tract .......................................... 1-11 1.1.3 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract ....................................... 1-12 1.1.4 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts ......................... 1-12 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action.................................................... 1-16 1.3 Regulatory Authority and Responsibility .................................. 1-18 1.4 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs .................. 1-19 1.5 Conformance with Existing Land Use Plans ............................. 1-20 1.6 Consultation and Coordination................................................ 1-23 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................... 2-1 2.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract................................................... 2-10 2.1.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract Proposed Action ............... 2-10 2.1.2 North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 1..................... 2-15 2.1.3 North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 2 – Preferred
Alternative ..................................................................... 2-16 2.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract .................................................. 2-19 2.2.1 South Hilight Field LBA Tract Proposed Action ............... 2-19 2.2.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 1 .................... 2-22 2.2.3 South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 2 – Preferred
Alternative ..................................................................... 2-23 2.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract.................................................... 2-26 2.3.1 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Proposed Action................. 2-26 2.3.2 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 1 ...................... 2-29 2.3.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 2 – Preferred
Alternative ..................................................................... 2-30 2.3.4 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 3 ...................... 2-33 2.4 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract ................................................. 2-37 2.4.1 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Proposed Action .............. 2-37 2.4.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternative 1 ................... 2-42 2.4.3 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternative 2 – Preferred
Alternative ..................................................................... 2-43 2.5 North Porcupine LBA Tract ...................................................... 2-47 2.5.1 North Porcupine LBA Tract Proposed Action................... 2-47 2.5.2 North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternative 1 ........................ 2-53 2.5.3 North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternative 2 – Preferred
Alternative ..................................................................... 2-53 2.6 South Porcupine LBA Tract ..................................................... 2-57 2.6.1 South Porcupine LBA Tract Proposed Action .................. 2-57 2.6.2 South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternative 1 ....................... 2-61 i

2.0

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 2.6.3 South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternative 2 – Preferred
Alternative ..................................................................... 2-62
Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail .................. 2-65
2.7.1 Alternative 4: New Mine Start......................................... 2-65
2.7.2 Alternative 5: Delaying the Sale...................................... 2-67
Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .................. 2-69
Hazardous and Solid Waste ..................................................... 2-69
Summary of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences .... 2-76
2.10.1 Background................................................................. 2-76 2.10.2 Summary of Alternatives.............................................. 2-77

2.7

2.8 2.9 2.10

3.0

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 3-1
3.1 General Setting ....................................................................... 3-10
3.1.1 Climate and Meteorology ................................................ 3-10
3.2 Topography and Physiography................................................. 3-11
3.2.1 Affected Environment..................................................... 3-11
3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................ 3-12
3.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 .... 3-12
3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................... 3-15
3.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring ........ 3-15
3.2.4 Residual Impacts ........................................................... 3-15
3.3 Geology, Mineral Resources and Paleontology .......................... 3-16
3.3.1 General Geology and Coal Resources .......................... 3-16
3.3.1.1 Affected Environment .................................. 3-16
3.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences...................... 3-19
3.3.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives
2 and 3 ........................................ 3-19
3.3.1.2.1.1 North Hilight Field
LBA Tract ................ 3-19 3.3.1.2.1.2 South Hilight Field
LBA Tract ................ 3-20 3.3.1.2.1.3 West Hilight Field
LBA Tract ................ 3-20 3.3.1.2.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch
LBA Tract ................ 3-21 3.3.1.2.1.5 North Porcupine
LBA Tract ................ 3-21 3.3.1.2.1.6 South Porcupine
LBA Tract ................ 3-21 3.3.1.2.2 No Action Alternative ................... 3-22
3.3.1.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and
Monitoring................................................... 3-22 3.3.1.4 Residual Impacts ........................................... 3-23
3.3.2 Other Mineral Resources................................................ 3-23
3.3.2.1 Affected Environment .................................... 3-23
Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.3.2.1.1 Conventional Oil and Gas ............ 3-23
3.3.2.1.2 Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) ...... 3-26
3.3.2.1.3 Other Minerals............................. 3-28
3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences...................... 3-29 3.3.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives
2 and 3 ........................................ 3-29
3.3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative ................... 3-30
3.3.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and
Monitoring................................................... 3-31
3.3.2.4 Residual Impacts......................................... 3-32 3.3.3 Paleontology................................................................... 3-32
3.3.3.1 Affected Environment .................................. 3-32 3.3.3.2 Environmental Consequences...................... 3-34 3.3.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives
2 and 3 ........................................ 3-34
3.3.3.2.2 No Action Alternative ................... 3-34
3.3.3.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and
Monitoring................................................... 3-34
3.3.3.4 Residual Impacts......................................... 3-35 Air Quality............................................................................... 3-35 3.4.1 Background ............................................................... 3-35 3.4.1.1 Emission Sources........................................ 3-36 3.4.2 Particulate Emissions................................................. 3-38 3.4.2.1 Affected Environment for Particulate
Emissions ................................................... 3-38 3.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences Related to
Particulate Emissions.................................. 3-44
3.4.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives
2 and 3 ........................................ 3-44
3.4.2.2.1.1 North, South, and
West Hilight Field LBA
Tracts ....................... 3-46 3.4.2.2.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch
LBA Tract.................. 3-50 3.4.2.2.1.3 North and South LBA
Porcupine Tracts ....... 3-54 3.4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative ................. 3-60
3.4.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and
Monitoring for Particulate Emissions ........... 3-60
3.4.3 Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Ozone (O3) .... 3-64
3.4.3.1 Affected Environment for NO and O3
x Emissions ................................................... 3-64 3.4.3.1.1 Site Specific NOx Emissions ......... 3-66
3.4.3.2 Environmental Consequences Related to
Short-Term NOx Emissions .......................... 3-67
iii

3.4

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.4.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives
2 and 3 ........................................ 3-68
3.4.3.2.1.1 North, South, and West
Hilight Field LBA
Tracts ....................... 3-70 3.4.3.2.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch
LBA Tract.................. 3-70 3.4.3.2.1.3 North and South
Porcupine LBA
Tracts ....................... 3-71 3.4.3.2.2 No Action Alternative ................... 3-73
3.4.3.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and
Monitoring for NOx Emissions...................... 3-74
Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) ............................ 3-77
3.4.4.1 Visibility...................................................... 3-77
3.4.4.1.1 Affected Environment for
Visibility ...................................... 3-78 3.4.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences for
Visibility ...................................... 3-78
3.4.4.1.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3 .. 3-78
3.4.4.1.2.2 No Action Alternative. 3-81 3.4.4.1.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation,
and Monitoring for Visibility
Impacts ....................................... 3-82 3.4.4.2 Acidification of Lakes................................... 3-82
3.4.4.2.1 Affected Environment.................. 3-83
3.4.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences ..... 3-84
3.4.4.2.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3 .. 3-84
3.4.4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative. 3-85 3.4.4.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation,
and Monitoring ........................... 3-85 Residual Impacts to Air Quality .................................. 3-85
Resources...................................................................... 3-85
Groundwater.............................................................. 3-85
3.5.1.1 Affected Environment .................................. 3-85
3.5.1.1.1 Recent Alluvium .......................... 3-86
3.5.1.1.2 Wasatch Formation...................... 3-92
3.5.1.1.3 Wyodak/Wyodak Anderson Coal .. 3-94
3.5.1.1.4 Subcoal Fort Union Formation ..... 3-96
3.5.1.1.5 Lance Formation-Fox Hills
Sandstone ................................... 3-97 3.5.1.2 Environmental Consequences...................... 3-97
3.5.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives
2 and 3...................................... 3-97
Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.4.4

3.5

3.4.5 Water 3.5.1

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.5.1.2.1.1 North, South, and West
Hilight Field LBA
Tracts ..................... 3-102 3.5.1.2.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch
LBA Tract................ 3-107 3.5.1.2.1.3 North and South
Porcupine LBA
Tracts ..................... 3-111 3.5.1.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-116
3.5.1.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and
Monitoring................................................. 3-116
Surface Water .......................................................... 3-117 3.5.2.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-117 3.5.2.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-128 3.5.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives
2 and 3 ...................................... 3-128
3.5.2.2.1.1 North, South, and West
Hilight Field LBA
Tracts ..................... 3-129 3.5.2.2.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch
LBA Tract................ 3-131 3.5.2.2.1.3 North and South
Porcupine LBA
Tracts ..................... 3-131 3.5.2.2.2 No Action Alternative ................. 3-132
3.5.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and
Monitoring................................................. 3-132
Water Rights ............................................................ 3-133 3.5.3.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-133 3.5.3.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-137 3.5.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives
2 and 3.................................... 3-137
3.5.3.2.1.1 North Hilight Field
LBA Tract................ 3-138 3.5.3.2.1.2 South Hilight Field
LBA Tract................ 3-138 3.5.3.2.1.3 West Hilight Field
LBA Tract................ 3-139 3.5.3.2.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch
LBA Tract................ 3-139 3.5.3.2.1.5 North Porcupine
LBA Tract................ 3-140 3.5.3.2.1.6 South Porcupine
LBA Tract................ 3-140 3.5.3.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-141
v

3.5.2

3.5.3

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.5.3.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and
Monitoring................................................. 3-141
3.5.4 Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-141 Alluvial Valley Floors ............................................................. 3-142
3.6.1 Affected Environment ............................................... 3-142 3.6.1.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract..................... 3-143
3.6.1.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract .................... 3-144
3.6.1.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract...................... 3-145
3.6.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract ................... 3-145
3.6.1.5 North Porcupine LBA Tract ........................ 3-146
3.6.1.6 South Porcupine LBA Tract ....................... 3-146
3.6.2 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-146 3.6.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 .. 3-146
3.6.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................. 3-149
3.6.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-149
3.6.4 Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-150 Wetlands ............................................................................... 3-150 3.7.1 Affected Environment ............................................... 3-150 3.7.1.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract..................... 3-153
3.7.1.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract .................... 3-154
3.7.1.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract...................... 3-154
3.6.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract ................... 3-155
3.6.1.5 North Porcupine LBA Tract ........................ 3-156
3.6.1.6 South Porcupine LBA Tract ....................... 3-157
3.7.2 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-157 3.7.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 .. 3-157
3.7.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................. 3-158
3.7.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-158
3.7.4 Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-159 Soils...................................................................................... 3-159 3.8.1 Affected Environment ............................................... 3-159 3.8.1.1 North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field and
West Hilight Field LBA Tracts .................... 3-160
3.8.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract ................... 3-161
3.8.1.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts ..... 3-161
3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ................................... 3-162 3.8.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 .. 3-162
3.8.2.1.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract ..... 3-163
3.8.2.1.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract .... 3-163
3.8.2.1.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract ...... 3-164
3.8.2.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract ... 3-164
3.8.2.1.5 North Porcupine LBA Tract ........ 3-165
3.8.2.1.6 South Porcupine LBA Tract........ 3-165
3.8.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................. 3-166
3.8.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-166
3.8.4 Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-167 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.6

3.7

3.8

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.9 Vegetation ............................................................................. 3-167 3.9.1 Affected Environment ............................................... 3-167 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-169 3.9.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 .. 3-169
3.9.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................. 3-172
3.9.3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate
Plant Species, and BLM and USFS Sensitive Plant
Species..................................................................... 3-172 3.9.4 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-172
3.9.5 Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-173 3.10 Wildlife.................................................................................. 3-173
3.10.1 General Setting ........................................................ 3-173 3.10.1.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-173
3.10.1.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-176
3.10.1.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-176
3.10.1.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-177
3.10.2 Big Game ................................................................. 3-178 3.10.2.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-178
3.10.2.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-180
3.10.2.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-180
3.10.2.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-181
3.10.3 Other Mammals ....................................................... 3-181 3.10.3.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-181
3.10.3.1.1 North, South, and West Hilight
Field LBA Tracts ...................... 3-189
3.10.3.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract . 3-189
3.10.3.1.3 North and South Porcupine
LBA Tracts .............................. 3-189 3.10.3.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-190
3.10.3.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-190
3.10.3.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-191
3.10.4 Raptors .................................................................... 3-191 3.10.4.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-191
3.10.4.1.1 North, South, and West Hilight
Field LBA Tracts ...................... 3-192
3.10.4.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract . 3-193
3.10.4.1.3 North and South Porcupine
LBA Tracts .............................. 3-193 3.10.4.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-194
3.10.4.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-194

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

vii

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.10.4.2.1.1 North, South, and
West Hilight Field
LBA Tracts.......... 3-195 3.10.4.2.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch
LBA Tract ........... 3-195 3.10.4.2.1.3 North and South
Porcupine LBA
Tracts ................. 3-196 3.10.4.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-196
3.10.5 Upland Game Birds.................................................. 3-196
3.10.5.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-196
3.10.5.1.1 Sage-Grouse Use Associated
With the North, South, and West
Hilight Field LBA Tracts........... 3-201
3.10.5.1.2 Sage-Grouse Use Associated
With the West Jacobs Ranch
LBA Tract ................................ 3-203 3.10.5.1.3 Sage-Grouse Use Associated
With the North and South
Porcupine LBA Tracts .............. 3-203
3.10.5.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-205
3.10.5.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-205
3.10.5.3 No Action Alternative ................................. 3-209
3.10.6 Other Birds .............................................................. 3-209
3.10.6.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-209
3.10.6.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-213
3.10.6.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-213
3.10.6.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-215
3.10.7 Amphibians, Reptiles, and Aquatic Species............... 3-215
3.10.7.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-215
3.10.7.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-217
3.10.7.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-217
3.10.7.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-217
3.10.8 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate
Species; BLM Sensitive Species; and USFS Sensitive
Species and Management Indicator Species .............. 3-217
3.10.9 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-217
3.10.10 Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-220
3.11 Land Use and Recreation....................................................... 3-221
3.11.1 Affected Environment ............................................... 3-221
3.11.2 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-246
3.11.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 .. 3-246
3.11.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................. 3-248
viii Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.11.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-248
3.11.4 Residual Impacts ..................................................... 3-249
Cultural Resources................................................................ 3-249
3.12.1 Affected Environment ............................................... 3-249
3.12.1.1 North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA
Tracts ....................................................... 3-254 3.12.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract .................. 3-255
3.12.1.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts .... 3-256
3.12.2 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-257
3.12.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 . 3-257
3.12.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................ 3-257
3.12.3 Native American Consultation ................................. 3-258
3.12.4 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-259
3.12.5 Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-259
Visual Resources ................................................................... 3-259
3.13.1 Affected Environment .............................................. 3-259
3.13.2 Environmental Consequences.................................. 3-261
3.13.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 .. 3-261
3.13.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................. 3-262
3.13.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-262
3.13.4 Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-262
Noise ..................................................................................... 3-263
3.14.1 Affected Environment .............................................. 3-263
3.14.2 Environmental Consequences.................................. 3-265
3.14.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 .. 3-265
3.14.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................. 3-267
3.14.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-268
3.14.4 Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-268
Transportation ...................................................................... 3-268
3.15.1 Affected Environment .............................................. 3-268
3.15.2 Environmental Consequences.................................. 3-275
3.15.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 .. 3-275
3.15.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................. 3-277
3.15.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-277
3.15.4 Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-277
3.15.4.1 Coal Loss During Rail Transport ............... 3-277
Hazardous and Solid Waste ................................................... 3-280
3.16.1 Affected Environment .............................................. 3-280
3.16.2 Environmental Consequences.................................. 3-280
3.16.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 .. 3-280
3.16.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................. 3-281
3.16.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-281
3.16.4 Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-281
Socioeconomics ..................................................................... 3-281
3.17.1 Local Economy ........................................................ 3-281
3.17.1.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-281
ix

3.12

3.13

3.14

3.15

3.16

3.17

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.17.1.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-285
3.17.1.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-285
3.17.1.2.1.1 North Hilight Field
LBA Tract.......... 3-285 3.17.1.2.1.2 South Hilight Field
LBA Tract.......... 3-287 3.17.1.2.1.3 West Hilight Field
LBA Tract.......... 3-287 3.17.1.2.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch
LBA Tract.......... 3-287 3.17.1.2.1.5 North Porcupine
LBA Tract.......... 3-288 3.17.1.2.1.6 South Porcupine
LBA Tract.......... 3-288 3.17.1.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-288
Population............................................................... 3-289
3.17.2.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-289
3.17.2.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-289
3.17.2.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-289
3.17.2.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-290
Employment ............................................................ 3-290
3.17.3.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-290
3.17.3.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-291
3.17.3.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-291
3.17.3.2.1.1 North Hilight Field
LBA Tract.......... 3-291 3.17.3.2.1.2 South Hilight Field
LBA Tract.......... 3-291 3.17.3.2.1.3 West Hilight Field
LBA Tract.......... 3-292 3.17.3.2.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch
LBA Tract.......... 3-292 3.17.3.2.1.5 NorthPorcupine LBA Tract.......... 3-292 3.17.3.2.1.6 SouthPorcupine LBA Tract.......... 3-292 3.17.3.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-293
Housing................................................................... 3-293
3.17.4.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-293
3.17.4.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-295
3.17.4.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-295
3.17.4.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-295
Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.17.2

3.17.3

3.17.4

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Local Government Facilities and Services................. 3-296
3.17.5.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-296
3.17.5.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-298
3.17.5.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-298
3.17.5.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-298
3.17.6 Social Setting .......................................................... 3-299 3.17.6.1 Affected Environment ............................... 3-299
3.17.6.2 Environmental Consequences ................... 3-299
3.17.6.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................ 3-299
3.17.6.2.2 No Action Alternative .............. 3-299
3.17.7 Environmental Justice............................................. 3-299 3.17.7.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-299
3.17.7.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-300
3.17.7.2.1 Proposed Action and
Alternatives 2 and 3................. 3-300
3.17.7.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-301
3.17.8 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-301
3.17.9 Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-301 3.18 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man’s
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of
Long-Term Productivity ......................................................... 3-301 3.18.1 Local Area............................................................... 3-301 3.18.1.1 Human Health Impact Assessment ............ 3-303
3.18.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................... 3-304
3.19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources....... 3-308
4.0 3.17.5

CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................... 4-1
4.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Development ........... 4-2
4.1.1 Coal Development........................................................ 4-4
4.1.1.1 Coal Mine Development ................................. 4-4
4.1.1.2 Coal-Related Development ........................... 4-14
4.1.1.2.1 Coal Transportation................... 4-14
4.1.1.2.2 Electric Power Generation.......... 4-16
4.1.1.2.3 Transmission Lines.................... 4-17
4.1.1.2.4 Coal Conversion Technology ...... 4-18
4.1.2 Oil and Gas Development .......................................... 4-19
4.1.2.1 Conventional Oil and Gas ............................ 4-19
4.1.2.2 CBNG Development ..................................... 4-21
4.1.2.3 Oil and Gas Related Development................ 4-22
4.1.2.3.1 Pipelines.................................... 4-23
4.1.2.3.2 Refineries .................................. 4-24
4.1.3 Other Development Activity ....................................... 4-25
4.1.3.1 Other Mining............................................... 4-25
4.1.3.2 Industrial Manufacturing ............................ 4-28
xi

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 4.1.3.3 Wind Power ................................................. 4-28 4.1.3.4 Solar Power ................................................. 4-29 4.1.3.5 Reservoirs ................................................... 4-30 4.1.3.6 Other Non-Energy Development................... 4-30
Cumulative Environmental Consequences ............................... 4-33
4.2.1 Topography and Physiography ................................... 4-35
4.2.2 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology ........... 4-36
4.2.2.1 Coal ............................................................ 4-36 4.2.2.2 Oil and Gas ................................................. 4-37
4.2.2.3 Other Mineral Resources ............................. 4-37
4.2.2.4 Paleontology ................................................ 4-37 4.2.3 Air Quality................................................................. 4-38 4.2.4 Water Resources........................................................ 4-48 4.2.4.1 Groundwater .............................................. 4-49 4.2.4.2 Surface Water............................................. 4-59 4.2.5 Channel Stability....................................................... 4-64 4.2.6 Alluvial Valley Floors ................................................. 4-65
4.2.7 Soils .......................................................................... 4-66 4.2.8 Vegetation, Wetlands and Riparian Areas .................. 4-67
4.2.8.1 Vegetation .................................................. 4-67 4.2.8.2 Special Status Plant Species ....................... 4-68
4.2.8.3 Noxious and Invasive Weed Species ............ 4-68
4.2.8.4 Wetland and Riparian Species .................... 4-70
4.2.9 Wildlife and Fisheries ................................................ 4-70
4.2.9.1 Game Species ............................................. 4-71 4.2.9.2 Non-game Species....................................... 4-74 4.2.9.3 Fisheries..................................................... 4-75 4.2.9.4 Special Status Species ................................ 4-78
4.2.10 Land Use and Recreation........................................... 4-81
4.2.10.1 Grazing and Agriculture.............................. 4-82
4.2.10.2 Urban Use .................................................. 4-84
4.2.10.3 Recreation .................................................. 4-84
4.2.11 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns.... 4-86
4.2.11.1 Prehistoric Sites.......................................... 4-86
4.2.11.2 Historic Sites .............................................. 4-88
4.2.11.3 Native American Traditional Cultural
Places......................................................... 4-88 4.2.11.4 Site Protection ............................................ 4-88
4.2.12 Transportation and Utilities....................................... 4-88 4.2.13 Socioeconomics ......................................................... 4-91 4.2.13.1 Employment and the Economic Base .......... 4-92
4.2.13.2 Labor Market Conditions ............................ 4-94
4.2.13.3 Personal Income ......................................... 4-95
4.2.13.4 Population and Demographics .................... 4-95
4.2.13.5 Housing...................................................... 4-98
4.2.13.6 Public Education ...................................... 4-101
Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.2

xii

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 4.2.13.7 Facilities and Services .............................. 4-102
4.2.13.8 Fiscal Conditions ...................................... 4-104
4.2.13.9 Social Setting............................................ 4-106
4.2.14 Coal Mining and Coal-Fired Power Plant Related Emissions and By-Products ..................................... 4-108 4.2.14.1 Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................... 4-109 4.2.14.2 Mercury, Coal Combustion Residues, and Other By-Products.................................... 4-123 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION............................................... 5-1
REFERENCES CITED ......................................................................... 6-1 GLOSSARY ......................................................................................... 7-1 INDEX ................................................................................................ 8-1 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Shroyer Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered .......ES-15 Table ES-2. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Shroyer Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered ...................ES-16 Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Reno Road is Not Moved and Underlying Coal is Not Recovered ................ES-17 Table ES-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Reno Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered .......................ES-18 Table ES-5. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered ..........................................................ES-19 Table ES-6. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered ................................................................ES-20
Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications xiii

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table ES-7. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract and Jacobs Ranch Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered ..........................................................ES-21 Table ES-8. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract and Jacobs Ranch Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered ........................................................................ES-22 Table ES-9. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – Mackey Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered .......ES-23 Table ES-10. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – Mackey Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered ...................ES-24 Table ES-11. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – 2.25-Mile Section of Antelope Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered ..........................................................ES-25 Table ES-12. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – 2.25-Mile Section of Antelope Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered ................................................................ES-26 Table ES-13. Projected Maximum Potential Near-field Impacts .................ES-58 Table ES-14. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas .......................................................ES-59
Table ES-15. Recent and Projected PRB Population ..................................ES-60
Table 1-1. Table 1-2. Table 2-1. Leases Issued and Exchanges Completed Since Decertification, Powder River Basin, Wyoming ......................... 1-6 Pending LBAs, Powder River Basin, Wyoming .......................... 1-8 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining Operations Required by SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives.............................. 2-70 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Shroyer Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered ......... 2-78 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table 2-2.

xiv

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Shroyer Road is Moved and Underlying Coal is Recovered ........................... 2-79 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Reno Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered............. 2-80 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Reno Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered ......................... 2-81 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered ............................................................ 2-82 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered .................................................................. 2-83 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract and Jacobs Ranch Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered ............................................................ 2-84 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract and Jacobs Ranch Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered .................................................................. 2-85 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – Mackey Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered ......... 2-86 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – Mackey Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered ..................... 2-87

Table 2-4.

Table 2-5.

Table 2-6.

Table 2-7.

Table 2-8.

Table 2-9.

Table 2-10.

Table 2-11.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table 2-12. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – 2.25-Mile Section of Antelope Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered ............................................................ 2-88 Table 2-13. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – 2.25-Mile Section of Antelope Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered .................................................................. 2-89 Table 2-14. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for Alternative 1 (No Action), the Proposed Action, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts .... 2-91 Table 2-15. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. 2-98 Table 3-1. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Black Thunder Mine Disturbance Area and Mining Operations for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract ....................................................................... 3-4 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Black Thunder Mine Disturbance Area and Mining Operations for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract ....................................................................... 3-4 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Black Thunder Mine Disturbance Area and Mining Operations for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract ....................................................................... 3-5 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Jacobs Ranch Mine Disturbance Area and Mining Operations for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract ..................................................................... 3-5 Comparison of Existing and Proposed North Antelope Rochelle Mine Disturbance Area and Mining Operations for the North Porcupine LBA Tract ............................................................... 3-6 Comparison of Existing and Proposed North Antelope Rochelle Mine Disturbance Area and Mining Operations for the South Porcupine LBA Tract ............................................................... 3-6 Average Overburden, Interburden, and Coal Thicknesses and Approximate Postmining Surface Elevation Changes of the Six LBA Tracts ............................................................................ 3-14 Assumed Background Air Pollutant Concentrations, Applicable AAQS, and PSD Increment Values ......................................... 3-37 2001 Through 2008 Annual 4th Max, 8-Hour Average Ozone Values................................................................................... 3-66 Annual Ambient NO2 Concentration Data .............................. 3-76 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table 3-2.

Table 3-3.

Table 3-4.

Table 3-5.

Table 3-6.

Table 3-7.

Table 3-8. Table 3-9. Table 3-10. xvi

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table 3-11. Table 3-12. 2002 Through 2008 Annual Mean NO2 Concentration Data ... 3-77 Approximate Distances and Directions from the General Wright Analysis Area to Mandatory Federal PSD Class I, Tribal Federal PSD Class I, and Federal PSD Class II Areas.......................... 3-79 Existing Acid Neutralizing Capacity in Sensitive Lakes........... 3-84 Vegetation Types Identified and Mapped Within the Combined Vegetation Analysis Areas.................................................... 3-168 Distribution of Surface Ownership Within Each LBA Tract Configured Under Alternative 2, BLM’s Preferred Alternative........................................................................... 3-221 North Hilight Field LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record............................................................................. 3-235 South Hilight Field LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record............................................................................. 3-236 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record............................................................................. 3-237 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record............................................................................. 3-238 North Porcupine LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record............................................................................. 3-239 South Porcupine LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record............................................................................. 3-241 Noise Impacts Associated with Mine Blasting on the Wright Area LBA Tracts .................................................................. 3-266 Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the Wright Area LBA Tracts Under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 ............................................................................... 3-286 Estimated Annual Equivalent CO2 Emissions at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mines .................................................................................. 3-307 Status and Ownership of Wyoming PRB Coal Mines for 2003, the PRB Coal Review Baseline Year, and for 2007 .................... 4-6 Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine Development, Lower Coal Production Scenario ...................... 4-10 Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine Development, Upper Coal Production Scenario ...................... 4-11 Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal-Related Development Scenario ........................................................... 4-14 Past, Present, and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine and Coal-Related Development Scenario....................................... 4-20 Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Conventional Oil and Gas Development Scenario ........................................ 4-21
xvii

Table 3-13. Table 3-14. Table 3-15.

Table 3-16. Table 3-17. Table 3-18. Table 3-19. Table 3-20. Table 3-21. Table 3-22. Table 3-23.

Table 3-24.

Table 4-1. Table 4-2. Table 4-3. Table 4-4. Table 4-5. Table 4-6.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table 4-7. Table 4-8. Table 4-9. Baseline Year and Projected CBNG Development Scenario for the Wyoming PRB............................................................. 4-22 Wyoming PRB Conventional Oil and Gas, CBNG, and Related Development Disturbance and Water Production....... 4-23 U.S. Nuclear Resources Commission Applications for In-Situ Recovery Uranium Projects in the Wyoming PRB Study Area ............................................................................ 4-27 Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Total Development Scenario – Task 3 Study Area ................................................ 4-33 Projected Maximum Potential Near-field Impacts ................... 4-41 Maximum Predicted PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Area Impacts...................................................................... 4-44 Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas ........................................................................ 4-45 Predicted Total Cumulative Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity of Sensitive Lakes ................................................... 4-47 Recoverable Groundwater in the Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System ...................................................................... 4-50 Water Use as of 2002 in the Powder/Tongue River Basins................................................................................... 4-59 Surface Water Availability in the Powder/Tongue River Basins................................................................................... 4-60 Water Use as of 2002 in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins................................................................................... 4-60 Surface Water Availability in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins................................................................................... 4-61 Summary of Proposed Limits for SAR and EC ........................ 4-63 Impact of CBNG Production Water on Perennial Streams ....... 4-65 Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Pronghorn Ranges from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios............................................................. 4-72 Potential Cumulative Disturbance to White-tailed Deer Ranges from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios............................................................. 4-72 Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Mule Deer Ranges from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios .............................................................................. 4-73 Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Elk Ranges from Development Activities – Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios............................................................. 4-73 Potential Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-grouse Leks from Coal Mine Development – Upper and Lower Coal Production Scenarios............................................................. 4-81 Land Use by Surface Ownership ............................................ 4-82
Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table 4-10. Table 4-11. Table 4-12. Table 4-13. Table 4-14. Table 4-15. Table 4-16. Table 4-17. Table 4-18. Table 4-19. Table 4-20. Table 4-21. Table 4-22.

Table 4-23.

Table 4-24.

Table 4-25.

Table 4-26.

Table 4-27. xviii

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table 4-28. AUMs and Acres of Cropland Estimated Unavailable on Lands Disturbed and Not Yet Reclaimed as a Result of Development Activities .......................................................... 4-83 Square Miles of Projected Cumulative Disturbance and
Number of Potentially Affected Cultural Resource Sites in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 Study Area – Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios..................................................... 4-87 PRB Rail Lines Coal Hauling Capacity and Projected Use ....... 4-91 Recent and Projected PRB Population .................................... 4-96 Rental Housing Vacancy Rates, 2004 4Q and 2006 4Q .......... 4-98 Total Housing Stock in 2000 and 2005 .................................. 4-98 Monthly Housing Rents in 2006 in the PRB Study Area and
Percent Change from 2004 .................................................... 4-99 Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated
with Energy Resource Production Under the Lower Coal Production Scenario ............................................................ 4-105 Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated
with Energy Resource Production Under the Upper Coal Production Scenario ............................................................ 4-106 Estimated Annual Equivalent CO2 Emissions from Coal
Production at Mines With Pending LBAs .............................. 4-119 Projected Percent of CO2 Emissions by Source ..................... 4-120 Projected Percent of CO2 Emissions by Source Under a
Reduced CO2 Emissions Scenario ........................................ 4-121 2004 Percent Contribution to Worldwide Anthropogenic
Mercury Emissions.............................................................. 4-125

Table 4-29.

Table Table Table Table Table

4-30. 4-31. 4-32. 4-33. 4-34.

Table 4-35.

Table 4-36.

Table 4-37. Table 4-38. Table 4-39. Table 4-40.

Table 5-1. Table 5-2. Table 5-3.

List of Contributors and Reviewers ............................................ 5-4
List of Preparers ........................................................................ 5-7
BLM Distribution List for the Wright Area Draft EIS .................. 5-9
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES-1. Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure ES-2. ES-3. ES-4. ES-5. ES-6. ES-7. ES-8.

General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts .................................................................................ES-2 North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives...........................ES-3
South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ..........................ES-4
West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ............................ES-5
West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternatives .........................ES-7
North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives ..............................ES-8
South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives..............................ES-9
Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the
Black Thunder Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2017.................................................................................ES-32
xix

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure ES-9. Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the Jacobs Ranch Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Years 2013 and 2015 ..........................................................................ES-33 ES-10. Maximum Modeled PM and NOx Concentrations at the 10 North Antelope Rochelle Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2015.........................................................................ES-34 ES-11. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2.......................ES-37 ES-12. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2.......................ES-38 ES-13. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2.......................ES-39 ES-14. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2 ....................ES-40 ES-15 Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2 ..........................ES-41 ES-16 Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2 ..........................ES-42 ES-17 Extrapolated Extent of Life of Mine Cumulative Drawdown Within the Wyodak Coal Aquifer With the Addition of Wright Area Coal LBA Tracts.............................................ES-43

Figure

Figure 1-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts...................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 1-2. Black Thunder Mine’s Federal Coal Leases and North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts as Applied for .......................................................................... 1-9 Figure 1-3. Jacobs Ranch Mine’s Federal Coal Leases and West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for ............................................. 1-13 Figure 1-4. North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s Federal Coal Leases and North Porcupine and South Porcupine LBA Tracts as Applied for............................................................................. 1-15 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure xx 2-1. 2-2. 2-3. 2-4. 2-5. North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ............................... 2-2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ............................... 2-3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives................................. 2-4 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternatives .............................. 2-5 North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives................................... 2-6 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued)
Figure 2-6. Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2. South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives .................................. 2-7
General Wright Analysis Area .................................................. 3-3
Stratigraphic Relationship and Hydrologic Characteristics of Upper Cretaceous, Lower Tertiary, and Recent Geologic Units, PRB, Wyoming....................................................................... 3-17 Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the Black Thunder Mine .............................................................. 3-40 Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the Jacobs Ranch Mine ............................................................... 3-41 Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine ................................................ 3-42 Annual Coal Production and Overburden Removal vs. Ambient Particulates for the General Wright Analysis Area ...................................................................................... 3-43 Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the Black Thunder Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2015 ..................................................................................... 3-48 Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the Black Thunder Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2017 ..................................................................................... 3-49 Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2 ........................... 3-51 Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2 ........................... 3-52 Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2 ........................... 3-53 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the Jacobs Ranch Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Years 2013 and 2015............................................................................... 3-55 Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2......................... 3-56 Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2012........................................................................ 3-58 Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2015........................................................................ 3-59

Figure 3-3. Figure 3-4. Figure 3-5. Figure 3-6.

Figure 3-7.

Figure 3-8.

Figure 3-9.

Figure 3-10.

Figure 3-11.

Figure 3-12.

Figure 3-13.

Figure 3-14.

Figure 3-15.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

xxi

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure 3-16. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2 ..................... 3-61 Figure 3-17. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2 .................... 3-62 Figure 3-18. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the Jacobs Ranch Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Years 2006 and 2013...................................................................... 3-72 Figure 3-19. Visibility in the Badlands and Bridger Wilderness Area.......... 3-80 Figure 3-20. Locations of Currently Active Groundwater Monitoring and Water Supply Wells at the Black Thunder Mine ..................... 3-87 Figure 3-21. Locations of Currently Active Groundwater Monitoring and Water Supply Wells at the Jacobs Ranch Mine ...................... 3-88 Figure 3-22. Locations of Currently Active Groundwater Monitoring and Water Supply Wells at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine ....... 3-89 Figure 3-23. Black Thunder Mine Life of Mine Drawdown, Resulting from Currently Approved Mining with the Addition of the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts ............................ 3-105 Figure 3-24. Jacobs Ranch Mine Life of Mine Drawdown, Resulting from Currently Approved Mining with the Addition of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract ..................................................... 3-109 Figure 3-25. North Antelope Rochelle Mine Life of Mine Drawdown, Resulting from Currently Approved Mining with the Addition of the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts ............................... 3-114 Figure 3-26. Surface Drainage in the General Wright Analysis Area ......... 3-119 Figure 3-27. Surface Water Features Within and Adjacent to the North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ..................................... 3-120 Figure 3-28. Surface Water Features Within and Adjacent to the South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ..................................... 3-121 Figure 3-29. Surface Water Features Within and Adjacent to the West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ..................................... 3-123 Figure 3-30. Surface Water Features Within and Adjacent to the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternatives .................................. 3-124 Figure 3-31. Surface Water Features Within and Adjacent to the North and South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives .............................. 3-125 Figure 3-32. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the North Hilight Field LBA Tract .... 3-183 Figure 3-33. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the South Hilight Field LBA Tract .... 3-184 Figure 3-34. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the West Hilight Field LBA Tract...... 3-185 Figure 3-35. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract ... 3-186 xxii Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued) Figure 3-36. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the North Porcupine LBA Tract........ 3-187 Figure 3-37. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the South Porcupine LBA Tract ....... 3-188 Figure 3-38. Average Male Sage-grouse Lek Attendance Within the Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group Area.................................... 3-206 Figure 3.39.- Average Male Sage-grouse Lek Attendance Statewide and Within the Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-grouse Working Group Area and the Thunder Basin National Grasslands..... 3-206 Figure 3-40. Surface Ownership Within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ......................................................................... 3-222 Figure 3-41. Surface Ownership Within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ......................................................................... 3-223 Figure 3-42. Surface Ownership Within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ......................................................................... 3-224 Figure 3-43. Surface Ownership Within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternatives ......................................................................... 3-225 Figure 3-44. Surface Ownership Within the North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives ......................................................................... 3-226 Figure 3-45. Surface Ownership Within the South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives ......................................................................... 3-227 Figure 3-46. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ........................... 3-229 Figure 3-47. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ........................... 3-230 Figure 3-48. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives............................. 3-231 Figure 3-49. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternatives .......................... 3-232 Figure 3-50. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives............................... 3-233 Figure 3-51. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives .............................. 3-234 Figure 3-52. Relationship Between A-Scale Decibel Readings and Sounds of Daily Life ......................................................................... 3-264 Figure 3-53. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts ............................ 3-269 Figure 3-54. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract ..................................................... 3-270 Figure 3-55. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts ......................................... 3-271 Figure 3-56. Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts .............................................. 3-272
Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications xxiii

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure 3-57. Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract ............................................................................ 3-273 Figure 3-58. Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts .......................................................... 3-274 Figure 3-59. Estimated Wyoming and Federal Revenues from 2007 Coal Production in Campbell County ........................................... 3-284 Figure 4-1. Figure 4-2. Figure 4-3. Figure 4-4. Figure 4-5. Figure 4-6. Figure 4-7. Figure 4-8. Wyoming Study Area for PRB Coal Review Studies Evaluating Current and Projected Levels of Development .......................... 4-3 Tons of Federal Coal Leased Versus Tons of Coal Mined Since 1990 ....................................................................................... 4-5 Projected Total Coal Production from Campbell and Converse Counties Under the Lower and Upper Production Scenarios .... 4-9 Wyoming Task 3 Study Area for PRB Coal Review Studies Evaluating Projected Environmental Consequences ............... 4-34 Extrapolated Extent of Cumulative Drawdown Within the Wyodak Coal Aquifer in the Wright Area Subregion................ 4-54 Projected Campbell County Population and Employment to 2020 ..................................................................................... 4-97 Projected Housing Demand in the PRB Study Area Under the Lower Coal Production Scenario .................................... 4-100 Project School Enrollment Trends to 2020 Under the Lower Production Scenario ............................................................ 4-102 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Federal and State Permitting Requirements and Agencies Appendix B. Unsuitability Criteria for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Study Areas Appendix C. Coal Lease-By-Application Flow Chart Appendix D. Bureau of Land Management Special Coal Lease Stipulations, U.S. Forest Service Special Stipulations, and Form 3400-12 Coal Lease Appendix E. Conventional Oil and Gas and Coal Bed Natural Gas Wells Capable of Production Located Within the BLM Study Areas for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, South Hilight Field LBA Tract, West Hilight Field LBA Tract, West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, North Porcupine LBA Tract and South Porcupine LBA Tract xxiv Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued) Appendix F. Appendix G. Supplemental Air Quality Information Biological Assessment for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, South Hilight Field LBA Tract, West Hilight Field LBA Tract, West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, North Porcupine LBA Tract and South Porcupine LBA Tract BLM Sensitive Species and USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species Evaluations for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS

Appendix H.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

xxv

Abbreviations and Acronyms Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report
AAQS Ac ACC ac-ft ac-ft/yr AIRS ALC AML ANC ANFO APD APLIC AQD AQRV ARCO ARS ASCM AUM AVF A&C BACM BACT bcf bcy BLM BMP BNSF BNSF-UP, BNSF&UP BN-UP, BN&UP BOE B.P. BTU Btu Btu/lb CAA CAAA CAGR CANAC CANDO CBNG CCBC CCC CCEDC CCP CCSD CERCLA CFR cfs CHIA CH4 Ambient Air Quality Standards acre(s) Antelope Coal Company acre-foot, acre-feet acre-foot per year, acre-feet per year Aerometric Information and Retrieval System Ark Land Company Abandoned Mine Land acidification neutralization capacity ammonium nitrate fuel oil Application for Permit to Drill Avian Power Line Interaction Committee Air Quality Division air quality related values Atlantic Richfield Company Air Resource Specialists, Inc. alternative sediment control measure animal unit month alluvial valley floor Allen and Crouch Petroleum Engineers, Inc. best available control measure best available control technology billion cubic feet bank cubic yards Bureau of Land Management Best Management Practice Burlington Northern Santa Fe Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Burlington Northern-Union Pacific barrels of oil equivalent before present BTU Western Resources, Inc. British thermal units British thermal units per pound Clean Air Act Clean Air Act Amendment compounded annual growth rate CA N A C Raiw ay Ser ce,I l vi nc.
Converse Area New Development Organization coal bed natural gas Campbell County Board of Commissioners Caballo Coal Company Campbell County Economic Development Corporation coal combustion product Campbell County School District Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 Code of Federal Regulations cubic feet per second Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment methane

xxvi

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Abbreviations and Acronyms Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report
CMC CO CO2 CO2e COE CP CREG CRI CSI CWA cy dBA DEIS DM&E DOE DNRC DOI dv EA EC EIA EIS ENCOAL EO EOR EPA EPRI EQC ESA EUR EVG F FAA FCLAA FCW FDM FEA FEIS FERC FGD FLM FLPMA FR FRA ft ft/day ft/mile ft3 FY FYPC g Cordero Mining Company carbon monoxide carbon dioxide

CO2 equivalents
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. Consensus Revenue Estimating Group Caballo Rojo, Inc. Community Strategies Institute Clean Water Act cubic yards A-weighted decibels Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation Department of Energy Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Department of the Interior deciview, a measure of view impairment Environmental Assessment elemental carbon particles (re: air quality) Energy Information Administration Environmental Impact Statement Encoal Corporation Executive Order enhanced oil recovery U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Electric Power Research Institute Environmental Quality Council Endangered Species Act estimated ultimate recovery Erathem-Vanir Geological, PLLC Fahrenheit Federal Aviation Administration Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 Foundation Coal West, Inc. Fugitive Dust Model Final Environmental Assessment Final Environmental Impact Statement Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Flue Gas Desulfurization Federal Land Management Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 Federal Register Federal Railroad Administration feet, foot feet per day feet per mile cubic feet fiscal year Fossil Yield Potential Classification gram

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

xxvi i

Abbreviations and Acronyms Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report
GAO GAGMO GDP GHG GIS gpm GSP HAP General Accounting Office Gillette Area Ground Water Monitoring Organization Gross Domestic Product greenhouse gas Geographic Information Systems gallons per minute Gross State Product Hazardous Air Pollutant hydrofluorocarbon Health Impact Assessment horsepower hour Hydrologic Unit Code Interior Board of Land Appeals Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments Intermountain Resources Jacobs Ranch Coal Company Jacobs Ranch Mine Thunderbird - Jones & Stokes kilometers kilovolts limits of acceptable change (re: air quality) lease by application pounds per million British thermal units liquids from coal Lands Necessary to Conduct Mining life of project Land and Resource Management Plan Lower Wyodak coal seam Maximum Achievable Control Technology migratory birds of high federal interest Migratory Bird Treaty Act microequivalents per liter micrograms per cubic meter micromhos per centimeter thousand cubic feet Montana Department of Environmental Quality Montana Department of Environmental Quality/Air and Waste Management Bureau maximally exposed individual milligrams per liter Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 most likely exposure million million bank cubic yards million barrels of oil million cubic feet million cubic feet of gas per day million gallons per year million tons million tons per year

H FC
HIP hp hr HUC IBLA IMPROVE IR JRCC JRM J&S km kV LAC LBA lbs/mmBtu LFC LNCM LOP LRMP LW MACT MBHFI MBTA µeq/L µg/m3 µmhos/cm mcf MDEQ MDEQ/AWM MEI mg/L MLA MLE mm mmbcy mmbo mmcf mmcfpd mmgpy mmt mmtpy

xxviii

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Abbreviations and Acronyms Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report
mph MSA MSDS MW NAAQS NADP NAPG NARM NCTA NEAP NEPA NERC NIOSH NO NOA NOAA NOI N2O NO2 NOX NPDES NPS NRCS NRHP NSPS NWI NWLSWG O3 OC OHWM ORV OSHA OSM OWUS PEC PECs PFYC P.M. P&M PM2.5 PM10 PMT POD ppm PRB PRBRC PRC PRCC PRRCT PSD R2P2 miles per hour Metropolitan Statistical Area material safety data sheet megawatts National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Atmospheric Deposition Program North American Power Group North Antelope Rochelle Mine National Coal Transportation Association Natural Events Action Plan National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 North American Electric Reliability Corporation National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health nitrogen oxide notice of availability National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration notice of intent nitrous oxide nitrogen dioxide nitrogen oxides National Pollution Discharge Elimination System National Park Service Natural Resources Conservation Service National Register of Historic Places National Source Performance Standards National Wetlands Inventory Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Group ozone (photochemical oxidants) organic carbon particles ordinary high water mark off road vehicle Occupational Safety and Health Administration Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement other waters of the U.S. Peabody Energy Corporation passive enclosure control systems Probable Fossil Yield Classification Prime Meridian Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company particulates finer than 2.5 microns in effective diameter particulates finer than 10 microns in effective diameter postmining topography Plan of Development parts per million Powder River Basin Powder River Basin Resource Council Powder River Coal, LLC Powder River Coal Company Powder River Regional Coal Team Prevention of Significant Deterioration Resource Recovery and Protection Plan

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

xxi x

Abbreviations and Acronyms Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report
RAG RH RMEF RMP ROD ROW RTEA RV SAR SARA scf/ton SCSD SEIS SEO SGAC SHPO SIP SMCRA SO2 SPL SPRB STB T&E TBCC TBNG TCO TDS TJS TPY TSP TSS UPRR U.S. USC, U.S.C. USDA USDA-FS USDI USDOE USGS USFS USFWS UW VMT VOCs VRM WA WAC WAAQS WAQSR WARMS WCDA RAG Coal West, Inc. relative humidity Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Resource Management Plan Record of Decision right-of-way Rio Tinto Energy America recreational vehicle sodium absorption ratio Superfund Amendment & Reauthorization Act of 1986 standard cubic feet per ton Sheridan County School District Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement State Engineer’s Office South Gillette Area Coal State Historic Preservation Office State Implementation Plan Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 sulfur dioxide Sound Pressure Level South Powder River Basin Surface Transportation Board Threatened and Endangered Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC Thunder Basin National Grassland temporary cessation of operations total dissolved solids Thunderbird, Jones & Stokes tons per year total suspended particulates total suspended solids Union Pacific Rail Road United States United States Code U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service University of Wyoming vehicle miles traveled volatile organic compounds visual resource management Wilderness Area Wright Area Coal Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System Wyoming Community Development Authority

xxx

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Abbreviations and Acronyms Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report
WCIC WDEQ WDEQ/AQD WDEQ/ISD WDEQ/LQD WEQC WFA WGFD WMA WOC WOGCC WoUS WRCC WRRI WSBLC WSFC WSGS WSO-RMG WYDOT WYPDES WYNDD WWC Wyoming Coal Information Committee Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Industrial Siting Division Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division Wyoming Environmental Quality Council Western Fuels Association Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wyoming Mining Association Wyoming Outdoor Council Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Waters of the U.S. Western Regional Climate Center Water Resources Research Institute Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners Wyoming School Facilities Commission Wyoming State Geological Survey Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (BLM) Wyoming Department of Transportation Wyoming Pollution Discharge Elimination System Wyoming Natural Diversity Database WWC Engineering

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

xxxi

1.0 Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)1 analyzes the environmental impacts of leasing six tracts of federal coal reserves adjacent to the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. All are operating surface coal mines in the southern Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming, near the town of Wright. The operators of the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines filed four applications to lease the six tracts of federal coal included in maintenance coal tracts under the regulations at 43 CFR 3425, Leasing On Application. The Division of Minerals and Lands at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Office reviewed all four applications and determined that the lease applications met the regulatory requirements for Lease by Applications (LBAs). These maintenance coal tracts, which would continue or extend the life of the applicant mines, are referred to as the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, the North Porcupine LBA Tract, and the South Porcupine LBA Tract. Figure 1-1 shows the six LBA tracts as applied for, other currently pending LBA tracts, and the existing federal leases including previously leased LBA tracts in the Wyoming PRB. In addition to this EIS, a separate document entitled Supplementary Information on the Affected Environment in the General Analysis Areas for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS has been prepared. The supplementary document provides detailed site-specific information on the existing environment associated with the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. These six tracts of federal coal reserves are located adjacent to operating mines in the southern Powder River Basin near Wright, Wyoming. Copies of the supplementary information document are available upon request and can be viewed at the BLM offices in Casper and Cheyenne. 1.1 Background On October 7, 2005, Ark Land Company (ALC) filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in two separate tracts located north and southwest of and immediately adjacent to the Black Thunder Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming. The tracts are referred to as the North Hilight Field and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts. The North Hilight Field tract is located approximately 5.5 miles east of Wright, Wyoming and the South Hilight Field tract is located approximately 7 miles southeast of Wright (Figure 1-1). The federal coal reserves were applied for as maintenance tracts for the Black Thunder Mine. BLM determined that the two tracts in the application would be processed separately and, if the decision is made to conduct a lease sale, would be offered for sale separately. ALC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Arch Coal,
1

Refer to page xxvi for a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this document.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1-1

1.0 Introduction

14 16

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 (Proposed or Under Construction)
14 90

Crook County

GILLETTE

MOORCROFT

Campbell County

Caballo West Belle Ayr North
Campbell County

Belle Ayr Mine

Johnson County

Maysdorf II

Cordero Rojo Mine

West Coal Creek

Coal Creek Mine

Weston County

Caballo Mine

116

NORTH HILIGHT FIELD WEST JACOBS RANCH
RENO JUNCTION

WRIGHT

SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD
387

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

NORTH PORCUPINE SOUTH PORCUPINE
387

Campbell County Converse County

West Antelope II Antelope Mine

Weston County Converse County Niobrara County

SCALE: 1"= 10 MILES

To Douglas 46 Miles

Figure 1-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts.

1-2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

To Newcastle 29 Miles

WEST HILIGHT FIELD

Jacobs Ranch Mine
450

1.0 Introduction Inc. The Black Thunder 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. ALC’s coal lease application was assigned case file numbers WYW164812 (North Hilight Field) and WYW174596 (South Hilight Field). On January 17, 2006, ALC filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in a tract located west of and immediately adjacent to the Black Thunder Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 4 miles southeast of Wright, Wyoming (Figure 1-1). The tract, which is referred to as the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, was assigned case file number WYW172388. The federal coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract for the Black Thunder Mine. On March 24, 2006, Jacobs Ranch Coal Company (JRCC) filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in a tract located approximately 0.75 mile west of the Jacobs Ranch Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming. The tract, which is referred to as the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, is located approximately 2.5 miles east of Wright, Wyoming (Figure 1-1). The federal coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract for the Jacobs Ranch Mine. The Jacobs Ranch Mine is operated by JRCC, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto Energy America (RTEA). JRCC’s coal lease application was assigned case file number WYW172685. On September 29, 2006, BTU Western Resources, Inc. (BTU) filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in three separate tracts located west, northwest, and north of and immediately adjacent to the North Antelope Rochelle Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming. The two tracts on the north side of the mine are referred to as the North Porcupine LBA Tract, and the tract on the west side of the mine is referred to as the South Porcupine LBA Tract. On October 12, 2007, BTU filed a request with the BLM to modify the Porcupine LBA Tract configuration to increase the lease area and coal volume. The North Porcupine LBA Tract, which is located approximately 12 miles southeast of Wright, Wyoming, was combined into one tract and its size was increased with additional lands. The South Porcupine LBA Tract, which is located approximately 14 miles southeast of Wright, was also increased in size with additional lands (Figure 1-1). BLM reviewed the modified tract configuration and notified the company that their application had been modified. The federal coal reserves were applied for as maintenance tracts for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. BLM determined that the two tracts in the application would be processed separately and, if the decision is made to conduct a lease sale, would be offered for sale separately. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine is operated by Powder River Coal, LLC (PRC), a subsidiary of Peabody Energy Corporation (PEC). BTU is also a subsidiary of PEC, and in this EIS, BTU is referred to as the applicant and PRC is referred to in discussions of mine operations. BTU’s coal lease application was assigned case Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 1-3

1.0 Introduction file numbers Porcupine). WYW173408 (North Porcupine) and WYW176095 (South

These federal coal lands are located within the Powder River Federal Coal Region, which was decertified in January, 1990. Although the Powder River Federal Coal Region is decertified, the Powder River Regional Coal Team (PRRCT), a federal/state advisory board established to develop recommendations concerning management of federal coal in the region, has continued to meet regularly and review all federal lease applications in the region. The PRRCT reviewed the Ark Land Company and Jacobs Ranch Coal Company maintenance coal lease applications at a public meeting held on April 19, 2006 in Casper, Wyoming. The PRRCT reviewed the BTU Western Resources, Inc. maintenance coal lease application at a public meeting held on January 18, 2007 in Casper, Wyoming. The PRRCT recommended that the BLM process the coal lease applications at those respective meetings. In order to process an LBA, the BLM must evaluate the quantity, quality, maximum economic recovery, and fair market value of the federal coal and fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) by evaluating the environmental impacts of leasing the federal coal. BLM does not authorize mining by issuing a lease for federal coal, but the impacts of mining the coal are considered in this EIS because it is a logical consequence of issuing a maintenance lease to an existing mine. The BLM determined that one EIS would be prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts that would be expected to occur if leases are issued for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. This EIS has been prepared to evaluate the site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts of leasing and developing the federal coal included in these application areas. For each of the six LBA tracts, BLM will use the analysis in this EIS to decide whether to hold a competitive, sealed-bid lease sale for the tract as applied for, hold a competitive, sealed-bid lease sale for the modified tract, or reject the lease application and not offer the tract for sale at this time. A separate Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued for each LBA tract. If the decision is made to offer the tract for lease, then a separate sale would be held for each tract. The bidding at the sale would be open to any qualified bidder; it would not be limited to the applicant. If a lease sale is held, each lease would be issued to the highest bidder at the sale if a federal sale panel determines that the high bid meets or exceeds the fair market value of the coal as determined by BLM’s economic evaluation. Also, before the lease could be issued to the high bidder, the United States Department of Justice would need to determine that there would be no antitrust violations. In return for receiving a lease, a lessee must pay the federal government a bonus equal to the amount it bids at the time the lease sale is held (the bonus 1-4 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1.0 Introduction can be paid in five yearly installments), make annual rental payments to the federal government, and make royalty payments to the federal government when the coal is mined. Prior to 2008, federal bonus, rental, and royalty payments were equally divided with the state in which the lease was located. However, in fiscal year 2008, Congress decreased the state’s royalty share to 48 percent, and increased the federal government’s share to 52 percent. The percentage of federal bonus, rental, and royalty payments distribution reverted back to 50 percent/50 percent at the end of the 2008 fiscal year. Other agencies may use this analysis to make decisions related to leasing and mining the federal coal in these tracts. Cooperating agencies on this EIS include: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (USFS), Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT), Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) Air Quality Division (AQD) and WDEQ Land Quality Division (LQD), and the Converse County Board of Commissioners. OSM has primary responsibility to administer federal programs that regulate surface coal mining operations and will use this EIS to make decisions related to the approval of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA) mining plan if the tracts are leased. If USFS lands are included in a tract, USFS must consent to lease the federal coal that is located on USFS-administered lands before BLM can make a decision to hold a federal coal lease sale. WYDOT’s responsibilities include planning and supervising road improvement work, maintaining roads, and supporting airports and aviation in the state. WDEQ has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior to regulate surface coal mining operations on federal and non-federal lands within the State of Wyoming. Since decertification of the Powder River Federal Coal Region in 1990, 20 federal coal leases have been sold at competitive sealed-bid sales and three exchanges of federal coal in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Federal Coal Region have been completed (BLM 2009). Each mine with an application being considered in this EIS has previously been issued a maintenance coal lease since decertification (Table 1-1 and Figure 1-1). Table 1-2 summarizes the 12 LBAs that are currently pending (BLM 2009). 1.1.1 North and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts

As applied for, the Hilight Field LBA Tract, adjacent to the Black Thunder Mine, consisted of two separate blocks of federal coal and included a total of approximately 4,590.19 acres with an estimated 477.0 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. The BLM split this LBA into two separate tracts, the North and South Hilight Field Tracts, as shown in Figure 1-2, and the two tracts will be processed separately. The North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for includes approximately 2,613.50 acres and an estimated 263.4 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. The South Hilight Field LBA Tract Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 1-5

1.0 Introduction Table 1-1. Leases Issued and Exchanges Completed Since Decertification, Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Leases Issued
LBA Name (Lease Number) Applicant Mine Current Lessee Effective Date Jacobs Ranch (WYW117924) Jacobs Ranch Mine Jacobs Ranch Coal Co. 10/1/1992 West Black Thunder (WYW118907) Black Thunder Mine Thunder Basin Coal Co. 10/1/1992 North Antelope/Rochelle (WYW119554) North Antelope & Rochelle Mines Powder River Coal Co. 10/1/1992 West Rocky Butte (WYW122586) No Existing Mine2 Caballo Coal Co. 1/1/1993 Eagle Butte (WYW124783) Eagle Butte Mine Foundation Wyoming Land Co. 8/1/1995 Antelope (WYW128322) Antelope Mine Antelope Coal Co. 2/1/1997 North Rochelle (WYW127221) North Rochelle Mine Ark Land Co. 1/1/1998 Powder River (WYW136142) North Antelope Rochelle Mine Powder River Coal Co. 9/1/1998 Thundercloud (WYW136458) Jacobs Ranch Mine Thunder Basin Coal Co., LLC 1/1/1999 Horse Creek (WYW141435) Antelope Mine Antelope Coal Co. 12/1/2000 North Jacobs Ranch (WYW146744) Jacobs Ranch Mine Jacobs Ranch Coal Co. 5/1/2002 NARO South (WYW154001) North Antelope Rochelle Mine BTU Western Resources, Inc. 9/1/2004 West Hay Creek (WYW151634) Buckskin Mine Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. 1/1/2005 Acres Leased1 1,708.620 Mineable Tons of Coal1 147,423,560 Successful Bid $20,114,930.00

3,492.495

429,048,216

$71,909,282.69

3,064.040

403,500,000

$86,987,765.00

463.205

56,700,000

$16,500,000.00

1,059.180

166,400,000

$18,470,400.00

617.200

60,364,000

$9,054,600.00

1,481.930

157,610,000

$30,576,340.00

4,224.225

532,000,000

$109,596,500.00

3,545.503

412,000,000

$158,000,008.50

2,818.695

275,577,000

$91,220,120.70

4,982.240

537,542,000

$379,504,652.00

2,956.725

297,469,000

$274,117,684.00

921.158

142,698,000

$42,809,400.00

1-6

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1.0 Introduction Table 1-1. Leases Issued and Exchanges Completed Since Decertification, Powder River Basin, Wyoming (Continued). Leases Issued
LBA Name (Lease Number) Applicant Mine Current Lessee Effective Date Little Thunder (WYW150318) Black Thunder Mine Ark Land LT Co. 3/1/2005 West Antelope (WYW151643) Antelope Mine Antelope Coal Co. 3/1/2005 NARO North (WYW150210) North Antelope Rochelle Mine BTU Western Resources, Inc. 3/1/2005 West Roundup (WYW151134) North Rochelle Mine West Roundup Resources, Inc 5/1/2005 Eagle Butte West (WYW155132) Eagle Butte Mine Foundation Wyoming Land Co. 5/1/2008 South Maysdorf (WYW174407) Cordero Rojo Mine Cordero Mining Co. 8/1/2008 North Maysdorf (WYW154432) Cordero Rojo Mine Cordero Mining Co. 1/29/2009 TOTALS Acres Leased1 5,083.500 Mineable Tons of Coal1 718,719,000 Successful Bid $610,999,949.80

2,809.130

194,961,000

$146,311,000.00

2,369.380

324,627,000

$299,143,785.00

2,812.510

327,186,000

$317,697,610.00

1,427.770

255,000,000

$180,540,000.00

2,900.240

288,082,000

$250,800,000.00

445.890

54,657,000

$48,098,424.00

49,183.640

5,781,563,776

$3,162,452,451.69

Exchanges Completed
Exchange Name Case File Number Exchange Proponent Exchange Type Effective Date EOG (Belco) I-90 Lease Exchange WYW150152 EOG Resources (formerly Belco)3 I-90 Lease Exchanged for New Lease 4/1/2000 Pittsburg & Midway Coal Exchange WYW148816 Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Co. Private Land Exchanged for Federal Coal 1/27/2005 Gold Mine Draw Lease Exchange WYW0321779, WYW154001 Powder River Coal Co. AVF Lease Exchanged for New Lease 6/25/2006 TOTALS
1 2 3

Acres Exchanged 599.170

Mineable Tons of Coal 106,000,000

Federal Coal Exchanged for: Lease Rights to Belco I-90 Lease (WYW0322794).

2,045.530

84,200,000

6,065.77 acres of land and some minerals in Lincoln, Carbon, and Sheridan Counties, Wyoming. Lease rights to 921.60 acres of leased federal coal underlying an AVF.

623.000

47,700,000

3,267.700

237,900,000

Information from Sale Notice.
The West Rocky Butte LBA was originally leased to Northwestern Resources Co.
The EOG Resources Belco Exchange lease is now owned by the Buckskin Mine.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1-7

1.0 Introduction Table 1-2.
LBA Name Lease Number Applicant Mine Belle Ayr North WYW161248 Belle Ayr Mine West Antelope II WYW163340 Antelope Mine North Hilight Field WYW164812 Black Thunder Mine South Hilight Field WYW174596 Black Thunder Mine West Hilight Field WYW172388 Black Thunder Mine West Coal Creek WYW172585 Coal Creek Mine Caballo West WYW172657 Caballo Mine West Jacobs Ranch WYW172685 Jacobs Ranch Mine Hay Creek II WYW172684 Buckskin Mine

Pending LBAs, Powder River Basin, Wyoming.
Application Date 7/6/2004 Acres as Applied for 1,578.74 Estimated as Applied for Coal (mmt) 191.90
3

Status DEIS available 10/24/2008 Hearing 11/19/2008 FEIS in preparation FEIS available 12/19/2008 ROD in preparation DEIS in review Hearing 7/29/2009

4/6/2005

4,108.60

429.70

10/7/2005

2,613.50

263.40

10/7/2005

1,976.69

213.60

DEIS in review Hearing 7/29/2009

1/17/2006

2,370.52

377.90

DEIS in review Hearing 7/29/2009

2/10/2006

1,151.26

57.00

DEIS available 10/24/2008 Hearing 11/19/2008 FEIS in preparation DEIS available 10/24/2008 Hearing 11/19/2008 FEIS in preparation DEIS in review Hearing 7/29/2009

3/15/2006

777.49

81.80

3/24/2006

5,944.37

669.60

3/24/2006 Modified 5/19/2008 Modified 1/23/2009 9/1/2006

415.00

51.902

Scoping period ended 3/29/2008 DEIS in preparation

Maysdorf II WYW173360 Cordero Rojo Mine North Porcupine WYW173408 North Antelope Rochelle Mine South Porcupine WYW176095 North Antelope Rochelle Mine TOTALS
1 2 3

4,653.84

474.50

DEIS available 10/24/2008 Hearing 11/19/2008 FEIS in preparation DEIS in review Hearing 7/29/2009

9/29/2006 Modified 10/12/2007 9/29/2006 Modified 10/12/2007

5,795.78

601.20

3,185.96

309.70

DEIS in review Hearing 7/29/2009

34,571.75

3,722.20

Estimated tons of in-place coal as reported in the lease application. Estimated tons of mineable coal as reported in the lease application. Estimated tons of recoverable coal as reported by the applicant.

1-8

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1.0 Introduction
Hilight Road
BNSF & UP RR

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
Jacobs Road
14 13 18 17 16 15 14

Ke elin e

Ro 13 ad

Shroyer Road

NORTH HILIGHT FIELD
21 22 23 24 19

Small Road
26

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

WEST HILIGHT FIELD
6 5 4 3 4 3 2 1

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450

Sta

High

way

450

T. 42 N.

Hilight Road

T. SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD 32 33 43 31 N.

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Antel ope R oad

Matheson Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road

BNSF & UP RR

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Reno Road

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-164812) South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-174596) West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-172388)
0 5000 10000 20000

Black Thunder Mine Lease WYW-118907 Black Thunder Mine Lease WYW-127221 Black Thunder Mine Lease WYW-136458 Black Thunder Mine Lease WYW-150318 Black Thunder Mine Lease WYW-172692

Black Thunder Mine Lease WYW-2313 Black Thunder Mine Lease WYW-71692

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 1-2. Black Thunder Mine's Federal Coal Leases and North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts as Applied for.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1-9

1.0 Introduction as applied for includes approximately 1,976.69 acres and an estimated 213.6 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. As of January 1, 2008, TBCC estimates the in-place reserves at the existing Black Thunder Mine to be 1,344.0 million tons, of which approximately 1,236.4 million tons of those remaining reserves would be recoverable. Black Thunder Mine’s currently approved by WDEQ/AQD air quality permits (Permit Numbers MD-417A, MD-877, MD-1178, MD-1555, MD-6824, and MD-3851, which were approved on July 1, 1999, June 23, 2003, July 12, 2005, May 13, 2007, January 22, 2008, and August 18, 2008, respectively) allow up to 135 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Black Thunder Mine produced approximately 65.3 million tons of coal in 2007, 67.3 million tons of coal in 2006, 62.7 million tons of coal in 2005, 66.8 million tons of coal in 2004, and 62.6 million tons of coal in 2003. The North Hilight Field tract is contiguous with both the Black Thunder Mine and the Jacobs Ranch Mine, which is operated by JRCC. The South Hilight Field tract is contiguous with only the Black Thunder Mine. A portion of the South Hilight Field tract lies within Black Thunder Mine’s current permit area. None of the North Hilight Field tract lies within Black Thunder Mine’s current permit area although it does border the mine’s permit boundary (Figure 1-2). The area applied for is similar to the adjacent mines for which detailed sitespecific environmental data have been collected. Additionally, environmental analyses have previously been prepared for existing leases and mining permits. The surface of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for is owned by TBCC, ALC, Mills Brothers Partnership, JRCC, and Western Railroad Properties, Inc. & Burlington Northern Railroad. The surface of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for is owned by TBCC, Western Railroad Properties, Inc. & Burlington Northern Railroad, and the United States of America. The federally owned surface comprises roughly 82 percent (approximately 1,625.9 acres) of the tract as applied for and is part of the Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG), administered by the USFS. Current land uses of the tracts include grazing by domestic livestock and wildlife, oil and gas production, recreation, and transportation (i.e., rail lines and public road). The mining method would be a combination of truck and shovel and dragline, which are the mining methods currently in use at the mine. The coal would be used primarily for electric power generation. After mining, the land would be reclaimed for livestock grazing and wildlife use as is the current practice at the Black Thunder Mine. Industrial postmining land uses, which include but are not limited to oil and gas wells, pipelines, roads, rail lines, and utility easements, also would be reestablished as required.

1-10

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1.0 Introduction 1.1.2 West Hilight Field LBA Tract

The West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for and the existing federal coal leases in the adjacent Black Thunder Mine are shown in Figure 1-2. As applied for, the West Hilight Field LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal coal and includes approximately 2,370.52 acres and an estimated 377.9 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. As of January 1, 2008, TBCC estimates the in-place reserves at the existing Black Thunder Mine to be 1,344.0 million tons, of which approximately 1,236.4 million tons of those remaining reserves would be recoverable. Black Thunder Mine’s currently approved by WDEQ/AQD air quality permits (Permit Numbers MD-417A, MD-877, MD-1178, MD-1555, MD-6824, and MD-3851, which were approved on July 1, 1999, June 23, 2003, July 12, 2005, May 13, 2007, January 22, 2008, and August 18, 2008, respectively) allow up to 135 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Black Thunder Mine produced approximately 65.3 million tons of coal in 2007, 67.3 million tons of coal in 2006, 62.7 million tons of coal in 2005, 66.8 million tons of coal in 2004, and 62.6 million tons of coal in 2003. ALC proposes to mine the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for as a maintenance tract for the Black Thunder Mine. As discussed above, the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for consists of a single block west of the Black Thunder Mine; a portion of the tract borders the mine’s current mining permit boundary (Figure 1-2). The area applied for is similar to the adjacent mines for which detailed site-specific environmental data have been collected. Additionally, environmental analyses have previously been prepared for existing leases and mining permits. As shown in Figure 1-1, the West Hilight Field LBA Tract is not contiguous with any other existing mines. The surface of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for is owned by TBCC, James R. & Irene Stuart Trusts, and the United States of America. The federally owned surface comprises roughly 29 percent (approximately 695.9 acres) of the tract as applied for and is part of the TBNG, administered by the USFS. Current land uses of the tract include grazing by domestic livestock and wildlife, oil and gas production, recreation, and transportation (i.e., public road). The mining methods would be a truck and shovel pre-benching operation in advance of a dragline, while cast blasting may be employed to supplement dragline productivity, which are the mining methods currently in use at the mine. The coal would be used primarily for electric power generation. After mining, the land would be reclaimed for livestock grazing and wildlife use as is the current practice at the Black Thunder Mine. Industrial postmining land uses, which include but are not limited to oil and gas wells, pipelines, roads, and utility easements, also would be reestablished as required. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 1-11

1.0 Introduction 1.1.3 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract

The West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for and the existing federal coal leases in the adjacent Jacobs Ranch Mine are shown in Figure 1-3. As applied for, the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal coal and includes approximately 5,944.37 acres and an estimated 669.6 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. As of January 1, 2008, JRCC estimates the in-place reserves at the existing Jacobs Ranch Mine to be 450.0 million tons, of which approximately 423.0 million tons of those remaining reserves would be recoverable. The Jacobs Ranch Mine’s current WDEQ/AQD air quality permit (Permit Number MD 1005A2, approved on January 22, 2007) allows up to 55 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Jacobs Ranch Mine produced approximately 38.1 million tons of coal in 2007, 40.0 million tons of coal in 2006, 37.3 million tons of coal in 2005, 38.6 million tons of coal in 2004, and 36.0 million tons of coal in 2003. As discussed above, the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for consists of a single block located approximately 0.75 mile west of Jacobs Ranch Mine’s current mining permit boundary. A portion of the tract is within Black Thunder Mine’s current permit area (Figures 1-2 and 1-3). The area applied for is similar to the adjacent mines for which detailed site-specific environmental data have been collected. Additionally, environmental analyses have previously been prepared for existing leases and mining permits. The surface of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for is owned by JRCC, Boller-Mills Ranch LP, William M. & Lois R. Chittenden, and Ark Land Company. Current land uses of the tract include grazing by domestic livestock and wildlife, oil and gas production, recreation, and transportation (i.e., public roads and railroad). The mining methods would likely be a truck and shovel pre-benching operation in advance of a dragline, while cast blasting may be employed to supplement dragline productivity. The coal would be used primarily for electric power generation. After mining, the land would be reclaimed for livestock grazing and wildlife use as is the current practice at the Jacobs Ranch Mine. Industrial postmining land uses, which include but are not limited to oil and gas wells, pipelines, roads, and utility easements, also would be reestablished as required. 1.1.4 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts

As applied for, the Porcupine LBA Tract, adjacent to the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, consisted of two separate blocks of federal coal and included a total of approximately 8,981.74 acres with an estimated 910.9 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. The BLM split this LBA into two separate tracts, the 1-12 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1.0 Introduction
30 29 28 27 26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R.70W. R.69W. T. 45
N. T. 44 N.

T.
45 N. T. 44 N.

Keeline Road
6

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

Ke elin e

Jacobs Road

Ro 13 ad

Shroyer Road
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20

Small Road
26

T. 44 31 N. T. 43 N.

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

Sta

High

way

450

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R.70W. R.69W.

LEGEND
Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Boundary West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-172685) Jacobs Ranch Mine Lease WYW-23928 Jacobs Ranch Mine Lease WYW-87582 Jacobs Ranch Mine Lease WYW-117924 Jacobs Ranch Mine Lease WYW-146744
0 5000 10000 20000

Jacobs Ranch Mine Lease WYW-148123 Jacobs Ranch Mine Lease WYW-149516

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 1-3. Jacobs Ranch Mine's Federal Coal Leases and West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1-13

1.0 Introduction North and South Porcupine Tracts, as shown in Figure 1-4, and will process the two tracts separately. The North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for includes approximately 5,795.78 acres and an estimated 601.2 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. The South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for includes approximately 3,185.96 acres and an estimated 309.7 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. As of January 1, 2008, PRC estimates the in-place reserves at the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine to be 1,156.0 million tons, of which approximately 1,031.4 million tons of those remaining reserves would be recoverable. North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current WDEQ/AQD air quality permits (MD-1172, MD-1309, and MD-1331, approved in June 2005, and January and March 2006, respectively) allow up to 105 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine produced approximately 91.5 million tons of coal in 2007, 88.5 million tons of coal in 2006, 82.7 million tons of coal in 2005, 82.5 million tons of coal in 2004, and 80.1 million tons of coal in 2003. The North Porcupine tract is contiguous with the North Antelope Rochelle Mine; the South Porcupine tract is contiguous with both the North Antelope Rochelle Mine and the Antelope Mine. Both tracts lie completely within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current permit area (Figure 1-4). The area applied for is similar to the adjacent mines for which detailed site-specific environmental data have been collected. Additionally, environmental analyses have previously been prepared for existing leases and mining permits. The surface of the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for is owned by PRC, LLC., Jerry N. & Rhonda Wilkinson, the State of Wyoming, Western Railroad Properties, Inc., and the United States of America. The federally owned surface comprises roughly 72 percent (approximately 4,186.0 acres) of the tract as applied for and is part of the TBNG, administered by the USFS. The surface of the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for is owned by PRC, LLC., Jerry J. Dilts Living Trust, Jerry J. Dilts Family LP 1, Bridle Bit Ranch Company, Jerry J. Dilts Family LP II and Bridle Bit Ranch Company, and the United States of America. The federally owned surface comprises roughly 51 percent (approximately 1,637.2 acres) of the tract as applied for and is part of the TBNG, administered by the USFS. Current land uses of the tracts include grazing by domestic livestock and wildlife, oil and gas production, recreation, and transportation (i.e., rail lines and public roads). The mining methods would be a truck and shovel pre-benching operation in advance of a dragline, while cast blasting may be employed to supplement dragline productivity, which are the methods currently in use at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. The coal would be used primarily for electric power generation. After mining, the land would be reclaimed for livestock grazing and wildlife use as is the current practice at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. Industrial 1-14 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1.0 Introduction
Hili g ht Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
2 1 6 5 4 3 2

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
Sc
10 9

Edwards Road

Reno Road

re lC hoo

ad Ro ek

Antel ope R oad

BNSF & UP RR

NORTH PORCUPINE
22 23 24 19 20 21 22

Reno Road

Mackey Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Mackey Road
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32

Matheson Road
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

SOUTH PORCUPINE
21 22 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20

Campbell County Converse County
29

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

pe lo te An

ad
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-173408) South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-176095) North Antelope Rochelle Mine Lease WYW-0321779
0 5000 10000 20000

North Antelope Rochelle Mine Lease WYW-60231 North Antelope Rochelle Mine Lease WYW-119554 North Antelope Rochelle Mine Lease WYW-136142 North Antelope Rochelle Mine Lease WYW-150210 North Antelope Rochelle Mine Lease WYW-87364

North Antelope Rochelle Mine Lease WYW-125794 North Antelope Rochelle Mine Lease WYW-151896 North Antelope Rochelle Mine Lease WYW-154001 North Antelope Rochelle Mine Lease WYW-155534

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 1-4. North Antelope Rochelle Mine's Federal Coal Leases and North Porcupine and South Porcupine LBA Tracts as Applied for.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1-15

1.0 Introduction postmining land uses, which include but are not limited to oil and gas wells, pipelines, roads, rail lines, and utility easements, also would be reestablished as required. 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action Approximately 92 percent of the total coal that is mined in the U.S. is used for generating reasonably priced electricity (EIA 2008a, 2008b). Coal is mined in 27 states (EIA 2008b); the low cost and abundance of coal resources within the country is one of the primary reasons why consumers in the U.S. currently benefit from some of the lowest electricity rates of any free-market economy (DOE 2009). Electricity is important to the country’s security and economy and is structured on a market-based supply and demand system. Currently, coalfired electric generating plants are the cornerstone of the nation’s central power configuration (DOE 2007a). Approximately half of the electricity currently generated in the United States comes from coal (DOE 2009). Wyoming coal is used to generate electricity in 36 other states (WMA 2009). The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) mandated BLM to manage public lands for multiple use so that the lands are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people. FLPMA authorized BLM to manage the use, occupancy, and development of public lands through leases and permits (BLM 2007a). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs federal agencies to undertake efforts to ensure energy efficiency and the production of secure, affordable, and reliable domestic energy. A primary goal of the National Energy Policy is to add energy supplies from diverse sources, including domestic oil, gas, and coal, as well as hydropower and nuclear power. BLM recognizes that the continued extraction of coal is essential in order to meet the nation’s energy needs. As a result, private development of federal coal reserves is integral to the BLM coal leasing program under the authority of the MLA, as well as FLPMA and Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 (FCLAA). The United States has the world’s largest known coal reserves (EIA 2008b). The BLM’s coal leasing program encourages the development of domestic coal reserves and the reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign sources of energy. As a result of the leasing, mining, and sale of federal coal resources in the PRB, the public has a reliable supply of low sulfur coal for generating affordable electric power. The public also receives extensive revenue from lease bonuses, rentals, and royalty payments. As this EIS describes, the Black Thunder Mine, Jacobs Ranch Mine, and the North Antelope Rochelle Mine have applied for a total of six maintenance tracts of federal coal reserves. The mines applied for these reserves in order to 1-16 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1.0 Introduction continue to supply and sell low sulfur coal to power plants for the purpose of generating electric power for the public. This EIS is being prepared in response to the four coal lease applications that BLM received from the three mines mentioned above. In response to each of the applications, the BLM must decide whether to: 1) hold a competitive, sealed-bid lease sale for the tract as applied for, 2) hold a competitive, sealedbid lease sale for a modified tract, or 3) reject the current lease application and not offer the tract for sale at this time. If a decision is made to lease a tract of federal coal and if the tract is sold and a lease is issued, the federal coal lease would grant the lessee the exclusive right to apply for a WDEQ mining permit. The WDEQ approved mining permit is what allows coal mining to take place on a lease. It authorizes surface disturbance and mining operations subject to the terms of the lease, the mining permit, and applicable state and federal laws. Before mining operations can be conducted on a new lease, the lessee must obtain approval of a detailed mining permit. Additionally, for federal coal lessees, the lessee may not conduct surface coal mining operations on federal coal land prior to obtaining approval of the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) mining plan, through OSM and by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management. If an LBA tract is leased to the applicant as a maintenance tract, the permit to conduct mining operations for the adjacent mine would have to be amended to include the new lease area before it could be disturbed. This process takes several years to complete. ALC, JRCC, and BTU are applying for federal coal reserves now so that they can secure coal resources to market, enter into new contracts, and complete the permitting processes in time to mine the new federal reserves in a logical progression. If a tract is leased, a WDEQ mining permit is obtained and Assistant Secretarial approval through OSM is obtained. The coal would then be mined and sold to power plants for the purpose of generating electricity for the United States. Continued leasing of low sulfur PRB coal would assist coal-fired power plants in meeting the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements without constructing new plants or revamping existing ones. This helps to provide a stable supply of power to meet increasing electrical demands without a potentially significant increase in power costs for the public. This EIS analyzes the environmental impacts of issuing federal coal leases and mining the federal coal in the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine maintenance coal lease applications as required by NEPA and associated rules and guidelines. A decision to hold a competitive sale and issue a lease for the lands in any of these applications is a prerequisite for mining but it is not the enabling action that would authorize mining.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1-17

1.0 Introduction The BLM does not authorize mining operations by issuing a lease. After a lease has been issued but prior to mine development, the lessee must file a permit application package with the Land Quality Division (LQD) of the WDEQ and OSM for a surface mining permit and approval of the MLA mining plan. An analysis of a detailed site-specific mining and reclamation plan occurs at that time. Authorities and responsibilities of the BLM and other concerned regulatory agencies are described in the following sections. 1.3 Regulatory Authority and Responsibility The four Wright Area coal lease applications analyzed in this EIS were submitted to BLM and will be processed and evaluated under the following federal authorities: • • • • • • MLA, as amended; Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960; NEPA; FCLAA; FLPMA; and SMCRA.

The development of federal coal reserves is integral to the BLM coal leasing program under the authority of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as well as the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 (FCLAA). The BLM is the lead agency responsible for leasing federal coal lands under the MLA as amended by FCLAA and is also responsible for preparation of this EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of issuing a coal lease. OSM is a cooperating agency on this EIS. After a federal coal lease is issued, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) gives OSM primary responsibility to administer programs that regulate surface coal mining operations and the surface effects of underground coal mining operations. USFS is also a cooperating agency on this EIS. If any USFSadministered lands are included in a tract that is proposed for leasing, USFS must consent to leasing the federal coal before BLM can make a decision to hold a federal coal lease sale. WDEQ is also a cooperating agency on this EIS. Pursuant to Section 503 of SMCRA, the 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 SMCRA, 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. 1-18 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1.0 Introduction Pursuant to the cooperative agreement, a federal coal lease holder in Wyoming must submit a permit application package to OSM and WDEQ/LQD for any proposed coal mining and reclamation operations on federal lands in the state. WDEQ/LQD reviews the permit application package to insure the permit application complies with the permitting requirements and the coal mining operation will meet the performance standards of the approved Wyoming program. OSM, BLM, USFS and other federal agencies review the permit application package to insure it complies with the terms of the coal lease, the MLA, NEPA, and other federal laws and their attendant regulations. If the permit application package complies, WDEQ issues the applicant a permit to conduct coal mining operations. OSM recommends approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the MLA mining plan to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management. Before the MLA mining plan can be approved, the BLM must concur with this recommendation. If a proposed LBA tract is leased to an existing mine, the lessee is required to revise its coal mining permit prior to mining the coal, following the processes outlined above. As a part of that process, a detailed new plan would be developed showing how the newly-leased lands would be mined and reclaimed. The area of mining disturbance would be larger than the newly-leased area to allow for activities such as overstripping, matching reclaimed topography to undisturbed topography, constructing flood control and sediment control facilities, and related activities. Specific impacts that would occur during the mining and reclamation of the LBA tract would be addressed in the mining and reclamation plan, and specific mitigation measures for anticipated impacts would be described in detail at that time. WDEQ enforces the performance standards and permit requirements for reclamation during a mine’s operation and has primary authority in environmental emergencies. OSM retains oversight responsibility for this enforcement. Where federal surface or coal resources are involved, BLM, and USFS for USFS-administered lands, have authority in emergency situations if WDEQ or OSM cannot act before environmental harm and damage occurs. Appendix A presents other federal and state permitting requirements that must be satisfied to mine these LBA tracts. 1.4 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs In addition to the federal acts listed under Section 1.3, guidance and regulations for managing and administering public lands, including the federal coal lands in the ALC, JRCC, and BTU applications, are set forth in 40 CFR 1500 (Protection of Environment), 43 CFR 1601 (Planning, Programming, Budgeting), and 43 CFR 3400 (Coal Management). Specific guidance for processing applications is provided by BLM Manual 3420, Competitive Coal Leasing (BLM 1989) and the 1991 Powder River Regional Coal Team Operational Guidelines For Coal Lease-By-Applications (BLM 1991). The Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 1-19

1.0 Introduction National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (BLM 2008) has been followed in developing this EIS. 1.5 Conformance with Existing Land Use Plans FCLAA requires that lands considered for leasing be included in a comprehensive land use plan and that leasing decisions be compatible with that plan. The BLM Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office (BLM 2001a), an update of the Buffalo Resource Area Resource Management Plan (BLM 1985a), governs and addresses the leasing of federal coal in Campbell County. The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Thunder Basin National Grassland, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, Rocky Mountain Region (USFS 2001) offers guidance for all resource management activities on the TBNG. The major land use planning decision that BLM must make concerning the federal coal resources is a determination of which federal coal lands are acceptable for further consideration for leasing. There are four screening procedures that BLM uses to identify these coal lands. These screening procedures require BLM to:
   

estimate development potential of the coal lands; apply the Unsuitability Criteria listed in the regulations at 43 CFR 3461; make multiple land use decisions that eliminate federal coal deposits from consideration for leasing to protect other resource values; and consult with surface owners who meet the criteria defined in the regulations at 43 CFR 3400.0-5(gg)(1) and (2).

Only those federal coal lands that pass these screens are given further consideration for leasing. BLM has applied these coal screens to federal coal lands in the Wyoming PRB 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. This analysis was adopted in the 2001 BLM Buffalo Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) update (BLM 2001a). The results of this analysis were included as Appendix D of the 2001 RMP update, which can be viewed in the 2001 NEPA documents section on the Wyoming BLM website at: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents.html. The coal screen was completed for use not only in updating the 1985 Buffalo RMP but also the TBNG planning documents. Appendix D of the 2001 RMP update was prepared in cooperation with the USFS, Douglas Ranger District for lands within the TBNG. Under the first coal screening procedure, a coal tract must be located within an area that has been determined to have coal development potential in order to be acceptable for further consideration for leasing (43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(1)). The lands in these four coal lease applications are within the area identified as 1-20 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1.0 Introduction having coal development potential by the BLM and the USFS in the coal screening analyses published in the 2001 BLM and USFS planning documents. The second coal screening procedure requires the application of the coal mining unsuitability criteria listed in the federal coal management regulations at 43 CFR 3461. The coal mining unsuitability criteria were applied to high to moderate coal development potential lands in the Wyoming PRB, including the six LBA tracts and surrounding lands in these four coal lease applications, during the coal screening conducted for the 2001 BLM Buffalo Field Office RMP update. Appendix B of this EIS summarizes the Unsuitability Criteria, describes the general findings for the 2001 BLM Buffalo Field Office RMP update, and presents a validation of these findings for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. Unsuitability Criterion Number 2 addresses lands within rights-of-way (ROWs) on federal lands. Under this criterion, portions of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe & Union Pacific (BNSF & UP) railroad ROW shall be considered unsuitable for surface coal mining. As shown in Figures 1-2 and 1-4, the BNSF & UP railroad borders the west sides of the North and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts as applied for, crosses the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for, and lies west of and adjacent to the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for. Unsuitability Criterion Number 3 addresses lands used for public roads and other public purposes. Wyoming State Highway 450 east of the BNSF & UP railroad shall be considered unsuitable for surface coal mining. The 2001 BLM Buffalo RMP update deferred a decision on the unsuitability of the public road ROWs and associated buffer zones (with the exclusion of Wyoming State Highway 450 east of the BNSF & UP railroad and Interstate Highway I-90 ROWs) until a leasing action occurred. There were no findings of unsuitability for the other criteria listed in the regulations; however, as indicated in Appendix B, several criteria will be further evaluated during the leasing process. The third coal screening procedure, a multiple land use conflict analysis, must be completed to identify and “eliminate additional coal deposits from further consideration for leasing to protect resource values of a locally important or unique nature not included in the Unsuitability Criteria,” in accordance with 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(3). The 2001 Buffalo RMP update addresses two types of multiple land use conflicts: municipal/residential conflicts and multiple mineral development (coal versus oil and gas) conflicts. The North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts do not lie within or in proximity to an identified buffer zone surrounding an existing community. Therefore, no federal coal lands within these six LBA tracts have been Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 1-21

1.0 Introduction eliminated from further consideration for leasing due to municipal/residential conflicts. The 2001 Buffalo RMP includes two decisions related to multiple mineral development conflicts in Campbell, Converse and Sheridan counties. With respect to oil and gas leasing in coal mining areas, the RMP update determines that oil and gas tracts that would interfere with coal mining operations would not be offered for lease but that, where possible, oil and gas leases will be issued with specific conditions to prevent a development conflict with coal mining operations. With respect to coal leasing in oil and gas fields, the 2001 Buffalo RMP update states that coal leasing in producing oil and gas fields would be deferred unless or until coal development would not interfere with the economic recovery of the oil and gas resources, as determined on a case by case basis. Both conventional and coal bed natural gas (CBNG) wells have been drilled within or around the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. BLM’s evaluation of the potential for conflict with the development of oil and gas resources within the LBA tracts is included in the Mineral Resources discussion in Section 3.3 of this EIS. BLM’s policy and guidance on conflicts between surface coal mine and CBNG development is to optimize the recovery of both resources and ensure that the public receives a reasonable return, as explained in BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153 (BLM 2006b). The fourth coal screening procedure requires consultation with surface owners who meet the criteria defined in the regulations at 43 CFR 3400.0-5(gg)(1) and (2). Chapter 7 includes a definition of the term “qualified surface owner,” based on these regulations. Surface owner consultation was conducted as part of the coal screening analysis published in the 2001 Buffalo RMP update. Private surface owners in the Gillette coal development potential area were provided the opportunity to express their preference for or against surface mining of federal coal under their private surface estate during that screening. At that time, no attempt was made to distinguish qualified surface owners, and Appendix D of the 2001 Buffalo RMP update states that “no area should be dropped from further consideration for leasing as a result of responses received from surface owners.” Therefore, no federal coal lands within the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts have been eliminated from further consideration for leasing due to qualified surface owner conflicts at this time. The current surface ownership of the LBA tracts is discussed in Section 1.1 of this chapter and in Section 3.11. Private surface owners who are found to be qualified must consent to leasing before BLM can offer the underlying federal coal for lease. BLM will review the current surface ownership in the tracts that will be considered for leasing prior to holding a lease sale for each tract. Prior to holding a lease sale, surface owner consultation must be completed with any private surface owners who are determined to be qualified. 1-22 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1.0 Introduction In summary, the lands in the ALC, JRCC, and BTU coal lease applications have been subjected to the four coal planning screens. The results are detailed in Appendix B and detailed in the description of the proposed action and alternatives for each LBA tract contained in Chapter 2 of this EIS. Thus, a decision to lease the federal coal lands in these applications, conditioned consistent with RMP decisions, would be in conformance with the current BLM Buffalo RMP and the TBNG RMP. 1.6 Consultation and Coordination Initial Involvement BLM received the Hilight Field coal lease application on October 7, 2005, the West Hilight Field coal lease application on January 17, 2006, the West Jacobs Ranch coal lease application on March 24, 2006, and the Porcupine coal lease application on September 29, 2006. The applications were initially reviewed by the BLM Wyoming State Office-Division of Minerals and Lands. BLM ruled that these four applications and the lands involved met the requirements of regulations governing coal leasing on application (43 CFR 3425). The BLM Wyoming State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming on April 27, 2006, that ALC had filed a lease application with BLM for the North Hilight Field and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts. The BLM Wyoming State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming on February 2, 2006, that ALC had filed a lease application with BLM for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. The BLM Wyoming State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming on September 18, 2006, that JRCC had filed a lease application with BLM for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. The BLM Wyoming State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming on March 14, 2007, that BTU had filed a lease application with BLM for the North Porcupine and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. The PRRCT reviewed the Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, and West Jacobs Ranch maintenance coal lease applications at a public meeting held on April 19, 2006 in Casper, Wyoming. The PRRCT reviewed the Porcupine maintenance coal lease application at a public meeting held on January 18, 2007 in Casper, Wyoming. Each of the applicants presented information about their existing mine and pending lease application to the PRRCT at those meetings. The PRRCT recommended that the BLM continue to process all four lease applications at those respective meetings. The major steps in processing an LBA are shown in Appendix C. BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS and Notice of Public Meeting in the Federal Register on July 3, 2007, in the Gillette News-Record on July 6, 2007, and in the Douglas Budget on July 11, 2007. The publications served as public notice that the Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, and Porcupine coal lease applications had been received, announced the time and location of a public scoping meeting, and requested public comment on the four applications. Letters requesting public comment and Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 1-23

1.0 Introduction announcing the time and location of the public scoping meeting were mailed to all parties on the distribution list on July 11, 2007. A public scoping meeting was held July 24, 2007 in Gillette, Wyoming. At the public meeting, the applicants orally presented information about their mines and their needs for the coal. The presentations were followed with a question and answer period, during which three oral comments were made. The scoping period extended from July 3 through September 3, 2007, during which time BLM received nine comment letters. Chapter 5 provides a list of other federal, state, and local governmental agencies that were consulted in preparation of this EIS and the distribution list for this EIS. Issues and Concerns Issues that have been identified through scoping and other recently expressed concerns related to the potential impacts of leasing the Wright Area maintenance tracts and other federal coal in the Wyoming PRB include:
                 



potential conflicts between coal mining and existing and proposed conventional oil and gas and CBNG development; potential cumulative impacts of coal leasing decisions combined with other existing and proposed development in the Wyoming PRB; potential impacts to Highway 450 and other transportation routes; potential impacts to people living in the area; socioeconomic concerns; potential impacts to ranching operations associated with the loss of grazing leases and permits; noxious weed concerns; potential impacts to visual resources; potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources; potential impacts to Greater sage-grouse and other wildlife; potential impacts to threatened and endangered species and other species of concern; potential impacts to wetland resources; potential impacts related to coal loss during rail transport; potential air quality impacts and cumulative impacts to visibility; potential surface and groundwater quality and quantity impacts; potential impacts associated with nitrogen oxide emissions resulting from the blasting of coal and overburden; human health impacts; the need to address reasonably foreseeable actions, including the construction and operation of the DM&E railroad and power plants, in the cumulative analysis; the need to address mercury, coal combustion residues, and other byproducts from coal-fired power plants; Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

1-24

1.0 Introduction
   

the need to address increasing PRB coal production in the cumulative analysis; the need to address site-specific greenhouse gas emissions; ozone; and climate change.

Draft EIS Parties on the distribution list were sent copies of this Draft EIS, and copies are available for review at the BLM offices in Casper and Cheyenne, Wyoming. The document is also available for review on the BLM Wyoming website at: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/cfodocs/WrightCoal.html. Due to the amount of information available on these tracts, a separate document entitled Supplementary Information on the Affected Environment in the General Analysis Areas for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS was prepared. This supplementary document provides additional detailed information on the existing environment in and around each of these six tracts of federal coal reserves. Copies of the supplementary information document are available upon request and can be viewed at the BLM offices in Casper and Cheyenne. A notice announcing the availability of the Draft EIS will be published in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A 60-day comment period on the Draft EIS will commence with publication of the EPA’s Notice of Availability (NOA). BLM will also publish a Federal Register notice that will announce the date and time of the public hearing, which will be held during the 60-day comment period. The purpose of the public hearing will be to solicit public comments on the Draft EIS and on the fair market value, the maximum economic recovery, and the proposed competitive sale of federal coal from the LBA tracts. BLM will also publish a notice of public hearing in the Gillette News-Record and Douglas Budget newspapers. Final EIS and Future Involvement All substantive written comments received on the Draft EIS will be included, with agency responses, in the Final EIS. Availability of the Final EIS will be published in the Federal Register by the BLM and the EPA. After a 30-day availability period commencing from the date of the EPA’s notice, BLM will make individual decisions to hold or not to hold a competitive lease sale for the federal coal in the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. The USFS must consent to leasing the federal coal underlying lands that they administer before BLM can include those lands in a decision to hold a federal coal lease sale. If any lands administered by the USFS are included in the tract that BLM considers for leasing, the USFS will issue a separate record of decision (ROD) consenting to leasing those lands. The decision to consent to Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 1-25

1.0 Introduction leasing the USFS land can be appealed within 45 days from the date the USFS ROD is issued. A public ROD for the tract will be mailed to parties on the mailing list and others who commented on this EIS during the NEPA process. The public and/or the applicant can appeal the BLM decision to hold or not to hold a competitive sale and issue a lease for the tract. The BLM decision must be appealed within 30 days from the date the NOA for the ROD is published in the Federal Register. The decision can be implemented at that time if no appeal is received. If a competitive lease sale is held, the lease sale will follow the procedures set forth in 43 CFR 3422, 43 CFR 3425, and BLM Handbook H 3420-1 (Competitive Coal Leasing). Department of Justice Consultation After each competitive coal lease sale, but prior to issuance of the lease, the BLM must solicit the opinion of the Department of Justice on whether the planned lease issuance creates a situation inconsistent with federal antitrust laws. The Department of Justice is allowed 30 days to make this determination. If the Department of Justice has not responded in writing within the 30 days, the BLM can proceed with issuance of the lease.

1-26

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
This chapter describes the Proposed Action and alternatives to this action for each of the six Lease by Application (LBA1) tracts being evaluated in this EIS. The six LBA tracts are the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts as applied for by Ark Land Company (ALC), West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for by Jacobs Ranch Coal Company (JRCC), and North Porcupine and South Porcupine LBA Tracts as applied for by BTU Western Resources, Inc. (BTU). For each tract, the Proposed Action is to hold a separate competitive lease sale and issue a separate lease for the federal coal lands included in the tract as applied for by the applicant. Under each Proposed Action, the tract as applied for would be offered for lease at one competitive sealed bid lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the Powder River Basin (PRB) and that tract. The boundaries of each tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed by each applicant. Figures 2-1 through 2-6 show the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, respectively, under each Proposed Action. In each case, the Proposed Action assumes that the applicant would be the successful bidder on each tract, and that the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for an existing mine. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires the consideration and evaluation of other reasonable ways to meet proposal objectives while minimizing or avoiding environmental impacts. Thus, NEPA requires the evaluation of a No Action Alternative and a practical range of other “reasonable” alternatives that may avoid or minimize project impacts. Reasonable alternatives are defined by NEPA as those that are technically, economically, and environmentally practical and feasible. Reasonable alternatives are formulated to address issues and concerns raised by the public and agencies during scoping. These alternatives should represent another means of satisfying the stated purpose and need for the federal action. The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) for each tract considered in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to reject the lease application. Under the No Action Alternative, a tract would not be offered for competitive sale, and the coal contained within the tract would not be mined as proposed. Rejection of an application would not affect currently permitted mining activities on existing leases at any of the applicant mines and selection of the No Action Alternative would not preclude an application to lease any rejected tract in the future. Portions of the surface of each LBA tract would probably be disturbed due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the adjacent existing leases.

Refer to page xxvi for a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this document.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-1

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
BNSF & UP RR

Hili ght Road

Kee line

Road

Jacobs

Shroyer Road

Road

Small Road
26
25

T. 44
N.

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

T. 43
N. 3

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

S ta
11

Hig

hwa y

450

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 2-1. North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

2-2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
8 9

Hilight Road

BNSF & UP RR

Sta te

Hig

hw ay

45 0

T. 43
N. T. 42
N.

Hilight Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road

Antel ope R oad

BNSF & UP RR

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 2-2. South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-3

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives
Hilight Road

R. 71 W.

Shroyer Road

Black Thunder Mine's Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area
29 28 27

Small Road
26

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

T. 44
N.

T. 43
2 N.

State Highway 450

LEGEND
18 17 16 15 14

Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for

Additional Area Evaluated Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative Additional Area Evaluated
Under Alternative 3

BNSF & UP RR

T. 43
N. T. 42 N.

T. 43
N. T. 42
N.
0 3000 6000
12000

Matheson Road

Hilight Road

Ed wa rd s 5
Ro ad

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

R. 71 W.

Figure 2-3. West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

2-4

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
12 7 8

BNSF & UP RR

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
11 12 7

Hilight Road

Shroyer Road

Small Road
26 25 30

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State

Highway 450

S ta
10 11

Hig hw ay

450
7

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

3000

6000

12000

Figure 2-4. West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-5

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
14 13 18 16 17 15 14 13

B NS F & UP RR

Antelope Road

B NS F & UP RR

Antelope Road

2-6
15

Reno Road

22 19 20 21 22

24 23

Matheson

Road

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Mackey Road

28 30 29 28

Figure 2-5. North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives.
Mackey Road
34 31 32 35 36 33 34 35 36

T. 42 N.
Matheson Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

T. 41 N.
3 6 2 1 5

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

3000

6000

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
27 26 25 30 29 28 27

Matheson Road

Antel ope R oad

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Matheson

Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

BNSF & UP RR

Campbell County
28

30 26 25

Converse County

Road

Antelope

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary Existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine Federal Coal Leases South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for
0 3000 6000 12000

Additional Area Evaluated Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 2-6. South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-7

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Competitive Coal Leasing Manual (BLM Manual 3420-1) requires BLM to evaluate modifying the configuration of federal coal tracts based on providing for maximum economic recovery of the coal resource, maintaining or increasing the potential for competition, and avoiding future bypass or captive tract situations. For NEPA purposes, BLM identifies alternate tract configurations and evaluates them as alternatives to the Proposed Action. BLM has identified a study area for each LBA tract that includes each tract as applied for and adjacent unleased federal coal. Figures 2-1 through 2-6 show these study areas for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, respectively. BLM is evaluating these study areas for the purpose of identifying potential alternate tract configurations to the Proposed Action that would be technically, economically, or environmentally preferable to the Proposed Action. The Leasing on Application regulations at 43 CFR 3425.1-9 state that: “The authorized officer may add or delete lands from an area covered by an application for any reason he/she determines to be in the public interest.” Accordingly, in evaluating alternate tract configurations, BLM could either increase or decrease the size of each tract as applied for. The potential tract configurations, and therefore the potential number of alternatives evaluated for NEPA purposes, can vary for each tract. In this EIS, one alternative, Alternative 2, is evaluated in addition to the Proposed Action and Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) for all of the tracts considered in this EIS. Under Alternative 2 for each tract, BLM is evaluating adding all or part of the BLM study area to the tract as applied for and/or reducing the size of the tract as applied for. For only the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, another alternative, Alternative 3, is evaluated in detail in this EIS in addition to the Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3 for the West Hilight Field tract, BLM is evaluating adding all or part of the BLM study area and all or part of Thunder Basin Coal Company’s (TBCC’s) permitted Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area (Figure 2-3). One competitive sealed bid sale would be held for each tract as configured by BLM. Two alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail. They are: • holding a competitive lease sale and issuing a lease for federal coal lands included in one or more of the LBA tracts (as applied for or as modified by BLM), with the assumption that one or more of the tracts would be developed as a new mine (see Section 2.7.1), and • delaying the sale of one or more of the LBA tracts as applied for in order to take advantage of higher coal prices and/or to allow recovery of the potential coal bed natural gas (CBNG) resources in the tract prior to mining. Under this alternative, it is assumed that one or more of the tracts could be developed later as a maintenance tract or a new mine start, depending on how long the sale was delayed (see Section 2.7.2). 2-8 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives LBA tracts are nominated for leasing by companies with an interest in acquiring them but, as discussed in Chapter 1, the LBA process is, by law and regulation, an open, public, competitive sealed-bid process. If a tract is offered for lease, the applicant for that tract may or may not be the high bidder when the lease sale is held. For each tract, the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 considered in this EIS assume that the applicant that applied for the tract would be the successful bidder if the federal coal included in the tract is offered for lease, and that each tract would be mined as a maintenance tract for an existing permitted mine. If a decision is made to hold a competitive lease sale for a tract of federal coal and a lease is issued, the lessee must obtain a permit to conduct coal mining operations before mining can begin on the tract. As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.3, this permit application would undergo detailed review by state and federal agencies as part of the approval process. The detailed permit application for each tract could potentially differ from the more general mining plan used in this EIS to analyze the impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 for each tract, but the differences would not be expected to substantially change the impacts described here. These differences would typically be related to the details of mining and reclaiming each tract but major factors, like the approximate number of tons of coal to be mined and yards of overburden to be removed, the acres disturbed, etc., would not be substantially different from the plans used in this analysis. If any of the tracts are leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3 for each tract, 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 the coal removal area would be due to activities like overstripping, matching undisturbed topography, and construction of flood control and sediment control structures. This is referred to as the general analysis area for that tract. The Proposed Action and Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 for each LBA tract will be referred to collectively as the Action Alternatives. For the Action Alternatives, future coal production rates are difficult to predict since mines must vary rates in response to the demand and competition for coal sales. BLM estimated future production rates for the purpose of estimating cumulative impacts. This was done as part of the Powder River Basin Coal Review - Task 2 Report - Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities (BLM 2005a). The production estimates were based on forecasted coal demand for Wyoming PRB coal through the year 2020, and production rates were allocated to the three mine groups in the basin (Wright Area, South Gillette Area, and North Gillette Area) as constrained by production capacity. The Wright Area mines include the Antelope Mine as well as the three mines with LBA tracts addressed in this EIS (Figure 1-1). For this mine group, production was forecasted to reach somewhere between 291 million tons (lower range) to 307 million tons (upper range) per year by 2020. Mining company estimates from this EIS, as well as the West Antelope II EIS (BLM 2008d), total 306 million tons per year (mmtpy) by 2020. The sum of the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-9

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives company projections is near the upper range of the forecasted Wright Area production rate. In addition, a fifth mine has been proposed in the Wright Area mine group. The proposed School Creek Mine has not been permitted at this time; however, if School Creek Mine opens, it will compete for a portion of the coal expected to be produced from this mine group, in response to demand and competition with other mines. 2.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract 2.1.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract Proposed Action ALC has filed an application for two separate LBA tracts (North Hilight Field and South Hilight Field). Each tract will be evaluated separately and if a decision is made to lease both of these tracts, a separate competitive lease sale will be held for each tract. Under the Proposed Action for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, the tract as applied for by ALC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D). The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the North Hilight Field lease application (Figure 2-1). The Proposed Action assumes that ALC would be the successful bidder on the North Hilight Field LBA Tract if it is offered for sale. The legal description of the proposed North Hilight Field LBA Tract coal lease lands as applied for by ALC under the Proposed Action is as follows: T.44N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 19: Lots 5 through 20; T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 23: Lots 1 through 16; Section 24: Lots 1 through 16; Section 26: Lots 1 through 16; Total:

656.88 acres

653.11 acres 653.44 acres 650.07 acres 2,613.50 acres

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives zone is not considered by TBCC to be mineable at this time because the cost that would be associated with moving the railroad tracks would make it economically unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. Although the federal coal underlying the railroad ROW and associated buffer zone would not be mined, it is included in the tract because it would allow maximum recovery of the mineable coal adjacent to but outside of the railroad ROW and its associated buffer zone and comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. Also, some of the coal in the above-described lands in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract is overlain by the Shroyer Road (County Road 116), which borders the North Hilight Field LBA Tract (Figure 2-1). The Surface 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)). Some of the coal in the above-described lands in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract is also within 100 feet of the Hilight Road (Campbell County Road 52) ROW. However, because the Hilight Road lies parallel and adjacent to the BNSF & UP rail line (Figure 2-1), the 100-foot buffer zone associated with the railroad ROW actually extends farther east and overlies more coal within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract than the 100-foot buffer zone associated with the Hilight Road ROW. The coal that is underlying the Shroyer Road, its ROW, and associated 100-foot buffer zone, and the coal that is within 100 feet of the Hilight Road ROW has been determined to be unsuitable for mining in accordance with SMCRA and as specified under Unsuitability Criterion 3 (43 CFR 3461). 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 (Campbell County Board of Commissioners) allows the public roads 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. The Small Road (Campbell County Road 89) also overlies the North Hilight Field LBA Tract (Figure 2-1); however, it has been vacated by the Campbell County Commissioners. If TBCC obtains approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to move the Shroyer Road, the exception to the prohibition on mining within the public road ROW and buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, TBCC would be able to recover the coal underlying the county road ROW and its associated buffer zone. TBCC would not need to consider moving the Hilight Road for the reason explained above. If TBCC does not obtain approval to move or close the Shroyer Road, the coal underlying its ROW and associated buffer zone would remain unsuitable for mining and would not be recovered. The federal coal underlying the Shroyer Road, its ROW and associated 100-foot buffer zone is included in the tract because it would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to but outside of the road ROW and associated buffer zone if the road is not moved; it would also allow recovery of the coal under the road if it is moved or closed. If a lease is issued for this tract, a Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-11

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portions of the lease within the ROW and buffer zone for the Shroyer Road and Hilight Road unless approval is obtained from the appropriate authority to move or close the road. TBCC estimates that the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for includes approximately 319.7 million tons of in-place coal. If the Shroyer Road is not moved or closed, and considering the coal underlying the BNSF & UP railroad ROW and buffer zone, TBCC estimates that the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for contains approximately 286.3 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Based on historical recovery practices, TBCC assumes that about 92 percent of that coal, or approximately 263.4 million tons of coal, would be recovered from the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for. If they acquire the tract and if the county road is not moved or closed, a total of 1,499.8 million tons of coal would be mined after January 1, 2008, with an estimated 263.4 million tons coming from the LBA tract. Based upon this estimate of recoverable reserves, about 17.6 percent of the in-place coal reserves included within the LBA tract would not be recovered under normal mining practices and due to the presence of the unmineable reserves within the railroad and public road ROWs and associated buffer zones. If the Shroyer Road is moved or closed, TBCC estimates that an additional 9.5 million tons of coal would be mineable in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for. The North Hilight Field LBA Tract would be mined as an integral part of the Black Thunder Mine under the Proposed Action. Since the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would be an extension of the existing Black Thunder Mine, the facilities and infrastructure would be the same as those identified in the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD) Mine Permit 233 Term T7, approved November 1, 2005 and the BLM Resource Recovery and Protection Plan (R2P2), which was approved December 12, 2006. TBCC’s currently approved air quality permits (Permit Numbers MD-417A, MD 877, MD-1178, MD-1555, MD-3851, and MD-6824) from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD) for the Black Thunder Mine allow up to 135 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Black Thunder Mine produced: • 62.6 million tons of coal in 2003, • 66.8 million tons of coal in 2004, • 62.7 million tons of coal in 2005, • 67.3 million tons of coal in 2006, and • 65.3 million tons of coal in 2007
(Wyoming Department of Employment 2003, Shamley 2008a).
As of December 31, 2007, approximately 1,071 million tons of coal had been mined from within the current permitted area of the mine. 2-12 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives TBCC estimates an average annual coal production rate of 100 mmtpy after 2008 for the Black Thunder Mine, increasing to an average of 135 mmtpy by 2015. If ALC acquires the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for, a total of approximately 1,499.8 million tons of coal would be recovered from the existing leases and the North Hilight Field LBA Tract after January 1, 2008, with an estimated 263.4 million tons coming from the LBA tract, as discussed above. With the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, coal production at the Black Thunder Mine would continue for approximately 12.2 years beyond 2008. The LBA tract accounts for approximately 2 years of the mine life extension. BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of the coal included in the tract will be included in the Final EIS and published in the sale notice if the tract is offered for sale. Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would be built as needed, and any public utility lines and oil and gas pipelines would be relocated as necessary. The first step of the mining process is soil salvage with suitable heavy equipment, such as rubber-tired scrapers. During initial pit development, soil is placed in temporary stockpiles for later use in final pit closure and reclamation. Whenever possible, direct haulage of soil from salvage areas to a reclamation area would be done, but due to scheduling, some topsoil would be temporarily stockpiled. As required by the reclamation plan, heavy equipment again would be used to haul and redistribute the stockpiled topsoil on regraded areas. The Black Thunder Mine is one of several mines currently operating in the PRB where the coal seams are notably thick and the overburden is relatively thin. Mining would be conducted in three separate pits identified as the North Pit, West Pit, and South Pit. After soil salvage operations are complete, blast holes are drilled down through the overburden to the top of the upper-most mineable coal seam. The drill holes are then loaded with explosives (a mixture of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, or ANFO) and detonated to fragment the overburden to facilitate efficient excavation. Overburden removal has been and would continue to be conducted primarily with draglines, trucks and shovels, and/or direct cast blasting. Other equipment used during overburden removal and backfilling includes dozers, scrapers, excavators, front-end loaders, graders, and water trucks. Exposed coal seams have been and would continue to be cleaned with a dozer, drilled and blasted to facilitate efficient excavation, and then loaded into haul trucks for transport to the coal crushing and storage facilities. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-13

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives The design of the Black Thunder Mine seeks to confine disturbance to the active mine blocks. As overburden is removed, most would be directly placed into the previous empty pit where coal has been removed. Chapter 4, Section 2(b)(i) of the WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules requires that rough backfilling and grading follow coal removal as closely as possible based on the mining conditions (WDEQ/LQD 2005). Replaced (backfilled) overburden is graded to approximate the original land surface contour, as required by WDEQ and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) rules. Elevations consistent with the approved post-mining topography (PMT) plan are established as quickly as possible to reconstruct a stable landscape and restore drainage. Under certain conditions, the PMT may not be immediately achievable. This occurs when there is an excess of material that may require temporary stockpiling, when there is insufficient material available from current overburden removal operations, or when future mining could redisturb an area already mined. Backfilled and recontoured overburden is sampled and analyzed to verify suitability as subsoil. Should unsuitable backfill materials be encountered (i.e., material that is not suitable for use in reestablishing vegetation or that may affect groundwater quality due to high concentrations of certain constituents, such as selenium or adverse pH levels), mitigation by additional soil depth, excavation and burial, or other special handling to remove them from the root zone would occur. Prior to soil distribution, regraded backfill is scarified to relieve compaction. Soil is redistributed on recontoured backfill using rubber-tired scrapers or haul trucks, dozers and blades. Once a seedbed has been formed, the reclaimed areas are revegetated using native grasses, forbs, and shrubs that are consistent with the postmining land use. According to a recent OSM evaluation of the Wyoming coal mining industry, the 2007 reclamation to disturbance ratio was approximately 80 percent (12,258 acres reclaimed vs. 15,321 acres disturbed) (OSM 2008). Coal would be produced from two mineable seams within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. TBCC refers to these seams as the Upper Wyodak (upper/rider seam) and the Middle Wyodak (main seam), which are separated by a shale parting that has an average thickness of approximately 1 foot. The Upper Wyodak seam averages 13 feet thick and the Middle Wyodak seam averages 48 feet thick. A third seam, the Lower Wyodak (basal seam), is not present over the entire tract. Coal would be mined at several working pit faces to enable blending of the coal to meet customer quality requirements, to comply with BLM lease requirements for maximum economic recovery of the coal resource, and to optimize coal removal efficiency with available equipment. Mining efficiency and air quality protection are and would continue to be facilitated by extensive use of near-pit crushers and overland conveyors. Coal would be loaded with electric-powered shovels or hydraulic excavators into off-highway haul trucks for transport to crushing facilities. Coal haul roads would be temporary structures built within the mine areas. All coal transfer location points and crushing operations are controlled by baghouse type dust collectors, dry foggers, or passive enclosure control systems (PECs). 2-14 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives The truck dumping operations use stilling sheds to control fugitive dust and the overland conveyor is covered by a dust hood. There are currently four existing crushing facilities, four existing silos, and a slot storage facility within the permit area that provide capacity to produce at the permitted level. New coal processing facilities and a new train loadout have been constructed within TBCC’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area (refer to Section 2.3.4 for a description of this area), will improve operating efficiency and air quality protection. The new Thundercloud near-pit crusher/conveyor systems would be used if ALC acquires the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. Full-time employment at the Black Thunder Mine is currently 1,080. If the mine increases production as estimated, employment would grow to 1,324 by 2013. If ALC acquires the North Hilight Field LBA Tract under the Proposed Action, they anticipate that Black Thunder Mine’s employment would remain at 1,324 for the additional 2 years that it would take to mine the coal included in the tract. As discussed in Chapter 1, ALC applied for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, but the tract is also adjacent to the Jacobs Ranch Mine, operated by Jacobs Ranch Coal Company (Figure 1-1). As a result, JRCC is potentially in a position to mine the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. If a company other than ALC was to acquire the tract, the rate of coal production, mining sequence, equipment, and facilities could be different than if ALC acquired the tract as a maintenance lease, as described above. However, the area of disturbance and the impacts of removing the coal would not be substantially different from the area of disturbance and the impacts of ALC mining the tract. 2.1.2 North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 1 Under the North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, ALC’s application to lease the coal included in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would be rejected. The tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities nor employment on the existing leases at the Black Thunder Mine. The Black Thunder Mine currently leases approximately 17,856 acres of federal coal, 40 acres of private coal, and 2,760 acres of state coal, all of which are within the existing Black Thunder Mine permit boundary. A total of approximately 26,812 acres will eventually be affected in mining the current leases. If the North Hilight Field LBA Tract is not leased, TBCC estimates that the average annual coal production at the Black Thunder Mine after 2008 would be 100 mmtpy, increasing to an average of 135 mmtpy by 2015, and the average full-time employment level by 2013 is expected to be 1,324 persons. Mining would continue at Black Thunder for approximately 10.2 years. Portions of the surface of the LBA tract would probably be disturbed by both the Black Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-15

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Thunder and Jacobs Ranch mines due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from existing contiguous leases. In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining these lands versus not mining them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption that the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if the No Action Alternative is selected. However, selection of the No Action Alternative would not preclude leasing and mining of this tract in the future. If the decision is made to reject the North Hilight Field lease application at this time, the tract could be leased as a maintenance lease in the future while the adjacent mine is in operation. If it is not leased while the existing adjacent mine is in operation, it may or may not be leased in the future. This tract does not include enough coal reserves to economically justify mining by a new operation; however, the coal reserves included in the tract could potentially be combined with unleased federal coal to the north, east and/or west to create a larger tract, which could be mined by a new operation in the future. 2.1.3 North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 2--Preferred Alternative Under Alternative 2 for the North Hilight Field 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 for 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 North Hilight Field 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 existing Black Thunder 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 North Hilight Field LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal coal. 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 North Hilight Field 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 BLM study area includes the tract as applied for and unleased federal coal adjacent to the northern and eastern edges of the tract as applied for (Figure 2-1). The BLM study area includes lands (approximately 80.9 acres, or 1.1 percent of the study area) on the Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG), which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Forest Service (USFS). Under Alternative 2, BLM could add all or part of the adjacent lands to the tract, or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as discussed in Section 2.0. 2-16 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Under Alternative 2, the area BLM is evaluating adding to the tract as applied for includes the following lands: T.44N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 17: Lots 1 through 16; Section 18: Lots 5 through 20; Section 20: Lots 1 through 16; Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Section 22: Lots 1 through 15; T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 13: Lots 1 through 16; Section 14: Lots 1 through 16; Total:

654.17 655.14 651.07 658.37 606.85

acres acres acres acres acres

655.53 acres 644.74 acres 4,525.87 acres

The legal description of the Alternative 2 BLM reconfiguration (Figure 2-1) for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract is as follows: T.44N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 17: Lots 1 through 16; Section 18: Lots 5 through 20; Section 19: Lots 5 through 20; Section 20: Lots 1 through 16; Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Section 22: Lots 1 through 15; T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 13: Lots 1 through 16; Section 14: Lots 1 through 16; Section 23: Lots 1 through 16; Section 24: Lots 1 through 16; Section 26: Lots 1 through 16; Total:

654.17 655.14 656.88 651.07 658.37 606.85

acres acres acres acres acres acres

655.53 644.74 653.11 653.44 650.07

acres acres acres acres acres

7,139.37 acres

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives area (Figure 2-1). TBCC estimates that approximately 29.4 million tons of coal would not be mineable because of the railroad ROW and associated buffer zone. As discussed in Sections 1.5 and 2.1.1 and shown in Figure 2-1, some of the coal in the above-described alternative tract configuration is overlain by the Shroyer Road. Some of the coal in the above-described alternative tract configuration is also within 100 feet of the Hilight Road ROW. The coal that is underlying the public road ROWs and associated 100-foot buffer zones extending on either side of the ROWs has been determined to be unsuitable for mining in accordance with SMCRA and as specified in coal leasing Unsuitability Criterion Number 3 (43 CFR 3461) and would not be recoverable. The Hilight Road runs parallel and adjacent to the west side of the BNSF & UP railroad ROW (Figure 2-1); therefore, the 100-foot buffer zone associated with the railroad ROW actually extends farther east and overlies more coal within the BLM study area than the 100-foot buffer zone associated with the Hilight Road ROW. As discussed in Section 2.1.1, there is an exception to this prohibition to mine the coal underlying the public road ROWs and associated buffer zones that can be applied if the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated or closed (SMCRA Section 522(e)(4) and 30 CFR 761.11(d)(2)). The Jacobs Road (Campbell County Road 59) and Small Road are two other county roads that overlie the Alternative 2 reconfiguration of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract (Figure 2-1), although they have been vacated by the Campbell County Commissioners. If TBCC obtains approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to move or close the Shroyer Road, the exception to the prohibition on mining within the public road ROW and its associated 100 foot buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, TBCC would be able to recover the coal underlying the road ROW and associated buffer zone. TBCC would not need to consider moving the Hilight Road for the reason explained above. If TBCC does not obtain approval to move or close Shroyer Road, the coal underlying its ROWs and associated buffer zone would remain unsuitable for mining and would not be recovered. If the Shroyer Road is not moved or closed, TBCC estimates that the BLM study area under Alternative 2 (Figure 2-1) includes approximately 709.6 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using TBCC’s projected recovery factor of 92 percent of the mineable coal reserves, about 652.8 million tons of the mineable coal would be recoverable. TBCC estimates that approximately 47.3 million tons of coal would not be mineable because of the railroad and public road ROWs and associated buffer zones. Although these lands would not be mined, they are included in the BLM study area tract configuration to allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal that is adjacent to but outside of the ROWs and associated buffer zones and to comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. If a lease is issued for this tract, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity 2-18 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives may be conducted in the portions of the leased tract within the Hilight and Shroyer county road ROWs and associated buffer zones unless approval is obtained from the appropriate public road authority to relocate or close the roads. If the Shroyer Road is moved or closed, TBCC estimates that an added 17.9 million tons of coal would be mineable in the BLM study area tract. TBCC estimates an average annual coal production rate of 100 mmtpy after 2008 for the Black Thunder Mine, increasing to 135 mmtpy by 2015. With the BLM study area tract, coal production at the Black Thunder Mine would continue for approximately 15 years beyond 2008. The study area tract accounts for approximately 4.8 years of the mine life extension. BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract will be included in the Final EIS and published in the sale notice if the tract is offered for sale. 2.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract 2.2.1 South Hilight Field LBA Tract Proposed Action ALC has filed an application for two separate LBA tracts (North Hilight Field and South Hilight Field). Each tract will be evaluated separately and if a decision is made to lease both of these tracts, a separate competitive lease sale will be held for each tract. Under the Proposed Action for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, the tract as applied for by ALC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D). The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the South Hilight Field lease application (Figure 2-2). The Proposed Action assumes that ALC would be the successful bidder on the South Hilight Field LBA Tract if it is offered for sale. The legal description of the proposed South Hilight Filed LBA Tract coal lease lands as applied for by ALC under the Proposed Action is as follows: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 23: Lots 1 through 16; Section 26: Lots 1 through 16; Section 35: Lots 1 through 16; Total:

649.36 acres 667.69 acres 659.64 acres 1,976.69 acres

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-19

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Land descriptions and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain Land and Mineral Titles approved Master Title Plat as of September 7, 2007 and Coal Plat as of September 7, 2007. The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned. Much of the surface (approximately 82 percent, or 1,625.9 acres) of the tract as applied for includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11. As discussed in Section 1.5, some of the coal in the above-described lands in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract has been determined to be unsuitable for mining in accordance with SMCRA and as specified under Unsuitability Criterion 2 (43 CFR 3461) due to the presence of the BNSF & UP railroad line, which borders the western side of the LBA tract (Figure 2-2). The coal underlying the railroad ROW and an associated 100-foot buffer zone is also not considered by TBCC to be mineable at this time because the cost that would be associated with moving the railroad tracks would make it economically unsuitable to recover the underlying coal. Although the federal coal underlying the railroad ROW and its associated buffer zone would not be mined, the coal is included in the tract because it would allow maximum recovery of the mineable coal adjacent to but outside of the railroad ROW and its associated buffer zone and comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. As indicated in Section 1.5, some of the coal in the above-described lands in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract is within 100 feet of the Hilight Road (Campbell County Road 52) ROW (Figure 2-2). 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)). The coal that is within 100 feet of the Hilight Road ROW has been determined to be unsuitable for mining in accordance with SMCRA and as specified under Unsuitability Criterion 3 (43 CFR 3461). 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 (Campbell County Board of Commissioners) allows the public road to be relocated or closed. However, because the Hilight Road lies parallel and adjacent to the BNSF & UP rail line (Figure 2-2), the 100-foot buffer zone associated with the railroad ROW actually extends farther east and overlies more coal within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract than the 100-foot buffer zone associated with the Hilight Road ROW. TBCC would therefore not need to obtain approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to close or move the Hilight Road in order to recover the coal underlying the 100-foot buffer zone along the east side of the Hilight Road ROW. If a lease is issued for this alternative tract configuration, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portions of the lease within 100 feet of either the BNSF & UP rail line or Hilight Road ROWs. The stipulation would allow recovery of the coal under Hilight 2-20 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Road if approval is obtained from the appropriate authority to move or close the road. TBCC estimates that the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for includes approximately 273.3 million tons of in-place coal, that approximately 232.2 million tons of those in-place coal reserves are mineable, and that about 213.6 million tons of coal would be recoverable. TBCC’s estimate that approximately 78 percent of the estimated in-place reserves would be recoverable from the tract is based on assumptions about the currently unrecoverable reserves that lie within the railroad ROW and its associated buffer zone. The South Hilight Field LBA Tract would be mined as an integral part of the Black Thunder Mine under the Proposed Action. Since the South Hilight Field LBA Tract would be an extension of the existing Black Thunder Mine, the facilities and infrastructure would be the same as those identified in the WDEQ/LQD Mine Permit 233 Term T7, approved November 1, 2005 and the BLM R2P2, which was approved December 12. 2006. TBCC’s currently approved air quality permits from the WDEQ/AQD for the Black Thunder Mine allow up to 135 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Black Thunder Mine produced: • 62.6 million tons of coal in 2003, • 66.8 million tons of coal in 2004, • 62.7 million tons of coal in 2005, • 67.3 million tons of coal in 2006, and • 65.3 million tons of coal in 2007
(Wyoming Department of Employment 2003, Shamley 2008a).
As of December 31, 2007, approximately 1,071.0 million tons of coal had been mined from within the current permitted area of the mine. TBCC estimates an average annual coal production rate of 100 mmtpy after 2008 for the Black Thunder Mine, increasing to an average of 135 mmtpy by 2015. If ALC acquires the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for, a total of approximately 1,450.0 million tons of coal would be recovered from the existing leases and the South Hilight Field LBA Tract after January 1, 2008, with an estimated 213.6 million tons coming from the LBA tract, as discussed above. With the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, coal production at the Black Thunder Mine would continue for approximately 11.8 years beyond 2008. The LBA tract accounts for approximately 1.6 years of the mine life extension. BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-21

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives quality of the coal included in the tract will be included in the Final EIS and published in the sale notice if the tract is offered for sale. Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would be built as needed, and any public utility lines and oil and gas pipelines would be relocated as necessary. A brief description of TBCC’s mining operation at the Black Thunder Mine, emphasizing the methods and equipment that are used to remove, handle, and reclaim overburden and soil, is included in Section 2.1.1. The methods and equipment used to mine the coal, and the facilities used to process and store coal are also described in Section 2.1.1. Coal would be produced from two mineable seams within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. TBCC refers to these seams as the Upper Wyodak (upper/rider seam) and the Middle Wyodak (lower/main seam), which are separated by a shale parting that has an average thickness of approximately 94 feet. The Upper Wyodak seam averages 5 feet thick and the Middle Wyodak seam averages 76 feet thick. The mining and reclamation methods, coal processing and storage facilities, and associated air quality protection measures would allow the Black Thunder Mine to produce at the currently permitted level. While sufficient capacity exists, future changes in facilities may be constructed to improve operating efficiency and air quality protection. Full-time employment at the Black Thunder Mine is currently 1,080. If the mine increases production as estimated, employment would grow to 1,324 by 2013. If ALC acquires the South Hilight Field LBA Tract under the Proposed Action, they anticipate that the full-time employment level at the mine would remain at 1,324 for the additional 1.6 years that it would take to mine the coal included in the tract. As discussed in Chapter 1, the South Hilight Field LBA Tract is adjacent to existing leases at the Black Thunder Mine, but is not adjacent to any of the other existing mines in this area (Figure 1-1). If a company other than ALC was to acquire the tract, the rate of coal production, mining sequence, equipment, and facilities would be different than if ALC acquired the tract as a maintenance lease, as described above. However, the area of disturbance and the impacts of removing the coal would not be substantially different from the area of disturbance and the impacts of ALC mining the tract. 2.2.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 1 Under the South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, ALC’s application to lease the coal included in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract would be rejected. The tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. 2-22 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities nor employment on the existing leases at the Black Thunder Mine. The Black Thunder Mine currently leases approximately 17,856 acres of federal coal, 40 acres of private coal, and 2,760 acres of state coal, all of which are within the existing Black Thunder Mine permit boundary. A total of approximately 26,812 acres will eventually be affected in mining the current leases. If the South Hilight Field LBA Tract is not leased, TBCC estimates that the average annual production at the Black Thunder Mine would be 100 mmtpy after 2008, increasing to an average of 135 mmtpy by 2015, and the average full-time employment level is expected to increase to 1,324 persons by 2013. Mining would continue at the Black Thunder Mine for approximately 10.2 years. Portions of the surface of the LBA tract would probably be disturbed by the Black Thunder Mine due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from existing contiguous leases. In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining these lands versus not mining them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption that the South Hilight Field LBA Tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if the No Action Alternative is selected. However, selection of the No Action Alternative would not preclude leasing and mining of this tract in the future. If the decision is made to reject the South Hilight Field lease application at this time, the tract could be leased as a maintenance lease in the future while the adjacent mine is in operation. If it is not leased while the existing adjacent mine is in operation, it may or may not be leased in the future. This tract does not include enough coal reserves to economically justify mining by a new operation; however, the coal reserves included in the tract could potentially be combined with unleased federal coal to the south and/or west to create a larger tract, which could be mined by a new operation in the future. 2.2.3 South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 2--Preferred Alternative Under Alternative 2 for the South Hilight Field 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 for 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 South Hilight Field 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 existing Black Thunder Mine. Assumptions concerning mining methods, facilities, hazardous materials, mitigation and monitoring requirements, etc. are the same as described for the Proposed Action.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-23

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives As applied for, the South Hilight Field LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal coal. 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 South Hilight Field 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 BLM study area includes the tract as applied for and unleased federal coal adjacent to the southern edge of the tract as applied for (Figure 2-2). Under Alternative 2, BLM could add all or part of the adjacent lands to the tract, or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as discussed in Section 2.0. Under Alternative 2, the area BLM is evaluating adding to the tract as applied for includes the following lands: T.42N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 1: Lots 7 through 10 and 15 through 18; Section 2: Lots 5 through 20; Total:

316.43 acres 629.26 acres 945.69 acres

The legal description of the Alternative 2 BLM reconfiguration (Figure 2-2) for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract is as follows: T.42N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 1: Lots 7 through 10 and 15 through 18; Section 2: Lots 5 through 20; T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 23: Lots 1 through 16; Section 26: Lots 1 through 16; Section 35: Lots 1 through 16; Total:

316.43 acres 629.26 acres

649.36 acres 667.69 acres 659.64 acres 2,922.38 acres

Land descriptions and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain Land and Mineral Titles approved Master Title Plats as of September 7, 2007 and Coal Plats as of September 7, 2007. The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned. Much of the surface (approximately 88 percent, or 2,572.6 acres) of the BLM study area includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11. TBCC estimates that the LBA tract reconfigured under Alternative 2 (the BLM study area) includes approximately 406.5 million tons of in-place coal reserves. As discussed in Sections 1.5 and 2.2.1, some of the coal included in the abovedescribed alternative tract configuration has been determined unsuitable for mining due to the presence of the BNSF & UP rail line, which borders the entire western side of the BLM study area (Figure 2-2). TBCC estimates that 2-24 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives approximately 58.7 million tons of coal would not be mineable because of the railroad ROW and associated 100-foot buffer zone. As shown in Figure 2-2, Reno Road (Campbell County Road 83) borders the southern edge of the BLM study area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. The coal that is underlying this public road ROW and associated 100-foot buffer zone has been determined to be unsuitable for mining in accordance with SMCRA and as specified under Unsuitability Criterion 3 (43 CFR 3461). Some of the coal in the above-described alternative tract configuration is also within 100 feet of the Hilight Road ROW; however, the 100-foot buffer zone associate with the railroad ROW extends farther east and overlies more coal within the BLM study area than the 100-foot buffer zone associated with the Hilight Road ROW. As discussed in Section 2.2.1, 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 (Campbell County Board of Commissioners) allows the road to be relocated or closed. If TBCC obtains approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to move or close Reno Road, the exception to the prohibition on mining within the public road ROW and its associated buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, TBCC would be able to recover the coal underlying the county road ROW and buffer zone. TBCC would not need to consider closing or moving the Hilight Road for the reason explained above. If TBCC does not obtain approval to move or close Reno Road, the coal underlying its ROW and associated buffer zone would remain unsuitable for mining and would not be recovered. If a lease is issued for this alternative tract configuration, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portions of the lease within 100 feet of either the BNSF & UP railroad ROW, Hilight Road ROW, or Reno Road ROW. The stipulation would allow recovery of the coal under Reno or Hilight Road if approval is obtained from the appropriate authority to move or close the respective road. If the Reno Road is not moved or closed, TBCC estimates that the BLM study area under Alternative 2 (Figure 2-2) includes approximately 330.8 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using TBCC’s projected recovery factor of 92 percent of the mineable coal reserves, about 304.3 million tons of the mineable coal would be recoverable. TBCC estimates that approximately 75.7 million tons of coal would not be mineable because of the railroad and public road ROWs and associated buffer zones. Although these lands would not be mined, they are included in the alternative tract configuration to allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal that is adjacent to but outside of the ROWs and associated buffer zones and to comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. If a lease is issued for this tract, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portions of the leased tract within the Reno Road ROW and Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-25

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives associated buffer zone unless approval is obtained from the appropriate public road authority to relocate or close the road. If the Reno Road is moved or closed, TBCC estimates that an added 17.0 million tons of coal would be mineable in the BLM study area tract. TBCC estimates an average annual coal production rate of 100 mmtpy after 2008 for the Black Thunder Mine, increasing to an average of 135 mmtpy by 2015. With the BLM study area tract, coal production at the Black Thunder Mine would continue for approximately 12.5 years beyond 2008. The study area tract accounts for approximately 2.3 years of the mine life extension. BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract will be included in the Final EIS and published in the sale notice if the tract is offered for sale. 2.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract 2.3.1 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, the tract as applied for by ALC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D). The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the West Hilight Field lease application (Figure 2-3). The Proposed Action assumes that ALC would be the successful bidder on the West Hilight Field LBA Tract if it is offered for sale. The legal description of the proposed West Hilight Field LBA Tract coal lease lands as applied for by ALC under the Proposed Action is as follows: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 8: Lots 1, 2, and 7 through 16; Section 9: Lots 1 through 16; Section 10: Lots 3 through 6, and 11 through 14; Section 17: Lots 1 through 16; Section 20: Lots 1 through 4; Section 21: Lots 3 and 4 Total:

493.00 acres 655.31 acres 327.85 acres 650.17 acres 162.54 acres 81.65 acres 2,370.52 acres

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives applied for (approximately 29 percent, or 695.9 acres) includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11. As discussed in Section1.5, Wyoming State Highway 450 borders the northern edge of the West Hilight LBA Tract (Figure 2-3). The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) prohibits mining within 100 feet on either side of the ROW of any public road unless the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected public and landowners will be protected (30 CFR 761.11(d)). For State Highway 450 west of the BNSF & UP railroad ROW, an unsuitability decision (43 CFR 3461) is deferred subject to a finding by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) under this process (BLM 2001a). As a result, some of the coal in the above described lands is not currently considered to be recoverable. Although the federal coal underlying these lands may not be mined, it is included in the tract to allow maximum recovery of the mineable coal adjacent to but outside of the highway ROW and its associated buffer zone and to comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. If a lease is issued for this tract configuration, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portions of the lease within 100 feet of the State Highway 450 ROW. The stipulation would allow recovery of the coal under State Highway 450 if approval is obtained from the appropriate authority to move the road. As applied for, the West Hilight Field LBA Tract includes an estimated 440.4 million tons of in-place coal reserves. TBCC estimates that 29.6 million tons of the in-place coal would not be mineable because of the Highway 450 ROW and associated buffer zone. Of the 410.8 million tons of mineable reserves, using TBCC’s projected recovery factor of 92 percent of the mineable coal reserves, approximately 377.9 million tons would be recoverable from the West Hilight LBA Tract as applied for. The West Hilight Field LBA Tract would be mined as an integral part of the Black Thunder Mine under the Proposed Action. Since the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would be an extension of the existing Black Thunder Mine, the facilities and infrastructure would be the same as those identified in the WDEQ/LQD Mine Permit 233 Term T7, approved November 1, 2005 and the BLM R2P2, which was approved December 12, 2006. TBCC’s currently approved air quality permits from the WDEQ/AQD for the Black Thunder Mine allow up to 135 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Black Thunder Mine produced: • • 62.6 million tons of coal in 2003, 66.8 million tons of coal in 2004, 2-27

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives • 62.7 million tons of coal in 2005, • 67.3 million tons of coal in 2006, and • 65.3 million tons of coal in 2007
(Wyoming Department of Employment 2003, Shamley 2008a).
As of December 31, 2007, approximately 1,071.0 million tons of coal had been mined from within the current permitted area of the mine. TBCC estimates an average annual coal production rate of 100 mmtpy after 2008 for the Black Thunder Mine, increasing to 135 mmtpy by 2015. If ALC acquires the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for, a total of approximately 1,614.3 million tons of coal would be recovered from the existing leases and the West Hilight Field LBA Tract after January 1, 2008, with an estimated 377.9 million tons coming from the LBA tract, as discussed above. About 14 percent of the in-place coal within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would be lost under normal mining practices and would not be recovered due to the presence of the Highway 450 ROW and associated buffer zone. With the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, coal production at the Black Thunder Mine would continue for approximately 13 years beyond 2008. The LBA tract accounts for approximately 2.8 years of the mine life extension. If State Highway 450 is moved, TBCC estimates that an added 29.6 million tons of coal would be mineable in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for. BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal reserves and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of the coal included in the tract will be included in the Final EIS and published in the sale notice if the tract is offered for sale. Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would be built as needed, and any public utility lines and oil and gas pipelines would be relocated as necessary. A brief description of TBCC’s mining operation at the Black Thunder Mine, emphasizing the methods and equipment that are used to remove, handle, and reclaim overburden and soil, is included in Section 2.1.1. The methods and equipment used to mine the coal, and the facilities used to process and store coal are also described in Section 2.1.1. Coal would be produced from two mineable seams within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. TBCC refers to these seams as the Upper Wyodak (upper/rider seam) and the Middle Wyodak (lower/main seam), which are separated by a shale parting that has an average thickness of approximately 32 feet. The Upper Wyodak seam averages 6 feet thick and the Middle Wyodak seam averages 87 feet thick. The mining and reclamation methods, coal processing and storage facilities, and associated air 2-28 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives quality protection measures would allow the Black Thunder Mine to produce at the currently permitted level. While sufficient capacity exists, future changes in facilities may be constructed to improve operating efficiency and air quality protection. Full-time employment at the Black Thunder Mine is currently 1,080. If the mine increases production as estimated, employment would grow to 1,324 by 2013. If ALC acquires the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under the Proposed Action, they anticipate that the mine’s full-time employment level would remain at 1,324 for the additional 2.8 years that it would take to mine the coal included in the tract. As discussed in Chapter 1, the West Hilight Field LBA Tract is not adjacent to any existing leases at the Black Thunder Mine and a portion of the tract borders the mine’s current mining permit boundary (Figure 2-3). The West Hilight Field LBA Tract is not adjacent to any of the other existing leases or mines in this area (Figure 1-1). If a company other than ALC was to acquire the tract, the rate of coal production, mining sequence, equipment, and facilities would be different than if ALC acquired the tract as a maintenance lease, as described above. However, the area of disturbance and the impacts of removing the coal would not be substantially different from the area of disturbance and the impacts of ALC mining the tract. 2.3.2 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 1 Under the West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, ALC’s application to lease the coal included in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would be rejected. The tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities nor employment on the existing leases at the Black Thunder Mine. The Black Thunder Mine currently leases approximately 17,856 acres of federal coal, 40 acres of private coal, and 2,760 acres of state coal, all of which are within the existing Black Thunder Mine permit boundary. A total of approximately 26,812 acres will eventually be affected in mining the current leases. If the West Hilight Field LBA Tract is not leased, TBCC estimates that the average annual coal production at the Black Thunder Mine would be 100 mmtpy after 2008, increasing to an average of 135 mmtpy by 2015, and the average full-time employment level is expected to increase to 1,324 persons by 2013. Mining would continue at the Black Thunder Mine for approximately 10.2 years. The surface of the LBA tract as applied for does not lie within any mine’s current permit area and would therefore not likely be disturbed by mining activities. In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining these lands versus not mining them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption that the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if the No Action Alternative is selected. However, selection of Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-29

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives the No Action Alternative would not preclude leasing and mining of this tract in the future. If the decision is made to reject the West Hilight Field lease application at this time, the tract could be leased as a maintenance lease in the future while the adjacent mine is in operation. If it is not leased while the existing adjacent mine is in operation, it may or may not be leased in the future. This tract does not include enough coal reserves to economically justify mining by a new operation; however, the coal reserves included in the tract could potentially be combined with unleased federal coal that surrounds it to create a larger tract, which could be mined by a new operation in the future. 2.3.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 2--Preferred Alternative Under Alternative 2 for the West Hilight Field 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 for 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 Hilight Field 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 existing Black Thunder 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 Hilight Field LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal coal. 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 Hilight Field 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 BLM study area includes the tract as applied for and unleased federal coal adjacent to the eastern, southern, northeastern, and northwestern edges of the tract as applied for (Figure 2-3). Under Alternative 2, BLM could add all or part of the adjacent lands to the tract, or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as discussed in Section 2.0. Under Alternative 2, the area BLM is evaluating adding to the tract as applied for includes the following lands: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 8: Lots 3 through 6; Section 10: Lots 1, 2, 7 through 10, 15, and 16; Section 15: Lots 1 through 16; Section 20: Lots 5 through 16; Section 21: Lots 1, 2, and 5 through 16; 2-30

164.33 326.18 659.26 488.50 569.73

acres acres acres acres acres

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Section Section Section Section Total: 22: 27: 28: 34: Lots Lots Lots Lots 1 1 1 1 through through through through 16; 16; 16; 16; 657.89 656.87 648.02 649.98 acres acres acres acres

4,820.76 acres

The legal description of the Alternative 2 BLM reconfiguration (Figure 2-3) for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract is as follows: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 8: Lots 1 through 16; Section 9: Lots 1 through 16; Section 10: Lots 1 through 16; Section 15: Lots 1 through 16; Section 17: Lots 1 through 16; Section 20: Lots 1 through 16; Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Section 22: Lots 1 through 16; Section 27: Lots 1 through 16; Section 28: Lots 1 through 16; Section 34: Lots 1 through 16; Total:

654.33 655.31 654.03 659.26 650.17 651.04 651.38 657.89 656.87 648.02 649.98

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

7,191.28 acres

Land descriptions and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain Land and Mineral Titles approved Master Title Plat as of September 7, 2007 and Coal Plat as of September 7, 2007. The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned. Approximately 40 percent (or about 2,900 acres) of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 2 includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11. TBCC estimates that the West Hilight Field LBA Tract reconfigured under Alternative 2 (the BLM study area) includes approximately 1,147.9 million tons of in-place coal reserves. As discussed in Section 2.3.1 and shown in Figure 2 3, a portion of Wyoming State Highway 450 borders the entire northern edge of the above-described alternate tract configuration. Therefore, some of the coal included in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under this alternative is overlain by Highway 450 and 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)). If TBCC obtains approval from the WYDOT to move State Highway 450, the exception to the prohibition on mining within the road ROW and buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, TBCC would be able to recover the coal underlying Wyoming State Highway 450, its ROW, and associated buffer zone. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-31

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives As discussed in Section 1.5, some of the coal included in the above-described alternative tract configuration has been determined unsuitable for mining due to the presence of the BNSF & UP rail line, which borders the entire eastern side of the BLM study area (Figure 2-3). As shown in Figure 2-3, a portion of Hilight Road (Campbell County Road 52) lies west of and adjacent to the BNSF & UP rail line ROW, and also borders the entire eastern edge of the above described BLM study area. Therefore, some of the coal included in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under this alternative is overlain by the Hilight Road and SMCRA prohibits surface mining operations on lands within 100 feet of the outside line of the ROW for a public road. The coal underlying this county road, its ROW, and associated 100-foot buffer zone has been determined to be unsuitable for mining in accordance with SMCRA and as specified under Unsuitability Criterion 3. There is an exception to this prohibition in the regulations at 30 CFR 761.11(d)(2), which can be applied if the appropriate road authority (Campbell County Board of Commissioners) allows the road to be relocated or closed. If TBCC obtains approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to move this county road, the exception to the prohibition on mining within the road ROW and buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, TBCC would be able to recover the coal underlying Hilight Road, its ROW, and associated buffer zone. If TBCC does not obtain approval to move or close the county road, the coal underlying the road, its ROW, and associated buffer zone would remain unsuitable for mining and would not be recovered. If Wyoming State Highway 450 and the Hilight Road are not moved or closed, TBCC estimates that the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 2 (Figure 2-3) includes approximately 1,049.1 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using TBCC’s projected recovery factor of 92 percent of the mineable coal reserves, about 965.2 million tons of the mineable coal would be recoverable. TBCC estimates that approximately 98.8 million tons of coal would not be mineable because of the public road ROWs and associated buffer zones. Although these lands would not be mined, they are included in the alternative tract configuration to allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal that is adjacent to but outside of the ROWs and associated buffer zones and to comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. If a lease is issued for this tract, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portions of the leased tract within the Wyoming State Highway 450 and Hilight Road ROWs and associated buffer zones unless approval is obtained from the appropriate public road authority to relocate or close the roads. TBCC estimates an average annual coal production rate at the Black Thunder Mine of 100 mmtpy after 2008 for the Black Thunder Mine, increasing to an average of 135 mmtpy by 2015. With the BLM study area tract, coal production at the Black Thunder Mine would continue for approximately 17.3 years beyond 2008. The study area tract accounts for approximately 7.1 years of the mine life extension. 2-32 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives If Hilight Road is moved or closed, TBCC estimates that an added 52.6 million tons of coal would be mineable in the BLM study area tract. If relocation of Wyoming State Highway 450 were approved, TBCC estimates that an added 46.2 million tons of coal would be mineable in the BLM study area tract. Full-time employment at the Black Thunder Mine is currently 1,080. If the mine increases production as estimated, employment would grow to 1,324 by 2013. If ALC acquires the BLM study area tract, they anticipate that the mine’s full-time employment level would remain at 1,324 for the additional 7.1 years that it would take to mine the coal included in the tract. BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract will be included in the Final EIS and published in the sale notice if the tract is offered for sale. 2.3.4 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3 for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, BLM is considering adding some or all of the BLM study area, as discussed under Alternative 2 (Section 2.3.3), and some or all of TBCC’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area (Figure 2-3). Under Alternative 3, 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 for this tract if it is offered for sale (Appendix D). Alternative 3 for the West Hilight Field 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 existing Black Thunder 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 Hilight Field LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal coal. As discussed under Alternative 2, BLM identified a study area 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 Hilight Field LBA Tract, and/or reduce the potential that some of the remaining unleased federal coal in this area would be bypassed in the future. The BLM study area, shown in Figure 2-3, includes the tract as applied for and unleased federal coal adjacent to the eastern, southern, and northwestern edges of the tract as applied for, and additionally under Alternative 3, BLM is considering adding some or all of Black Thunder Mine’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-33

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives TBCC’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area, which lies north of Wyoming State Highway 450 and west of the Hilight Road, is entirely within Black Thunder Mine’s current permit area (Figure 2-3). In 2008, Black Thunder Mine completed the construction of a new train loadout facility, including a railroad spur and two storage silos within their Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area. This area is also entirely within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract; therefore, BLM has not included it within the study area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. However, this alternative tract configuration will preserve the option of delineating some or all of TBCC’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area into the West Hilight Field, the West Jacobs Ranch, or both LBA tracts. It may not be economically feasible to move the railroad spur, train loadout and silos to recover all the coal at this time. However, BLM is considering including this area in the tract because it may be possible to recover portions of the coal reserves in this area when the rest of the tract is mined, if it is leased at this time. It may also be economically feasible at some point in the future to move the train loadout facilities and recover the coal if it is leased. Under Alternative 3, the lands within TBCC’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area that BLM is evaluating adding to the Alternative 2 reconfiguration of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract are as follows: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 3: Lots 2, 5, and 8 through 19; T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 22: Lots 9, 10, 15, and 16; Section 27: Lots 1, 2, 7 through 10, 15, and 16; Section 34: Lots 1, 2, 7 through 10, 15, and 16; Total:

557.99 acres

164.25 acres 327.88 acres 328.73 acres 1,378.85 acres

The legal description of the Alternative 3 reconfiguration of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract is as follows: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 3: Lots 2, 5, and 8 through 19; Section 8: Lots 1 through 16; Section 9: Lots 1 through 16; Section 10: Lots 1 through 16; Section 15: Lots 1 through 16; Section 17: Lots 1 through 16; Section 20: Lots 1 through 16; Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Section 22: Lots 1 through 16; Section 27: Lots 1 through 16; Section 28: Lots 1 through 16; Section 34: Lots 1 through 16; 2-34

557.99 654.33 655.31 654.03 659.26 650.17 651.04 651.38 657.89 656.87 648.02 649.98

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 22: Lots 9, 10, 15, and 16; Section 27: Lots 1, 2, 7 through 10, 15, and 16; Section 34: Lots 1, 2, 7 through 10, 15, and 16; Total: 164.25 acres 327.88 acres 328.73 acres 8,570.13 acres

Land descriptions and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain Land and Mineral Titles approved Master Title Plats as of August 30, 2005 and September 7, 2007 and Coal Plats as of September 7, 2007. The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned. Approximately 35 percent (roughly 2,900 acres) of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 3 includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11. TBCC estimates that the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under this alternative includes approximately 1,373.4 million tons of in-place coal reserves. As discussed in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, and shown in Figure 2-3, a portion of Wyoming State Highway 450 borders the northern edge and lies across a portion of the above-described alternate tract configuration. Therefore, some of the coal included in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under this alternative is overlain by State Highway 450 and 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)). If TBCC obtains approval from the WYDOT to relocate State Highway 450, the exception to the prohibition on mining within the road ROW and buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, TBCC would be able to recover the coal underlying Wyoming State Highway 450, its ROW, and associated buffer zone. As discussed in Section 1.5, some of the coal included in the above-described alternative tract configuration has been determined unsuitable for mining due to the presence of the BNSF & UP rail line, which borders the entire eastern side of the Alternative 3 reconfiguration of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract (Figure 2-3). As shown in Figure 2-3, a portion of Hilight Road (Campbell County Road 52) lies west of and adjacent to the BNSF & UP rail line ROW, and also borders the entire eastern edge of the above described Alternative 3 tract reconfiguration. Therefore, some of the coal included in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under this alternative is overlain by the Hilight Road and SMCRA prohibits surface mining operations on lands within 100 feet of the outside line of the ROW for a public road. The coal underlying this county road, its ROW, and associated 100-foot buffer zone has been determined to be unsuitable for mining in accordance with SMCRA and as specified under Unsuitability Criterion 3. There is an exception to this prohibition in the regulations at 30 CFR 761.11(d)(2), which can be applied if the appropriate road authority (Campbell Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-35

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives County Board of Commissioners) allows the road to be relocated or closed. If TBCC obtains approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to move this county road, the exception to the prohibition on mining within the road ROW and buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, TBCC would be able to recover the coal underlying Hilight Road, its ROW, and associated buffer zone. If TBCC does not obtain approval to move or close the county road, the coal underlying the road, its ROW, and associated buffer zone would remain unsuitable for mining and would not be recovered. If a lease is issued for this tract, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portions of the leased tract within the Wyoming State Highway 450 and Hilight Road ROWs and associated buffer zones unless approval is obtained from the appropriate public road authority to relocate or close the roads. If Wyoming State Highway 450 and the Hilight Road are not moved or closed, TBCC estimates that the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 3 (Figure 2-3) includes approximately 1,049.1 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using TBCC’s projected recovery factor of 92 percent of the mineable coal reserves, about 965.2 million tons of the mineable coal would be recoverable. TBCC estimates that approximately 324.3 million tons of coal would not be mineable because of the presence of the mine’s new railroad spur, train loadout and two storage silos, plus the public road ROWs and associated buffer zones. Although these lands would not be mined, they are included in the alternative tract configuration to allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal that is adjacent to but outside of the Northwest Rail Loop facilities, road ROWs and associated buffer zones, and to comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. If a lease is issued for this tract, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portions of the leased tract within the Wyoming State Highway 450 and Hilight Road ROWs and associated buffer zones unless approval is obtained from the appropriate public road authority to relocate or close the roads. TBCC estimates an average annual coal production rate of 100 mmtpy after 2008 for the Black Thunder Mine, increasing to an average of 135 mmtpy by 2015. With the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 3, coal production at the Black Thunder Mine would continue for approximately 17.3 years beyond 2008. The Alternative 3 Tract configuration accounts for approximately 7.1 years of the mine life extension. If Hilight Road is moved or closed, and if relocation of Wyoming State Highway 450 were approved, TBCC estimates that an added 98.8 million tons of coal would be mineable in the Alternative 3 tract. TBCC estimates that about 207.5 million tons could be recovered assuming coal under the Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area were mineable at some time in the future. 2-36 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Full-time employment at the Black Thunder Mine is currently 1,080. If the mine increases production as estimated, employment would grow to 1,324 by 2013. If ALC acquires the West Hilight Field LBA as configured under Alternative 3, they anticipate that the mine’s full-time employment level would remain at 1,324 for the additional 7.1 years that it would take to mine the coal included in the tract. BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract will be included in the Final EIS and published in the sale notice if the tract is offered for sale. 2.4 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract 2.4.1 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, the tract as applied for by JRCC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D). The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the West Jacobs Ranch lease application (Figure 2 4). The Proposed Action assumes that JRCC would be the successful bidder on the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract if it is offered for sale. The legal description of the proposed West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract coal lease lands as applied for by JRCC under the Proposed Action is as follows: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 3: Lots 2 and 5 through 19; Section 4: Lots 5 through 20; Section 5: Lots 5 through 20; T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 22: Lots 9 through 16; Section 27: Lots 1 through 16; Section 28: Lots 1 through 3 and 5 through 16; Section 29: Lots 5 through 15 and SE¼SE¼; Section 32: Lots 1 through 15 and SW¼SE¼; Section 33: Lots 1 through 15 and NE¼SE¼ ; Section 34: Lots 1 through 16; Total:

638.38 acres 639.50 acres 636.67 acres

326.99 658.21 608.43 478.10 643.83 653.02 661.24

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

5,944.37 acres

Land descriptions and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain
Land and Mineral Titles approved Master Title Plats as of August 30, 2005 and
Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-37

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives September 7, 2007 and Coal Plats as of September 7, 2007. The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11. As discussed in Section 1.5, Wyoming State Highway 450 borders the entire southern edge of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract (Figure 2-4). SMCRA prohibits mining within 100 feet on either side of the ROW of any public road unless the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected public and landowners will be protected (30 CFR 761.11(d)). For State Highway 450 west of the BNSF & UP railroad ROW, an unsuitability decision (43 CFR 3461) is deferred subject to a finding by WYDOT under this process (BLM 2001a). As a result, some of the coal in the above described lands is not currently considered to be recoverable. TBCC’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area, which lies north of Wyoming State Highway 450 and west of the Hilight Road, is entirely within Black Thunder Mine’s current permit area (Figure 2-3). Black Thunder Mine completed the construction of a new train loadout facility, including a railroad spur and two storage silos, within their Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area in 2008. TBCC’s new railroad spur, train loadout facility, and two storage silos are located entirely within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. It may not be economically feasible to move the railroad spur and the coal processing and storage facilities to recover all the coal at this time, but may be economically feasible at some point in the future, if the coal is leased. As discussed in Section 1.5, some of the coal included in the above-described alternative tract configuration has been determined unsuitable for mining due to the presence of the BNSF & UP rail line ROW, which borders the entire eastern side of the LBA tract. As shown in Figure 2-4, a portion of Hilight Road (Campbell County Road 52) lies west of and adjacent to the BNSF & UP rail line ROW, and also borders the entire eastern edge of the above described lands. Therefore, some of the coal included in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for is overlain by the Hilight Road and SMCRA prohibits surface mining operations on lands within 100 feet of the outside line of the ROW for a public road. The coal that is underlying this county road, its ROW, and associated 100-foot buffer zone has been determined to be unsuitable for mining in accordance with SMCRA and as specified under Unsuitability Criterion 3. 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 (Campbell County Board of Commissioners) allows the road to be relocated or closed. If JRCC obtains approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to move this county road, the exception to the prohibition on mining within the road ROW and buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, JRCC would be able to recover the coal underlying Hilight Road, its ROW, and associated buffer zone. 2-38 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives JRCC estimates that the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for includes approximately 957.0 million tons of in-place coal reserves. If Wyoming State Highway 450 and the Hilight Road are not closed or relocated, JRCC estimates that the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for (Figure 2-4) includes approximately 744.0 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using JRCC’s projected recovery factor of 90 percent of the mineable coal reserves, about 669.6 million tons of the mineable coal would be recoverable. JRCC estimates that approximately 213.0 million tons of coal would not be mineable because of the public road ROWs and associated buffer zones. Although these lands would not be mined, they are included in the as applied for tract configuration to allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal that is adjacent to but outside of the public road ROWs and associated buffer zones, and to comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. If a lease is issued for this tract, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portions of the leased tract within the State Highway 450 and Hilight Road ROWs and associated buffer zones unless approval is obtained from the appropriate public road authority to relocate or close the roads. The West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would be mined as an integral part of the Jacobs Ranch Mine under the Proposed Action. Since the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would be an extension of the existing Jacobs Ranch Mine, the facilities and infrastructure would be the same as those identified in the WDEQ/LQD Mine Permit 271 Term T5, approved November 23, 2004 and the BLM R2P2, which was approved October 19, 2005. JRCC’s currently approved air quality permit (Permit Number MD-1005A2) from the WDEQ/AQD for the Jacobs Ranch Mine allows up to 55 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Jacobs Ranch Mine produced: • 36.0 million tons of coal in 2003, • 38.6 million tons of coal in 2004, • 37.3 million tons of coal in 2005, • 40.0 million tons of coal in 2006, and • 38.1 million tons of coal in 2007
(Wyoming Department of Employment 2003, Shamley 2008a).
As of December 31, 2007, approximately 629.0 million tons of coal had been mined from within the current permitted area of the mine. JRCC estimates an average annual coal production rate of 40 mmtpy for the Jacobs Ranch Mine for the years beyond 2007. If JRCC acquires the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for, a total of approximately 1,092.6 million tons of coal would be recovered from the existing leases and the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract after January 1, 2008, with an estimated 669.6 million tons coming from the LBA tract, as discussed above. About 30 percent of the inplace coal within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would be lost under normal mining practices and would not be recovered due to the presence of the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-39

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Highway 450 and Hilight Road ROWs and associated buffer zones. With the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for, coal production at the Jacobs Ranch Mine would continue for approximately 27.3 years beyond 2008. The LBA tract accounts for approximately 16.7 years of the mine life extension. If the Hilight Road is moved or closed, and if relocation of Wyoming State Highway 450 were approved, JRCC estimates that an added 213.0 million tons of coal would be mineable in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for. BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of the coal included in the tract will be included in the Final EIS and published in the sale notice if the tract is offered for sale. Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would be built as needed, and any public utility lines and oil and gas pipelines would be relocated as necessary. The first step of the mining process is soil salvage with suitable heavy equipment, such as rubber-tired scrapers. During initial pit development, soil is placed in temporary stockpiles for later use in final pit closure and reclamation. Whenever possible, direct haulage of soil from salvage areas to a reclamation area would be done, but due to scheduling, some topsoil would be temporarily stockpiled. As required by the reclamation plan, heavy equipment again would be used to haul and redistribute the stockpiled topsoil on regraded areas. The Jacobs Ranch Mine is one of several mines currently operating in the PRB where the coal seams are notably thick and the overburden is relatively thin. Mining has historically been conducted in two pits in order to facilitate blending of the coal to meet customers’ coal quality requirements. Mining may be conducted in three separate pits; two located within the current permit area and one located within the proposed lease area. The locations of the specific pits may change as a result of further geologic and mining evaluations. After soil salvage operations are complete, blast holes are drilled down through the overburden to the top of the upper-most mineable coal seam. The drill holes are then loaded with explosives (ANFO) and detonated to fragment the overburden to facilitate efficient excavation. Overburden removal has been and would continue to be conducted primarily with a dragline and/or trucks and shovels. Cast blasting is employed to supplement dragline productivity. Other equipment used during overburden removal and backfilling includes dozers, scrapers, excavators, front-end loaders, graders, and water trucks. Exposed coal seams have been and would continue to be cleaned with a dozer, drilled 2-40 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives and blasted to facilitate efficient excavation, and then loaded into haul trucks for transport to the coal crushing and storage facilities. Coal is also transported by overland conveyor to the final preparation plant and storage facilities. The design of the Jacobs Ranch Mine seeks to confine disturbance to the active mine blocks. As overburden is removed, most would be directly placed into the previous empty pit where coal has been removed. Chapter 4, Section 2(b)(i) of the WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules requires that rough backfilling and grading follow coal removal as closely as possible based on the mining conditions (WDEQ/LQD 2005). Replaced (backfilled) overburden is graded to approximate the original land surface contour, as required by WDEQ and OSM rules. Elevations consistent with the approved PMT plan are established as quickly as possible to reconstruct a stable landscape and restore drainage. Under certain conditions, the PMT may not be immediately achievable. This occurs when there is an excess of material that may require temporary stockpiling, when there is insufficient material available from current overburden removal operations, or when future mining could redisturb an area already mined. Backfilled and recontoured overburden is sampled and analyzed to verify suitability as subsoil. Should unsuitable backfill materials be encountered (i.e., material that is not suitable for use in reestablishing vegetation or that may affect groundwater quality due to high concentrations of certain constituents, such as selenium or adverse pH levels), mitigation by additional soil depth, excavation and burial, or other special handling to remove them from the root zone would occur. Prior to soil distribution, regraded backfill is scarified to relieve compaction. Soil is redistributed on recontoured backfill using rubber-tired scrapers. Once a seedbed has been formed the reclaimed areas are revegetation using native grasses, forbs, and shrubs that are consistent with the postmining land use. According to a recent OSM evaluation of the Wyoming coal mining industry, the 2007 reclamation to disturbance ratio was approximately 80 percent (12,258 acres reclaimed vs. 15,321 acres disturbed) (OSM 2008). The Jacobs Ranch Mine mines up to three coal seams that JRCC refers to as the Upper, Middle, and Lower Wyodak seams. Coal would be produced from one mineable seam within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. JRCC refers to this single coal seam as the Wyodak and it has an average thickness of about 102 feet in the LBA tract area. Coal would be mined at several working pit faces to enable blending of the coal to meet customer quality requirements, to comply with BLM lease requirements for maximum economic recovery of the coal resource, and to optimize coal removal efficiency with available equipment. Mining efficiency and air quality protection are and would continue to be facilitated by the use of a near-pit crusher and overland conveyor. Coal would be loaded with electric-powered shovels or hydraulic excavators into offhighway haul trucks for transport to the near-pit crusher or the coal preparation plant. Coal haul roads would be temporary structures built within the mine areas. All coal transfer location points and crushing operations are Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-41

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives controlled by baghouse-type dust collectors, dry fog systems, or PECs. The truck dumping operations use stilling sheds to control fugitive dust and the overland conveyor system is entirely enclosed. There are two existing crushing facilities, the near-pit primary crusher and the coal preparation plant, and seven coal storage silos within the permit area that provide capacity to produce at the permitted level. While sufficient capacity exists, future changes in facilities may be constructed to improve operating efficiency and air quality protection. Future possibilities for processing and loadout of coal include overland conveying to existing facilities. Alternately, if JRCC acquires the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, new coal processing and train loadout facilities may be constructed on or adjacent to the LBA tract at some time in the future. Full-time employment at the Jacobs Ranch Mine is currently 630. If JRCC acquires the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under the Proposed Action, they anticipate that, at the expected average annual post-2007 coal production of 40 million tons, the average employment level would increase to 785 for the additional 16.7 years that it would take to mine the coal included in the tract. As discussed in Chapter 1, JRCC applied for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, but a portion of the tract is within Black Thunder Mine’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area (Figures 2-3 and 2-4). As a result, TBCC is potentially in a position to mine the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. Black Thunder Mine recently completed the construction of a new train loadout facility, including a railroad spur and two storage silos, within their Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area, which is entirely within Black Thunder Mine’s current permit area. If a company other than JRCC (i.e., ALC) was to acquire the tract, the rate of coal production, mining sequence, equipment, and facilities would be different than if JRCC acquired the tract as a maintenance lease, as described above. However, the area of disturbance and the impacts of removing the coal would not be substantially different from the area of disturbance and the impacts of JRCC mining the tract. 2.4.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternative 1 Under the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, JRCC’s application to lease the coal included in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would be rejected. The tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities nor employment on the existing leases at the Jacobs Ranch Mine. The Jacobs Ranch Mine currently leases approximately 8,400 acres of federal coal, 720 acres of private coal, and 600 acres of state coal, all of which are within the existing Jacobs Ranch Mine permit boundary. A total of approximately 14,853 acres will eventually be affected in mining the current leases. If the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is not leased, JRCC estimates that the annual production at the Jacobs Ranch Mine after January 1, 2008 would average 40 2-42 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives million tons, and the average full-time employment level is expected to be 630 persons. Mining would continue at the Jacobs Ranch Mine for approximately 10.6 years. No portion of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract will be disturbed under Jacobs Ranch Mine’s current mining plans in order to recover the coal in the existing contiguous coal leases. However, the construction of a new train loadout facility for the Black Thunder Mine within TBCC’s permitted Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area, which is located within the eastern portion of the LBA tract (Figures 2-3 and 2-4), was completed in 2008. In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining these lands versus not mining them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption that the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if the No Action Alternative is selected. However, selection of the No Action Alternative would not preclude leasing and mining of this tract in the future. If the decision is made to reject the West Jacobs Ranch lease application at this time, the tract could be leased as a maintenance lease in the future while the adjacent mine is in operation. If it is not leased while the existing adjacent mine is in operation, it may or may not be leased in the future. This tract includes enough coal reserves to economically justify mining by a new operation, and the coal reserves included in the tract could potentially be combined with unleased federal coal to the north, east and/or west to create a larger tract that could be mined by a new operation in the future. 2.4.3 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternative 2--Preferred Alternative Under Alternative 2 for the West Jacobs Ranch 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 for 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 Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract assumes that JRCC 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 existing Jacobs Ranch 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 Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal coal. 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 Jacobs Ranch 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 BLM study area includes the tract as applied for and unleased federal coal adjacent Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-43

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives to the northern and western edges of the tract as applied for (Figure 2-4). Under Alternative 2, BLM could add all or part of the adjacent lands to the tract, or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as discussed in Section 2.0. Under Alternative 2, the area BLM is evaluating adding to the tract as applied for includes the following lands: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 6: Lots 8, 15, 16, and 23; T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 15: Lots 9 through 16; Section 20: Lots 9, 10, 14, and 15; Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Section 22: Lots 1 through 8; Section 28: Lot 4; Section 29: Lots 1 through 4; Section 30: Lots 5, 12, 13, and 20; Section 31: Lots 5, 12, 13, and 20; Total:

163.05 acres

326.83 acres 161.38 acres 639.69 acres 320.85 acres 41.00 acres 159.36 acres 157.29 acres 162.40 acres 2,131.85 acres

The legal description of the Alternative 2 BLM reconfiguration (Figure 2-4) for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is as follows: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 3: Lots 2 and 5 through 19; Section 4: Lots 5 through 20; Section 5: Lots 5 through 20; Section 6: Lots 8, 15, 16, and 23; T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 15: Lots 9 through 16; Section 20: Lots 9, 10, 14, and 15; Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Section 22: Lots 1 through 16; Section 27: Lots 1 through 16; Section 28: Lots 1 through 16; Section 29: Lots 1 through 15 and SE¼SE¼; Section 30: Lots 5, 12, 13, and 20; Section 31: Lots 5, 12, 13, and 20; Section 32: Lots 1 through 15 and SW¼SE¼; Section 33: Lots 1 through 15 and NE¼SE¼ ; Section 34: Lots 1 through 16; Total:

638.38 639.50 636.67 163.05

acres acres acres acres

326.83 161.38 639.69 647.84 658.21 649.43 637.46 157.29 162.40 643.83 653.02 661.24

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

8,076.22 acres

2-44

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Land descriptions and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain Land and Mineral Titles approved Master Title Plats as of August 30, 2005 and September 7, 2007 and Coal Plats as of September 7, 2007. The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11. JRCC estimates that the LBA tract reconfigured under Alternative 2 (the BLM study area) includes approximately 1,269.0 million tons of in-place coal reserves. As discussed in Sections 1.1, 1.5, and 2.4.1 and shown in Figure 2 4, a portion of Wyoming State Highway 450 borders the entire southern edge of the above-described alternate tract configuration. Therefore, some of the coal included in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under this alternative is overlain by Highway 450 and 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)). If JRCC obtains approval from the WYDOT to move this state highway, the exception to the prohibition on mining within the road ROW and buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, JRCC would be able to recover the coal underlying Wyoming State Highway 450, its ROW and associated buffer zone. If JRCC does not obtain approval to relocate the highway, the coal underlying the road, its ROW, and associated buffer zone would remain unsuitable for mining and would not be recovered. TBCC’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area, which lies north of Wyoming State Highway 450 and west of the Hilight Road, is entirely within Black Thunder Mine’s current permit area (Figures 2-3 and 2-4). Black Thunder Mine completed the construction of a new train loadout facility, including a railroad spur and two storage silos, within their Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area in 2008. TBCC’s new railroad spur, train loadout facility, and two storage silos are located entirely within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. It may not be economically feasible to move the railroad spur and the coal processing and storage facilities to recover all the coal at this time, but may be economically feasible at some point in the future, if the coal is leased. As discussed in Section 1.5, some of the coal included in the above-described alternative tract configuration has been determined unsuitable for mining due to the presence of the BNSF & UP rail line, which borders the entire eastern side of the LBA study area (Figure 2-4). As shown in Figure 2-4, a portion of Hilight Road (Campbell County Road 52) lies west of and adjacent to the BNSF & UP rail line ROW, and also borders the entire eastern edge of the above described lands. Therefore, some of the coal included in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under this alternative is overlain by the Hilight Road and SMCRA prohibits surface mining operations on lands within 100 feet of the outside line of the ROW for a public road. The coal underlying this county road, its ROW, and associated 100-foot buffer zone has been determined to be unsuitable for mining in accordance with SMCRA and as specified under Unsuitability Criterion 3. There is an exception to this Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-45

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives prohibition in the regulations at 30 CFR 761.11(d)(2), which can be applied if the appropriate road authority (Campbell County Board of Commissioners) allows the road to be relocated or closed. If JRCC obtains approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to close or move this county road, the exception to the prohibition on mining within the road ROW and buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, JRCC would be able to recover the coal underlying Hilight Road, its ROW, and associated buffer zone. If JRCC does not obtain approval to move or close the county road, the coal underlying the road, its ROW, and associated buffer zone would remain unsuitable for mining and would not be recovered. If State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are not moved or closed, JRCC estimates that the BLM study area tract (Figure 2-4) includes approximately 1,014.0 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using JRCC’s projected recovery factor of 90 percent of the mineable coal reserves, about 912.6 million tons of the mineable coal would be recoverable. Although these lands would not be mined, they are included in the alternative tract configuration to allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal that is adjacent to but outside of the public road ROWs and associated buffer zones and to comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. If a lease is issued for this tract, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portions of the leased tract within the Wyoming State Highway 450 and Hilight Road ROWs and associated buffer zones unless approval is obtained from the appropriate public road authority to relocate or close the roads. JRCC estimates an average annual coal production rate of 40 mmtpy for the Jacobs Ranch Mine after 2007. With the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract reconfigured under Alternative 2, coal production at the Jacobs Ranch Mine would continue for approximately 33.4 years beyond 2008. The study area tract accounts for approximately 22.8 years of the mine life extension. If the Hilight Road is moved or closed, and if relocation of Wyoming State Highway 450 were approved, JRCC estimates that an added 255.0 million tons of coal would be mineable in the BLM study area tract. BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract will be included in the Final EIS and published in the sale notice if the tract is offered for sale.

2-46

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2.5 North Porcupine LBA Tract 2.5.1 North Porcupine LBA Tract Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action for the North Porcupine LBA Tract, the tract as applied for by BTU Western Resources, Inc. (BTU) would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D). The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the North Porcupine lease application (Figure 2-5). The Proposed Action assumes that BTU would be the successful bidder on the North Porcupine LBA Tract if it is offered for sale. The legal description of the proposed North Porcupine LBA Tract coal lease lands as applied for by BTU under the Proposed Action is as follows: T.42N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 19: Lots 13 through 20; Section 20: Lots 9 through 16; Section 21: Lots 9 through 16; Section 22: Lots 9 through 16; Section 26: Lots 3 through 6 and 9 through 16; Section 27: Lots 1 through 16; Section 28: Lots 1 through 4; Section 29 Lots 1 through 4; Section 30: Lots 5 through 8; T.42N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 22: Lots 10 through 15 and 21 through 24; Section 23: Lots 9 through 16; Section 24: Lots 9 through 16; Section 25: Lots 1 through 4; Section 26: Lots 1 through 6 and 11 through 14; Section 27: Lots 2 through 6, 9, 12, and 15 through 30; Section 34: Lots 1 through 3 and 6 through 11; Section 35: Lots 3 through 6 and 11 through 14; Total:

296.94 328.00 329.54 327.74 496.64 664.48 165.98 164.30 147.79

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

323.49 324.94 325.82 162.96 404.09 649.42 360.46 323.19

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

5,795.78 acres

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives As discussed in Section 1.5, and as shown in Figure 2-5, some of the coal included in the above-described lands in the North Porcupine LBA Tract has been determined to be unsuitable for mining in accordance with SMCRA and as specified under Unsuitability Criterion 2 (43 CFR 3461) due to the presence of the BNSF & UP railroad line, which crosses the western side of the LBA tract. The coal underlying the railroad ROW and an associated 100-foot buffer zone is also not considered by PRC to be mineable at this time because the cost that would be associated with moving the railroad tracks would make it economically unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. Although the federal coal underlying the railroad ROW and associated buffer zone would not be mined, it is included in the tract to allow maximum recovery of all of the mineable coal that is adjacent to but outside of the railroad ROW and its associated buffer zone and to comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. PRC estimates that approximately 65.8 million tons of mineable coal included in the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for is located within a layback buffer zone that PRC has determined extends 1,000 feet on either side of the railroad centerline. Some of the coal included in the above-described lands is not currently considered by PRC to be mineable due to the presence of the Teckla Electric Power Substation, which is located adjacent to the North Porcupine tract in the NE¼NE¼ of Section 3, T.41N., R.71W. Due to the requirement that no blasting operations be conducted within 500 feet of the substation, the coal underlying the southwestern diagonal half of Lot 13, Section 35, T.42N., R.71W., is not considered mineable at this time by PRC because the cost that would be associated with moving the substation would make it economically unfeasible to recover. PRC estimates that approximately 2.7 million tons of mineable coal included in the North Porcupine LBA Tract is located within the Teckla Substation layback buffer zone. Although the federal coal underlying the substation buffer zone would not be mined, it is included in the tract to allow maximum recovery of all of the mineable coal that is adjacent to but outside of the substation buffer zone and to comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. As indicated in Section 1.5 and as shown in Figure 2-5, some of the coal included in the above-described lands in the North Porcupine LBA Tract is overlain by the Antelope Road (Campbell County Road 4), which crosses a portion of the LBA tract, the Matheson Road (Campbell County Road 70), which borders a portion of the LBA tract, and the Mackey Road (Campbell County Road 69), which borders and crosses a portion of the LBA tract. 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)). The coal that is underlying these public road ROWs and associated 100-foot buffer zones has been determined to be unsuitable for mining in accordance with SMCRA and as specified under Unsuitability Criterion 3 (43 CFR 3461). 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 (Campbell County Board of Commissioners) allows 2-48 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives the roads to be relocated or closed. As discussed in Section 1.1, PRC has obtained approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to close and relocate the portions of Antelope and Matheson roads that cross and border the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for. The exception to Unsuitability Criterion 3 is therefore applicable and the coal underlying those two county road ROWs and associated buffer zones would be recoverable if a lease is issued for the North Porcupine LBA Tract. If PRC obtains approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to close and relocate the Mackey Road, which crosses and borders the North Porcupine tract, the exception to the prohibition on mining within that road’s ROW and buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, PRC would be able to recover the coal underlying the Mackey Road ROW and associated buffer zone. If PRC does not obtain approval to close and relocate the Mackey Road, the coal underlying its ROW and buffer zone would remain unsuitable for mining and would not be recovered. If the Mackey Road is moved or closed, PRC estimates that an added 34.9 million tons of coal would be mineable in the North Porcupine LBA Tract. The federal coal underlying the Mackey Road, its ROW, and adjacent 100-foot buffer zone is included in the as applied for tract configuration because it would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to but outside of the road ROW and associated buffer zone, and to comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts if the road is not moved; it would also allow recovery of the coal under the road if it is closed or relocated. If a lease is issued for this tract, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portions of the lease within 100 feet of either the BNSF & UP rail line ROW or Mackey Road ROW. The stipulation would allow recovery of the coal under Mackey Road if approval is obtained from the appropriate authority to move or close the road. PRC estimates that the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for includes approximately 756.9 million tons of in-place coal reserves. If the Mackey Road is not closed or relocated, PRC estimates that the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for contains approximately 653.5 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Based on historical recovery practices, PRC assumes that about 92 percent of that coal, or approximately 601.2 million tons of coal, would be recovered from the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for. PRC estimates that approximately 103.4 million tons of coal (which is about 14 percent of the in-place coal within the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for) would not be mineable because of the public road ROW and the layback buffers for the substation and rail line. The North Porcupine LBA Tract would be mined as an integral part of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine under the Proposed Action. Since the North Porcupine LBA Tract would be an extension of the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine, the facilities and infrastructure would be the same as those identified in the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-49

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives WDEQ/LQD Mine Permit 569 Term T6, approved August 20, 2004 and the BLM R2P2, which was approved February 28, 2007. PRC’s currently approved air quality permits (Permit Numbers MD-1172, MD 1309 and MD-1331) from the WDEQ/AQD for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine allow up to 105 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine produced: • 80.1 million tons of coal in 2003, • 82.5 million tons of coal in 2004, • 82.7 million tons of coal in 2005, • 88.5 million tons of coal in 2006, and • 91.5 million tons of coal in 2007
(Wyoming Department of Employment 2003, Shamley 2008a).
As of December 31, 2007, approximately 1,133.2 million tons of coal had been mined from within the current permitted area of the mine. PRC estimates an average annual coal production rate of 95 mmtpy for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine for the years beyond 2007. If BTU acquires the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for, a total of approximately 1,632.6 million tons of coal would be recovered from the existing leases and the North Porcupine LBA Tract after January 1, 2008, with an estimated 601.2 million tons coming from the LBA tract, as discussed above. With the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for, coal production at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine would continue for approximately 17.2 years beyond 2008, and PRC anticipates that the current work force of 1,150 persons would remain the same. The LBA tract accounts for approximately 6.3 years of the mine life extension. BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of the coal included in the tract will be included in the Final EIS and published in the sale notice if the tract is offered for sale. Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would be built as needed, and any public utility lines and oil and gas pipelines would be relocated as necessary. The first step of the mining process is soil salvage with suitable heavy equipment, such as rubber-tired scrapers. During initial pit development, soil is placed in temporary stockpiles for later use in final pit closure and reclamation. Whenever possible, direct haulage of soil from salvage areas to a 2-50 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives reclamation area would be done, but due to scheduling, some topsoil would be temporarily stockpiled. As required by the reclamation plan, heavy equipment would again be used to haul and redistribute the stockpiled topsoil on regraded areas. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine is one of several mines currently operating in the PRB where the coal seams are notably thick and the overburden is relatively thin. Mining has been and would continue to be conducted in three semi-independent pits (West, North, and East Pits). The design of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine seeks to confine disturbance to the active mine blocks. After soil salvage operations are complete, blast holes are drilled down through the overburden to the top of the upper-most mineable coal seam. The drill holes are then loaded with explosives (ANFO) and detonated to fragment the overburden to facilitate efficient excavation. As overburden is removed, most would be directly placed into the previous empty pit where coal has been removed. The mine’s current method of overburden removal employs a truck and shovel pre-benching operation in advance of a dragline. Cast blasting is also employed to supplement dragline productivity. Other equipment used during overburden removal and backfilling includes dozers, scrapers, excavators, front-end loaders, graders, and water trucks. While increasing overburden depths in the North Porcupine tract would require an increasing percentage of overburden material to be moved by the truck and shovel prebenching operation, overburden removal methods would remain essentially the same as the current operation. However, once operations have moved west of the BNSF & UP rail line, the mine may utilize an alternative method of overburden removal and handling for the box cut and pre-benching operations. In combination with the conventional truck/shovel and dragline system, in-pit overburden crushing and overland conveying methods may be employed to move and emplace overburden materials to open pits areas east of the rail line and/or stockpile locations off of the coal lease area. Exposed coal seams have been and would continue to be cleaned with a dozer, drilled and blasted to facilitate efficient excavation. Coal removal is currently accomplished with the conventional truck and shovel method and then transported to one of four truck dump/crusher locations. Two of these truck dumps are remotely located from the final coal preparation plant and unit train loadout facilities. Coal haul roads would be temporary structures built within the mine areas. Coal is also transported from the near-pit crushers by overland conveyor to the final preparation plant and storage facilities. Some changes to the coal handling system infrastructure may be implemented in the future. For example, an additional remote coal truck dump/near-pit crusher and overland conveyor may be constructed west of the BNSF & UP railroad line. Chapter 4, Section 2(b)(i) of the WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules requires that rough backfilling and grading follow coal removal as closely as possible based on the mining conditions (WDEQ/LQD 2005). Replaced (backfilled) overburden is graded to approximate the original land surface contour, as required by WDEQ Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-51

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives and OSM rules. Elevations consistent with the approved PMT plan are established as quickly as possible to reconstruct a stable landscape and restore drainage. Under certain conditions, the PMT may not be immediately achievable. This occurs when there is an excess of material that may require temporary stockpiling, when there is insufficient material available from current overburden removal operations, or when future mining could redisturb an area already mined. Backfilled and recontoured overburden is sampled and analyzed to verify suitability as subsoil. Should unsuitable backfill materials be encountered (i.e., material that is not suitable for use in reestablishing vegetation or that may affect groundwater quality due to high concentrations of certain constituents, such as selenium or adverse pH levels), mitigation by additional soil depth, excavation and burial, or other special handling to remove them from the root zone would occur. Prior to soil distribution, regraded backfill is scarified to relieve compaction. Soil is redistributed on recontoured backfill using rubber-tired scrapers. Once a seedbed has been formed the reclaimed areas are revegetated using native grasses, forbs, and shrubs that are consistent with the postmining land use. According to a recent OSM evaluation of the Wyoming coal mining industry, the 2007 reclamation to disturbance ratio was approximately 80 percent (12,258 acres reclaimed vs. 15,321 acres disturbed) (OSM 2008). Coal would be produced from two mineable seams within the North Porcupine LBA Tract. PRC refers to these seams as the Wyodak-Anderson 1 and the Wyodak-Anderson 2. These two coal seams are separated by a shale parting that averages approximately 17 feet thick within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s existing lease areas. However, there is no shale parting in the LBA tract as applied for, and the combined Wyodak-Anderson 1 and 2 seam averages approximately 75 thick. Coal would be mined at several working pit faces to enable blending of the coal to meet customer quality requirements, to comply with BLM lease requirements for maximum economic recovery of the coal resource, and to optimize coal removal efficiency with available equipment. Mining efficiency and air quality protection are and would continue to be facilitated by extensive use of near-pit crushers and overland conveyors. There are four existing crushing facilities within the existing permit area. The overland conveyors are covered by dust hoods and all coal transfer points on conveyor belts and the truck dump hoppers are controlled by PECs, fogger/spray systems, or stilling sheds. There are five existing storage silos and one covered storage slot. While sufficient capacity exists to produce at the permitted level, future changes in coal handling and processing facilities may be constructed to improve operating efficiency and air quality protection. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine has a current full-time work force of 1,150 persons. If BTU acquires the North Porcupine LBA Tract under the Proposed Action, they anticipate that employment levels would remain the same for the additional 6.3 years that it would take to mine the coal included in the tract. As discussed in Chapter 1, the North Porcupine LBA Tract is adjacent to existing leases at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, but is not adjacent to any 2-52 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives of the other existing mines in this area (Figure 1-1). If a company other than BTU was to acquire the tract, the rate of coal production, mining sequence, equipment, and facilities would be different than if BTU acquired the tract as a maintenance lease, as described above. However, the area of disturbance and the impacts of removing the coal would not be substantially different from the area of disturbance and the impacts of PRC mining the tract. 2.5.2 North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternative 1 Under the North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, BTU’s application to lease the coal included in the North Porcupine LBA Tract would be rejected. The tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities nor employment on the existing leases at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine currently leases approximately 16,666 acres of federal coal and 1,400 acres of state coal, all of which are within the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit boundary. A total of approximately 27,443 acres will eventually be affected in mining the current leases. If the North Porcupine LBA Tract is not leased, PRC estimates that the annual production at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine after January 1, 2008 would average 95 million tons, and the average full-time employment level is expected to remain at 1,150 persons. Mining would continue at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine for approximately 10.9 years. Portions of the surface of the LBA tract will be disturbed by the North Antelope Rochelle Mine due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from existing contiguous leases. In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining these lands versus not mining them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption that the North Porcupine LBA Tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if the No Action Alternative is selected. However, selection of the No Action Alternative would not preclude leasing and mining of this tract in the future. If the decision is made to reject the North Porcupine lease application at this time, the tract could be leased as a maintenance lease in the future while the adjacent mine is in operation. If it is not leased while the existing adjacent mine is in operation, it may or may not be leased in the future. This tract includes enough coal reserves to economically justify mining by a new operation, and the coal reserves included in the tract could potentially be combined with unleased federal coal to the north, south and/or west to create a larger tract that could be mined by a new operation in the future. 2.5.3 North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternative 2--Preferred Alternative Under Alternative 2 for the North Porcupine 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-53

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives tract would be subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB and for 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 North Porcupine LBA Tract assumes that PEC 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 existing North Antelope Rochelle 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 North Porcupine LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal coal. 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 North Porcupine 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 BLM study area includes the tract as applied for and unleased federal coal adjacent to the northern and southwestern edges of the tract as applied for (Figure 2-5). Under Alternative 2, BLM could add all or part of the adjacent lands to the tract, or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as discussed in Section 2.0. Under Alternative 2, the area BLM is evaluating adding to the tract as applied for includes the following lands: T.42N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 19: Lots 9 through 12; Section 20: Lots 5 through 8; Section 21: Lots l through 8; Section 22: Lots 3 through 6; T.42N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 22: Lots 5 through 7, 19, and 20; Section 23: Lots 5 through 8; Section 24: Lots 5 through 8; Section 34: Lots 4, 5, and 12 through 16; Total:

149.02 162.93 330.71 163.80

acres acres acres acres

162.70 162.51 163.30 276.04

acres acres acres acres

1,572.01 acres

The legal description of the Alternative 2 BLM reconfiguration (Figure 2-5) for the North Porcupine LBA Tract is as follows: T.42N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 19: Lots 9 through 20; Section 20: Lots 5 through 16; Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Section 22: Lots 3 through 6 and 9 through 16; 2-54

445.96 490.93 660.25 491.54

acres acres acres acres

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Section Section Section Section Section 26: 27: 28: 29 30: Lots Lots Lots Lots Lots 3 1 1 1 5 through through through through through 6 and 9 through 16; 16; 4; 4; 8; 496.64 664.48 165.98 164.30 147.79 acres acres acres acres acres

T.42N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 22: Lots 5 through 7, 10 through 15, and 19 through 24; Section 23: Lots 5 through 16; Section 24: Lots 5 through 16; Section 25: Lots 1 through 4; Section 26: Lots 1 through 6 and 11 through 14; Section 27: Lots 2 through 6, 9, 12, and 15 through 30; Section 34: Lots 1 through 16; Section 35: Lots 3 through 6 and 11 through 14; Total:

486.19 487.45 489.12 162.96 404.09 649.42 636.50 323.19

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

7,366.79 acres

Land descriptions and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain Land and Mineral Titles approved Master Title Plats as of September 7, 2007 and September 20, 2007 and Coal Plats as of September 7, 2007 and September 20, 2007. The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned. Much of the surface (approximately 72 percent, or 5,289.6 acres) of the BLM study area includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11. PRC estimates that the LBA tract reconfigured under Alternative 2 (the BLM study area) includes approximately 955.8 million tons of in-place coal reserves. As discussed in Sections 1.5, and 2.5.1, some of the coal included in the above-described alternative tract configuration is not currently considered by PRC to be mineable due to the presence of the BNSF & UP rail line ROW and associated 100-foot buffer zone, which crosses the BLM study area (Figure 2 5). The coal that is located within the BNSF & UP railroad ROW and associated buffer zone has been determined to be unsuitable for mining under Coal Unsuitability Criterion Number 2 and would not be recoverable. Within the BLM study area, PRC estimates that approximately 95.2 million tons of mineable coal is located within a layback buffer zone that extends 1,000 feet on either side of the railroad centerline. As discussed in Section 2.5.1, some of the coal included in the above-described lands is not currently considered by PRC to be mineable due to the requirement that no blasting operations be conducted within 500 feet of the Teckla Electric Power Substation, which is located in the NE¼NE¼ of Section 3, T.41N., R.71W. Therefore, the coal underlying the substation buffer zone is not considered mineable at this time by PRC because the cost that would be Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-55

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives associated with moving the substation would make it economically unfeasible to recover. As discussed in Sections 1.5 and 2.5.1 and shown in Figure 2-5, some of the coal in the above-described alternative tract configuration is overlain by the Antelope, Matheson, and Mackey roads (Campbell County roads 4, 70, and 69, respectively). The coal that is underlying these public road ROWs and associated 100-foot buffer zones extending on either side of the ROWs has been determined to be unsuitable for mining in accordance with SMCRA and as specified in coal leasing Unsuitability Criterion Number 3 (43 CFR 3461) and would not be recoverable. There is an exception to this prohibition to mine the coal underlying the public road ROWs and associated buffer zones that can be applied if the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated or closed (SMCRA Section 522(e)(4) and 30 CFR 761.11(d)(2)). PRC has currently obtained approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to close and relocate the portion of Antelope Road that crosses the BLM study area and Matheson Road that crosses and borders the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for. However, PRC has not obtained approval from the County Commissioners to close and relocate the portion of Matheson Road that borders lands added by the BLM study area and would not seek approval because this portion of the road lies within the BNSF & UP railroad buffer zone, and because it provides access to the Teckla Electric Power Substation. PRC has not yet obtained approval from the County Commissioners to close and relocate the portion of Mackey Road that crosses the BLM study area. If PRC obtains approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to close and relocate Mackey Road, which crosses and borders the BLM study area, the exception to the prohibition on mining within the road’s ROW and buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, PRC would be able to recover the coal underlying the Mackey Road ROW and associated buffer zone. If PRC does not obtain approval to close and relocate the Mackey Road, the coal underlying its ROW and buffer zone would remain unsuitable for mining and would not be recovered. If the above-described portions of the Matheson and Mackey roads are not closed or relocated, PRC estimates that the BLM study area tract (Figure 2-5) includes approximately 810.2 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using PRC’s projected recovery factor of 92 percent of the mineable coal reserves, about 745.4 million tons of the mineable coal would be recoverable. At the average annual production rate of 95 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend the life of the mine by about 7.8 additional years. PRC estimates that approximately 145.6 million tons of coal would not be mineable within the BLM study area due to the presence of the railroad and public road ROWs and associated buffer zones and the Teckla Substation buffer zone. Although these lands would not be mined, they are included in BLM’s study area (the preferred alternative tract configuration) to allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal that is adjacent to but outside of the railroad and public road ROWs and associated buffer zones and the electric substation buffer zone and to comply 2-56 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. If a lease is issued for this tract, stipulations will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portions of the leased tract within the BNSF & UP railroad and pubic road ROWs and associated buffer zones. The stipulations would also state that mining within the public road ROWs and buffer zones may be conducted if approval is obtained from the appropriate public road authority to relocate or close the roads. If the Mackey Road is moved or closed, PRC estimates that an added 47.7 million tons of coal would be mineable in the BLM study area tract under Alternative 2. BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract will be included in the Final EIS and published in the sale notice if the tract is offered for sale. 2.6 South Porcupine LBA Tract 2.6.1 South Porcupine LBA Tract Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action for the South Porcupine LBA Tract, the tract as applied for by BTU would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D). The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the South Porcupine lease application (Figure 2-6). The Proposed Action assumes that BTU would be the successful bidder on the South Porcupine LBA Tract if it is offered for sale. The legal description of the proposed South Porcupine LBA Tract coal lease lands as applied for by BTU under the Proposed Action is as follows: T.41N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 7: Lots 7 through 10 and 15 through 18; Section 18: Lots 6 through 11 and 14 through 19; T.41N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 1: Lots 5 through 20; Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; Section 13: Lots 1 through 16; Section 14: Lots 1, 8, 9, and 16; Section 23: Lot 1 and N½ of Lot 8; Section 24: Lots 2 through 4 and N½ of Lots 5, 6 and 7; Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

320.94 acres 479.71 acres

638.15 acres 678.52 acres 668.93 acres 154.62 acres 59.81 acres 185.28 acres 2-57

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Total: 3,185.96 acres

Land descriptions and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain Land and Mineral Titles approved Master Title Plats as of September 6, 2007 and Coal Plats as of September 6, 2007. The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned. Roughly half of the surface (approximately 51 percent or 1,637.2 acres) of the tract as applied for includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11. As discussed in Section 1.5 and as shown in Figure 2-6, some of the coal in the above-described lands in the South Porcupine LBA Tract is not mineable due to the presence of the BNSF & UP railroad ROW and associated 100-foot nodisturbance buffer zone. The rail line lies west of and adjacent to the South Porcupine tract, and like the North Porcupine tract, the coal underlying portions of the railroad ROW and associated 100-foot buffer zone in this area has been determined by the BLM to be unsuitable for mining according to the coal leasing Unsuitability Criterion 2 (43 CFR 3461). Although the federal coal underlying the railroad ROW and associated buffer zone has been determined to be unsuitable for mining and would therefore not be recovered, it is included in the LBA tract to allow maximum recovery of all of the mineable coal that is adjacent to but outside of the railroad ROW and its associated buffer zone and to comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. PRC estimates that approximately 13.8 million tons of mineable coal included in the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for is located within a layback buffer zone that extends 1,000 feet east of the railroad centerline. If a lease is issued for this tract, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted within the BNSF & UP railroad ROW. As indicated in Section 1.5 and as shown in Figure 2-6, some of the coal included in the above-described lands in the South Porcupine LBA Tract is overlain by the Antelope Road (Campbell County Road 4), which crosses the LBA tract. 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)). The coal that is underlying this public road ROW and associated 100-foot buffer zone on both sides of the ROW has been determined to be unsuitable for mining in accordance with SMCRA and as specified under Unsuitability Criterion 3 (43 CFR 3461). 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 (Campbell County Board of Commissioners) allows the road to be relocated or closed. As discussed in Section 1.1, PRC has obtained approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to close and relocate a portion (approximately 1.25 miles) of the Antelope Road that crosses the South Porcupine LBA Tract. PRC plans to apply for the approval of the County Commissioners to close or relocate the remaining length (approximately 2.25 miles) of Antelope Road that crosses the South Porcupine tract. If PRC obtains approval from the County 2-58 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Commissioners to close or relocate this section of the county road, the exception to the prohibition on mining within the road ROW and associated buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, PRC would be able to recover the coal underlying the county road ROW and buffer zone. If PRC does not obtain approval to move or close the 2.25-mile section of Antelope Road, the coal underlying its ROW and buffer zone would remain unsuitable for mining and would not be recovered. The federal coal underlying the above-described 2.25-mile section of Antelope Road, its ROW, and adjacent buffer zone is included in the tract because it would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to but outside of the road ROW and associated buffer zone if this length of road is not moved; it would also allow recovery of the coal under the road if it is moved or closed. If a lease is issued for this tract, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted within the Antelope Road ROW and 100-foot buffer zone for this 2.25-mile section unless approval is obtained from the appropriate authority to close or relocate the road. PRC estimates that the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for includes approximately 422.2 million tons of in-place coal. If the remaining 2.25-mile section of Antelope Road is not closed or relocated, PRC estimates that the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for contains approximately 336.6 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Based on historical recovery practices, PRC assumes that about 92 percent of that coal, or approximately 309.7 million tons of coal, would be recovered from the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for. The South Porcupine LBA Tract would be mined as an integral part of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine under the Proposed Action. Since the South Porcupine LBA Tract would be an extension of the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine, the facilities and infrastructure would be the same as those identified in the WDEQ/LQD Mine Permit 569 Term T6, approved August 20, 2004 and the BLM R2P2, which was approved February 28, 2007. PRC’s currently approved air quality permits from the WDEQ/AQD for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine allow up to 105 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine produced: • 80.1 million tons of coal in 2003, • 82.5 million tons of coal in 2004, • 82.7 million tons of coal in 2005, • 88.5 million tons of coal in 2006, and • 91.5 million tons of coal in 2007
(Wyoming Department of Employment 2003, Shamley 2008a).
As of December 31, 2007, approximately 1,133.2 million tons of coal had been mined from within the current permitted area of the mine. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-59

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives PRC estimates an average annual coal production rate of 95 mmtpy for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine for the years beyond 2007. If BTU acquires the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for, a total of approximately 1,341.1 million tons of coal would be recovered from the existing leases and the South Porcupine LBA Tract after January 1, 2008, with an estimated 309.7 million tons coming from the LBA tract, as discussed above. Based upon this estimate of recoverable reserves, about 27 percent of the in-place coal reserves included within the LBA tract would not be recovered under normal mining practices and due to the presence of the unmineable reserves within the railroad ROW and associated buffer zone and the 2.25-mile section of the Antelope Road ROW and associated buffer zone. With the South Porcupine LBA Tract, coal production at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine would continue for approximately 14.2 years beyond 2008. The LBA tract accounts for approximately 3.3 years of the mine life extension. If the remaining 2.25-mile section of Antelope Road is closed or relocated, PRC estimates that that an added 71.8 million tons of coal would be mineable in the South Porcupine LBA Tract. Based upon this estimate of recoverable reserves, about 11 percent of the in-place coal reserves included within the LBA tract would not be recovered under normal mining practices and due to the presence of the unmineable reserves within the railroad ROW and associated buffer zone. BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of the coal included in the tract will be included in the Final EIS and published in the sale notice if the tract is offered for sale. Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would be built as needed, and any public utility lines and oil and gas pipelines would be relocated as necessary. A brief description of PRC’s mining operation at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, emphasizing the methods and equipment that are used to remove, handle, and reclaim overburden and soil, is included in Section 2.5.1. The methods and equipment used to mine the coal, and the facilities used to process and store coal are also described in Section 2.5.1. Coal would be produced from two mineable seams within the South Porcupine LBA Tract. PRC refers to these seams as the Wyodak-Anderson 1 and the WyodakAnderson 2, which have a combined average thickness of approximately 76 feet in the LBA tract. These two coal seams are separated by a shale parting that averages approximately 17 feet thick within the mine’s existing leases and approximately 10 feet thick within the South Porcupine LBA Tract. The mining 2-60 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives and reclamation methods, coal handling, processing and storage facilities, and associated air quality protection measures would allow the North Antelope Rochelle Mine to produce at the currently permitted level. While sufficient capacity exists, future changes in facilities may be constructed to improve operating efficiency and air quality protection. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine has a current full-time work force of 1,150 persons. If BTU acquires the South Porcupine LBA Tract under the Proposed Action, they anticipate that employment levels would remain the same for the additional 3.3 years that it would take to mine the coal included in the tract. As discussed in Chapter 1, BTU applied for the South Porcupine LBA Tract, but the tract is also adjacent to the Antelope Mine, operated by Antelope Coal Company (Figure 1-1). As a result, Antelope Coal Company is potentially in a position to mine the South Porcupine LBA Tract. If a company other than BTU was to acquire the tract, the rate of coal production, mining sequence, equipment, and facilities would be different than if BTU acquired the tract as a maintenance lease, as described above. However, the area of disturbance and the impacts of removing the coal would not be substantially different from the area of disturbance and the impacts of PRC mining the tract. 2.6.2 South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternative 1 Under the South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, BTU’s application to lease the coal included in the South Porcupine LBA Tract would be rejected. The tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities nor employment on the existing leases at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine currently leases approximately 16,666 acres of federal coal and 1,400 acres of state coal, all of which are within the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit boundary. A total of approximately 27,443 acres will eventually be affected in mining the current leases. If the South Porcupine LBA Tract is not leased, PRC estimates that the annual production at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine after January 1, 2008 would average 95 million tons, and the average full-time employment level is expected to remain at 1,150 persons. Mining would continue at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine for approximately 10.9 years. Portions of the surface of the LBA tract would probably be disturbed by the North Antelope Rochelle Mine due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from existing contiguous leases. In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining these lands versus not mining them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption that the South Porcupine LBA Tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if the No Action Alternative is selected. However, selection of the No Action Alternative would not preclude leasing and mining of this tract in the future. If the decision is made to reject the South Porcupine lease Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-61

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives application at this time, the tract could be leased as a maintenance lease in the future while the adjacent mine is in operation. If it is not leased while the existing adjacent mine is in operation, it may or may not be leased in the future. This tract does not include enough coal reserves to economically justify mining by a new operation; however, the coal reserves included in the tract could potentially be combined with unleased federal coal to the west to create a larger tract that could be mined by a new operation in the future. 2.6.3 South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternative 2--Preferred Alternative Under Alternative 2 for the South Porcupine 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 for 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 South Porcupine LBA Tract assumes that BTU 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 existing North Antelope Rochelle 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 South Porcupine LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal coal. 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 South Porcupine 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 BLM study area includes the tract as applied for and unleased federal coal adjacent to the western edge of the tract as applied for (Figure 2-6). Under Alternative 2, BLM could add all or part of the adjacent lands to the tract, or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as discussed in Section 2.0. Under Alternative 2, the area BLM is evaluating adding to the tract as applied for includes the following lands: T.41N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 10: Lot 9; Section 11: Lots 9 through 12 and 14 through 16; Section 14: Lot 2 and E½ of Lot 7; Total:

41.20 acres 283.80 acres 57.07 acres 382.07 acres

The legal description of the Alternative 2 BLM reconfiguration (Figure 2-6) for the South Porcupine LBA Tract is as follows: 2-62 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives T.41N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 7: Lots 7 through 10 and 15 through 18; Section 18: Lots 6 through 11 and 14 through 19; T.41N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 1: Lots 5 through 20; Section 10: Lot 9; Section 11: Lots 9 through 12 and 14 through 16; Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; Section 13: Lots 1 through 16; Section 14: Lots 1, 2, E½ of 7, 8, 9, and 16; Section 23: Lot 1 and N½ of Lot 8; Section 24: Lots 2 through 4 and N½ of Lots 5, 6 and 7; Total: 320.94 acres 479.71 acres

638.15 acres 41.20 acres 283.80 acres 678.52 acres 668.93 acres 211.69 acres 59.81 acres 185.28 acres 3,568.03 acres

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives be applied if the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated or closed (SMCRA Section 522(e)(4) and 30 CFR 761.11(d)(2)). As discussed in Section 1.1, PRC has obtained approval from the Campbell County Board of Commissioners to close and relocate a portion (approximately 1.25 miles) of the Antelope Road that crosses the South Porcupine LBA Tract under the alternative tract configuration. PRC plans to apply for the approval of the County Commissioners to close or relocate the remaining length (approximately 2.25 miles) of the Antelope Road that crosses the BLM study area for the South Porcupine tract. If PRC obtains approval from the County Commissioners to close or relocate this section of the county road, the exception to the prohibition on mining within the road ROW and associated buffer zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, PRC would be able to recover the coal underlying the county road ROW and buffer zone. If PRC does not obtain approval to move or close the 2.25-mile section of Antelope Road, the coal underlying its ROW and buffer zone would remain unsuitable for mining and would not be recovered. Although these lands would not be mined, they are included in the alternative tract configuration to allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal that is adjacent to but outside of the railroad and public road ROWs and associated buffer zones and to comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. If a lease is issued for this tract, stipulations will be attached to the lease stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portions of the leased tract within the BNSF & UP railroad and public road ROWs and associated buffer zones. The stipulations would also state that mining within the public road ROW and buffer zone may be conducted if approval is obtained from the appropriate public road authority to relocate or close the remaining 2.25-mile portion of the Antelope Road. If the remaining 2.25-mile section of Antelope Road is not closed or relocated, PRC estimates that the South Porcupine LBA Tract configured under Alternative 2 (BLM’s study area) includes approximately 368.8 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using PRC’s projected recovery factor of 92 percent of the mineable coal reserves, about 339.3 million tons of the mineable coal would be recoverable. At the average annual production rate of 95 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend the life of the mine by about 3.6 additional years. PRC estimates that approximately 102.1 million tons of coal would not be mineable because of the railroad and public road ROWs and associated buffer zones. If the remaining 2.25-mile section of Antelope Road is closed or relocated, PRC estimates that an added 71.8 million tons of coal would be mineable in the BLM study area tract (BLM’s preferred tract configuration). BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal reserve 2-64 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the tract will be included in the Final EIS and published in the sale notice if the tract is offered for sale. 2.7 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail 2.7.1 Alternative 4: New Mine Start Under this alternative, as under the Proposed Actions and Alternatives 2 and 3, BLM would hold a separate, competitive, sealed-bid sale for the lands included in each LBA tract. Under this alternative, it is assumed, however, that the successful qualified bidder for a tract would be someone other than the applicant and that this bidder would plan to open a new mine to develop the coal resources in one or more of the LBA tracts (North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine). BLM currently estimates that a tract would potentially need to include as much as 500 to 600 million tons of in-place coal in order to attract a buyer interested in opening a new mine in the Wyoming PRB. This is based on several assumptions. First, it is assumed that an operator would need to construct facilities capable of producing 30 mmtpy in order to take advantage of the economies of scale offered by the coal deposits in the PRB. Secondly, it is assumed that 20 to 30 years of coal reserves would be needed to justify the expense of building the facilities described above. Given these assumptions, the West Jacobs Ranch and North Porcupine LBA Tracts as applied for include sufficient coal reserves to consider opening a new mine, while the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts as applied for and the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for do not. The North Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, and North Porcupine LBA Tracts reconfigured under Alternative 2 (and Alternative 3 for the West Hilight Field tract), each include sufficient coal reserves to support a new mine, while the South Hilight Field and South Porcupine tracts do not. Therefore, it is unlikely that a company or companies would lease the South Hilight Field or South Porcupine tracts in order to open a new mine. However, the other four LBA Tracts that are included in this EIS analysis do include sufficient coal reserves to support a new mine. A company or companies acquiring this coal for one or more new stand-alone mines would require considerable initial capital expenses, including the construction of new surface facilities (i.e., offices, shops, warehouses, coal processing facilities, coal loadout facilities, and rail spurs), mining equipment, extensive baseline data collection, and development of new mining and reclamation plans. A new start mine would also require a large number of new employees, which may not be available from the mining sector workforce (which includes the oil and gas industry), considering the current strong demand for labor and low unemployment in Campbell County and surrounding counties in the PRB. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-65

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives In addition, a company or companies acquiring this coal for one or more new start mines would have to compete for customers with established mines in a competitive market. Based on demand forecasting for the Wyoming PRB mines, there is sufficient existing mine capacity to provide for expected coal demand through the year 2020 (BLM 2005a). While this does not mean that no new operations would open, it becomes difficult for a new operation with the capital costs of new facilities and mine start up costs to produce coal at a price competitive with the existing operations. The potential difficulty in obtaining an air quality permit is another issue that could discourage new mine starts in the PRB. A new mine would create a new source of air quality impacts. As discussed in Chapter 3, 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. In order to obtain a construction permit, an operator may be required to demonstrate that the proposed activities will not increase air pollutant levels above annual standards established by the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations, which can be found on the internet at http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/standards.asp. There were no exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard anywhere in the PRB through year 2000. From 2001 through 2006, there were 29 monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard at seven operating mines in the Wyoming PRB. Nineteen of these exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002, while two, three, five, and zero exceedances occurred in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 respectively. In 2007, there were a total of six exceedances at three operating PRB surface coal mines, five of which occurred in the general Wright analysis area (one at the Black Thunder Mine and four at the North Rochelle Mine, which was acquired by Arch Coal, Inc. in 2004 and is located between and adjacent to the Black Thunder and North Antelope Rochelle mines). Although many of these exceedances have been attributed to high winds, concerns about future potential exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) may make it more difficult for an operator planning on opening a new mine to demonstrate that new operations would not result in air pollution levels that are above annual Wyoming standards. In view of the issues discussed above, development of a new mine on one or more of the six LBA tracts that are included in this EIS is considered unlikely and this alternative is not analyzed in detail in this EIS. The environmental impacts of developing one or more new mines to recover the coal resources in one or more of these six LBA tracts would be greater than under the Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative, or Alternatives 2 or 3 because of the need for new facilities, new rail lines, new employment, and the creation of additional sources of particulates (dust). In the event that one or more lease sales are held and the applicants are not the successful bidder(s), the successful bidder(s) would be required to submit detailed mining and 2-66 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives reclamation plans for approval before any of the tract(s) could be mined, and this NEPA analysis would be reviewed and supplemented as necessary prior to approval of those mining and reclamation plans. 2.7.2 Alternative 5: Delaying the Sale Under this alternative, BLM would delay the sale of one or more of the LBA tracts as applied for. The prices received for coal from the PRB have generally been increasing in recent years. If that trend continues, the bonus and royalty payments to the government might be higher if one or more of the tracts is offered for sale at a later date. Also, delaying the sale of one or more of the tracts would allow CBNG resources to be more completely recovered prior to mining. Under this alternative, it is assumed that a tract could be developed later as either a maintenance tract or a new start mine, depending on how long the sale was delayed. There is no assurance at this time that delaying the sale of one or more of the LBA tracts would result in a higher coal price or a higher bonus bid. During much of 2005, coal shipments from the PRB were limited due to damage to railroad lines in Wyoming and other states. These shipping constraints combined with increasing world energy demands and natural disasters in other parts of the country led to anomalously large increases in coal prices in 2005. Rail capacity increased in 2006, which effectively helped to moderate coal prices throughout 2006 and 2007, but PRB coal prices have been steadily increasing since mid-2007. There are two major sources of revenue to state and federal governments from the leasing and mining of federal coal: 1) the competitive bonus bid paid at the time the coal is leased, and 2) federal and state royalties and taxes collected when the coal is sold. If coal prices continue to increase, the fair market value of the coal resources in the LBA tracts could potentially increase, which could result in an increased bonus bid if the coal is leased at a later date. However, postponing a lease sale would not necessarily lead to higher royalty or tax income to the state and federal governments. Royalty and tax payments are the larger of the two revenue sources and they increase automatically when coal prices increase because they are collected at the time the coal is sold. They cannot be collected until the coal is leased and permitted, which takes several years. If leasing is delayed, then by the time the coal is mined, the higher coal prices may or may not persist. If the higher coal prices do persist, they may enable the coal lessee to negotiate longer term contracts at higher prices, which would result in longer term, higher royalty, and tax revenues. On the other hand, if an existing mine runs out of coal reserves before prices rise, it would potentially have to shut down before additional coal could be leased and permitted for mining. Under this scenario, the fair market value of the coal could actually decrease because the added expense of reopening a mine or starting a new mine would have to be factored into the fair market value. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-67

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Other considerations include the value of leaving the mineable coal for future development versus the value of making low-sulfur coal available now, in anticipation of cleaner fuel sources being developed in the future. Continued leasing of PRB coal enables coal-fired power plants to continue meeting the nation’s energy needs while also meeting the existing Clean Air Act requirements without constructing new plants, revamping existing plants, or switching to existing alternative fuels, which may significantly increase power costs for individuals and businesses. If cleaner fuel sources are developed in the future, they could be phased in with less economic impact to the public. A range of the potential future economic benefits of delaying leasing until coal prices rise could be quantified in an economic analysis, but the benefits would have to be discounted to the present, which would make them similar to the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3. Coalbed natural gas (CBNG) resources are currently being recovered from oil and gas leases on all six LBA tracts. There are several mechanisms in place that can be used to allow continuing recovery of the CBNG resources prior to mining if the federal coal reserves in the tracts are leased now. These include: • BLM can attach a Multiple Mineral Development stipulation to each lease, which states that BLM has the authority to withhold approval of coal mining operations that would interfere with the development of mineral leases issued prior to the coal lease. • Mining of each LBA tract cannot occur until the coal lessee has a permit to mine the tract approved by the WDEQ/LQD and a Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) mining plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Before the MLA mining plan can be approved, BLM must approve the R2P2 for mining the tract. Prior to approving the R2P2, BLM can review the status of CBNG development on the tract and the mining sequence proposed by the coal lessee. The permit approval process generally takes the coal lessee several years. This would allow time for a large portion of the CBNG resources to be recovered from each tract. • BLM has a policy in place on CBNG-coal conflicts (BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153) that directs BLM decision makers to optimize the recovery of both resources and ensure that the public receives a reasonable return (BLM 2006a). This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it would not produce substantially different impacts from other alternatives analyzed in detail. Rental and royalty provisions in each proposed lease provide for the U.S. to benefit if coal prices increase by the time of mining. Moreover, recovery of a large portion of the economically-recoverable CBNG resources on the tracts would be anticipated after lease issuance because of the mechanisms discussed above. The environmental impacts of mining the coal later as part of an existing mine would be expected to be similar and about equal to the 2-68 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 for each LBA tract. If a new mine is required to mine the coal, the environmental impacts would be expected to be greater than if each tract were mined as an extension of an existing mine. 2.8 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring SMCRA and Wyoming State Law require surface coal mines to collect extensive baseline information and implement extensive monitoring programs and mitigation measures. The currently approved permits to conduct mining operations for the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines include these requirements. Monitoring programs and mitigation measures that are required by regulation are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and the Action Alternatives considered in this EIS for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. These data collection requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the No Action Alternative as part of the current approved permit to conduct mining operations for the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. These data collection requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring commitments would be extended to include mining operations on the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts if they are leased and permitted for mining. A mining and reclamation plan would have to be approved for each tract before any mining operations could be conducted, regardless of who acquires the tract. The major mitigation and monitoring measures that are required by state or federal regulation are summarized in Table 2-1. More specific information about some of these mitigation and monitoring measures and their results at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines are described in Chapter 3. If impacts are identified during the leasing process that are not mitigated by existing required mitigation measures, BLM can require additional mitigation measures in the form of stipulations on the new lease, within the limits of its regulatory authority. In general, the levels of mitigation and monitoring required for surface coal mining by SMCRA and Wyoming State law are more extensive than those required for other surface disturbing activities; however, concerns are periodically identified that are not monitored or mitigated under existing procedures. 2.9 Hazardous and Solid Waste Wastes produced by current mining activities at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines are handled according to the procedures described in the approved mine permits (TBCC 2005, JRCC 2004, and PRC 2004, respectively). Under the Proposed Action and Action Alternatives for each of the six LBA tracts, the procedures and requirements for handling of hazardous and solid wastes would be the same as the procedures Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-69

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-1.
Resource Topography & Physiography Geology & Minerals

Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining Operations Required by SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives.
Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by Stipulations, State or Federal Law1 Restoring to approximate original contour or other approved topographic configuration. Monitoring1 WDEQ/LQD checks as-built vs. approved topography with each annual report. WDEQ/LQD requires monitoring in advance of mining to detect unsuitable overburden. Monitoring vegetation growth on reclaimed areas to determine need for soil amendments; Sampling regraded overburden for compliance with root zone criteria. On-site air quality monitoring for PM10 and/or TSP; Off-site ambient monitoring for PM10 and/or TSP; On-site compliance inspections.

Identifying & selectively placing or mixing chemically or physically unsuitable overburden materials to minimize adverse effects to vegetation or groundwater. Salvaging soil suitable to support plant growth for use in reclamation; Protecting soil stockpiles from disturbance and erosional influences; Selectively placing at least 4 feet of suitable overburden on the graded backfill surface below replaced topsoil to meet guidelines for vegetation root zones.

Soil

Air Quality

Dispersion modeling of mining plans for annual average particulate pollution impacts on ambient air; Using particulate pollution control technologies; Using work practices designed to minimize fugitive particulate emissions; Using EPA- or state-mandated BACT, including: Fabric filtration or wet scrubbing of coal storage silo and conveyor vents, Watering or using chemical dust suppression on haul roads and exposed soils, Containment of truck dumps and primary crushers, Covering of conveyors, Prompt revegetation of exposed soils, High efficiency baghouse dust collection systems or PECs, or atomizers/foggers on the crusher, conveyor transfer, storage bin and train loadout, meeting a standard of 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot (dscf) of exit volume, Watering of active work areas, Reclamation plan to minimize surface disturbances subject to wind erosion, Paving of access roads, Haul truck speed limits, Limited material drop heights for shovels and draglines.

These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines in their current approved mining and reclamation plans (the No Action Alternatives). If the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts were leased, these requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans would be part of the mining plan revisions covering each of the LBA tracts that must be approved before mining can occur on the tracts under the Proposed Actions or Action Alternatives.

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-1.
Resource Air Quality (continued)

Surface Water

Groundwater Quantity

Evaluating cumulative impacts to water quantity associated with proposed mining; Replacing existing water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by mining with water of equivalent quantity. Evaluating cumulative impacts to water quality associated with proposed mining; Replacing existing water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by mining with water of equivalent quality. Identifying all AVFs that would be affected by mining; WDEQ/LQD determination of significance to agriculture of all identified AVFs affected by mining; Protecting downstream AVFs during mining; Restoring essential hydrologic function of all AVFs affected by mining. Identifying all wetlands that would be affected by mining; COE identification of jurisdictional wetlands; Replacing all jurisdictional wetlands that would be disturbed by mining; Replacing functional wetlands as required by surface managing agency, surface landowner, or WDEQ/LQD.

Groundwater Quality

Alluvial Valley Floors

Wetlands

Monitoring of reclaimed wetlands using same procedures used to identify pre-mining jurisdictional wetlands.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-71

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-1.
Resource Vegetation

Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining Operations Required by SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives (Continued).
Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by Stipulations, State or Federal Law1 Permanently revegetating reclaimed areas according to a comprehensive revegetation plan using approved permanent reclamation seed mixtures consisting predominantly of species native to the area; Reclaiming 20 percent of reclaimed area with native shrubs at a density of one per square meter; Controlling erosion on reclaimed lands prior to seeding with final seed mixture using mulching, cover crops, or other approved measures; Chemically and mechanically controlling weed infestation; Direct hauling of topsoil; Selectively planting shrubs in riparian areas; Planting sagebrush; Creating depressions and rock piles; Using special planting procedures around rock piles; Posting reclamation bond covering the cost of reclamation. Restoring pre-mining topography to the maximum extent possible; Planting a diverse mixture of grasses, forbs, and shrubs in configurations beneficial to wildlife; Designing fences to permit wildlife passage; Raptor-proofing power transmission poles; Using raptor safe power lines; Creating artificial raptor nest sites; Increasing habitat diversity by creating rock clusters and shallow depressions on reclaimed land; Cottonwood plantings along reclaimed drainages; Replacing drainages, wetlands, and AVFs disturbed by mining; Reducing vehicle speed limits to minimize mortality; Instructing employees not to harass or disturb wildlife; Following approved raptor mitigation plans; Avoiding bald eagle disturbance; Restoring bald eagle foraging areas disturbed by mining; Restoring mountain plover habitat disturbed by mining; Surveying for mountain plover; Surveying for black-tailed prairie dog. Monitoring1 Monitoring of revegetation growth & diversity until release of final reclamation bond (minimum 10 years); Monitoring of erosion to determine need for corrective action during establishment of vegetation; Use of controlled grazing during revegetation evaluation to determine suitability for post-mining land uses.

Wildlife and Sensitive Species

Baseline and annual wildlife monitoring surveys; Monitoring for Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming.

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-1.
Resource Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species (Vegetation and Animals) Land Use

Monitoring of controlled grazing prior to bond release evaluation. Monitoring of mining activities during topsoil stripping; cessation of activities and notification of authorities if unidentified sites are encountered during topsoil removal.

Cultural Resources

Conducting Class I & III surveys to identify cultural properties on all state and federal lands and on private lands affected by federal undertakings; Consulting with SHPO to evaluate eligibility of cultural properties for the NRHP; Avoiding or recovering data from significant cultural properties identified by surveys, according to an approved plan; Notifying appropriate federal personnel if historic or prehistoric materials are uncovered during mining operations; Instructing employees of the importance of and regulatory obligations to protect cultural resources. Notifying Native American tribes with known interest in this area of leasing action and request for help in identifying potentially significant religious or cultural sites. Notifying appropriate federal personnel if potentially significant paleontological sites are discovered during mining. Restoring landscape character during reclamation through return to approximate original contour and revegetation with native species. Protecting employees from hearing loss. Relocating existing pipelines, if necessary, in accordance with specific agreement between pipeline owner and coal lessee. Paying royalty and taxes as required by federal, state, and local regulations. No mitigation measures are proposed.

Native American Concerns Paleontological Resources Visual Resources Noise Transportation Facilities Socioeconomics

No specific monitoring program. No specific monitoring program. No specific monitoring program. MSHA inspections. No specific monitoring program. Surveying and reporting to document volume of coal removed.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-73

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-1.
Resource Hazardous & Solid Waste

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives and requirements for the existing mining operations and in accordance with the mines’ approved waste disposal plans. Solid waste that is produced at the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines consists of floor sweepings, shop rags, empty lubricant containers, welding rod ends, metal shavings, worn tires, packing material, used filters, and office and food wastes. A portion of the solid wastes produced at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines is disposed of within the mines’ permit boundaries in accordance with WDEQ-approved solid waste disposal plans. Non-hazardous solid waste from the mines is also disposed of at the regulated Campbell County landfill near Gillette. Sewage is handled by WDEQ-permitted sewage systems present on the existing mine facilities. Maintenance and lubrication of most of the equipment takes place at existing shop facilities at each of the three mines. Major lubrication, oil changes, etc. of most equipment are performed inside the service building lubrication bays at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines, where used oil and grease are currently contained and deposited in storage tanks. All of the collected used oils and grease are then beneficially recycled off site or used for energy recovery, including, at some of the PRB mines, blending with diesel fuel oil for use as equipment fuel. These practices would not change if the applicants acquire these LBA tracts. TBCC, JRCC, and PRC have reviewed EPA’s Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to Reporting Under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Re authorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (as amended) and EPA’s List of Extremely Hazardous Substances as defined in 40 CFR 355 (as amended) for hazardous substances. TBCC, JRCC, and PRC maintain files containing Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all chemicals, compounds, and/or substances that are or would be used during the course of mining. TBCC, JRCC, and PRC are responsible for ensuring that all production, use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous and extremely hazardous materials as a result of mining are in accordance with all applicable existing or hereafter promulgated federal, state, and local government rules, regulations, and guidelines. All mining activities involving the production, use, and/or disposal of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials are and would continue to be conducted so as to minimize potential environmental impacts. TBCC, JRCC, and PRC must comply with emergency reporting requirements for release of hazardous materials. Any release of hazardous or extremely hazardous substances in excess of the reportable quantity, as established in 40 CFR 117, is reported as required by Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. The materials for which such notification must be given are the extremely hazardous substances listed in Section 302 of the Emergency Planning and Community Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 2-75

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Right to Know Act and the hazardous substances designated under Section 102 of CERCLA, as amended. If a reportable quantity of a hazardous or extremely hazardous substance is released, immediate notice must be given to the WDEQ Solid and Hazardous Waste Division, WDEQ Water Quality Division, and all other appropriate federal and state agencies. Each mining company is expected to prepare and implement several plans and/or policies to ensure environmental protection from hazardous and extremely hazardous materials. These plans/policies include: • • • • Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans; Spill Response Plans; Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans; Inventories of Hazardous Chemical Categories Pursuant to Section 313 of SARA, as amended; and • Emergency Response Plans. All mining operations are also required to be in compliance with regulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Mine Safety and Health Act, Department of Transportation, and the Federal Clean Air Act. In addition, mining operations must comply with all attendant state rules and regulations relating to hazardous material reporting, transportation, management, and disposal. Compliance with these rules is the current practice at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. Acquisition of the LBA tracts by the applicants would not change these current practices nor the type of any wastes generated and disposed of by the mines; however, the quantities of some wastes (e.g., lubricants and solid wastes produced in the shops and offices) would likely increase in proportion to increases in coal production. 2.10 Summary of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 2.10.1 Background The decision-making process for public lands in Wyoming is conducted in compliance with NEPA, which requires all federal agencies to involve interested publics in their decision-making, consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed actions, develop measures to mitigate environmental impacts, and prepare environmental documents that disclose the impacts of proposed actions and alternatives.

This draft EIS analyzes in detail different alternatives for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts described in the discussion above. 2-76 Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2.10.2 Summary of Alternatives The North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts under the Action Alternatives are shown on Figures 2-1 through 2-6, respectively. A summary comparison of projected coal production, surface disturbance, mine life, and federal and state revenues for the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (if applicable) for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts LBA Tracts are presented in Tables 2-2 through 2-13, respectively. Table 2-2 presents the comparisons assuming that Shroyer Road is not moved and the underlying coal is not recovered from the North Hilight Field tract. Table 2-3 presents the comparisons assuming that Shroyer Road is moved and the underlying coal is recovered from the North Hilight Field tract. Table 2-4 presents the comparisons assuming that Reno Road is not moved and the underlying coal is not recovered from the South Hilight Field tract. Table 2-5 presents the comparisons assuming that Reno Road is moved and the underlying coal is recovered from the South Hilight Field tract. Table 2-6 presents the comparisons assuming that State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are not moved and the underlying coal is not recovered from the West Hilight Field tract. Table 2-7 presents the comparisons assuming that State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are moved and the underlying coal is recovered from the West Hilight Field tract. Table 2-8 presents the comparisons assuming that State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are not moved and the underlying coal is not recovered from the West Jacobs Ranch tract. Table 2-9 presents the comparisons assuming that State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are moved and the underlying coal is recovered from the West Jacobs Ranch tract. Table 2-10 presents the comparisons assuming that Mackey Road is not moved and the underlying coal is not recovered from the North Porcupine tract. Table 2-11 presents the comparisons assuming that Mackey Road is moved and the underlying coal is recovered from the North Porcupine tract. Table 2-12 presents the comparisons assuming that the remaining 2.25-mile section of Antelope Road is not moved and the underlying coal is not recovered from the South Porcupine tract. Table 2-13 presents the comparisons assuming that the remaining 2.25-mile section of Antelope Road is moved and the underlying coal is recovered from the South Porcupine tract.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-77

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-2. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Shroyer Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2008) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees (by 2013)4 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)5 (post-2007)6 Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing Black Thunder Mine) 1,344.0 mmt 1,344.0 mmt 1,236.4 mmt 1,071.0 mmt 17,856.0 ac 26,812.0 ac 29,201.0 ac 135 mmt 10.2 yrs 1,324 $2,091.2 mm $1,629.4 mm Added by Proposed Action 319.7 mmt 286.3 mmt 263.4 mmt -2,613.5 ac 5,053.0 ac 5,053.0 ac 0 mmt 2.0 yrs 0 $488.5 – $584.4 mm $390.1 – $486.0 mm Added by Alternative 2 756.9 mmt 709.6 mmt 652.8 mmt - 7,139.4 ac 12,908.8 ac 12,908.8 ac 0 mmt 4.8 yrs 0 $1,210.5 – $1,448.3 mm $966.8 – $1,204.5 mm

Total Projected Federal Revenues
1 2 3

4 5

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Shroyer Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2008) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees4 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)5 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)6
1 2 3

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing Black Thunder Mine) 1,344.0 mmt 1,344.0 mmt 1,236.4 mmt 1,071.0 mmt 17,856.0 ac 26,812.0 ac 29,201.0 ac 135 mmt 10.2 yrs 1,324 $2,091.2 mm $1,629.4 mm

Added by Proposed Action 319.7 mmt 295.8 mmt 272.1 mmt -2,613.5 ac 5,053.0 ac 5,053.0 ac 0 mmt 2.0 yrs 0 $504.6 – $603.7 mm $403.0 – $502.1 mm

Added by Alternative 2 756.9 mmt 727.5 mmt 669.3 mmt - 7,139.4 ac 12,908.8 ac 12,908.8 ac 0 mmt 5.0 yrs 0 $1,241.1 – $1,484.9 mm $991.2 – $1,234.9 mm

4 5

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-79

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Reno Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2008) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees (by 2013)4 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)5 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)6
1 2 3

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing Black Thunder Mine) 1,344.0 mmt 1,344.0 mmt 1,236.4 mmt 1,071.0 mmt 17,856.0 ac 26,812.0 ac 29,201.0 ac 135 mmt 10.2 yrs 1,324 $2,091.2 mm $1,629.4 mm

Added by Proposed Action 273.3 mmt 232.2 mmt 213.6 mmt -1,976.7 ac 1,126.0 ac 1,126.0 ac 0 mmt 1.6 yrs 0 $396.1 – $473.9 mm $316.3 – $394.1 mm

Added by Alternative 2 406.5 mmt 330.8 mmt 304.3 mmt - 2,922.4 ac 2,731.4 ac 2,731.4 ac 0 mmt 2.3 yrs 0 $564.3 – $675.1 mm $450.7 – $561.5 mm

4 5

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-5. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenue for South s Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – Reno Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2008) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees (by 2013)4 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)5 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)6
1 2 3

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing Black Thunder Mine) 1,344.0 mmt 1,344.0 mmt 1,236.4 mmt 1,071.0 mmt 17,856.0 ac 26,812.0 ac 29,201.0 ac 135 mmt 10.2 yrs 1,324 $2,091.2 mm $1,629.4 mm

Added by Proposed Action 273.3 mmt 232.2 mmt 213.6 mmt -1,976.7 ac 1,126.0 ac 1,126.0 ac 0 mmt 1.6 yrs 0 $396.1 – $473.9 mm $316.3 – $394.1 mm

Added by Alternative 2 406.5 mmt 347.8 mmt 320.0 mmt - 2,922.4 ac 2,731.4 ac 2,731.4 ac 0 mmt 2.4 yrs 0 $593.4 – $709.9 mm $473.9 – $590.4 mm

4 5

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-81

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-6. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mi e Life, and Revenues for West Hilight n Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered.
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative (Existing Black Thunder Mine) 1,344.0 mmt 1,344.0 mmt 1,236.4 mmt 1,071.0 mmt 17,856.0 ac 26,812.0 ac 29,201.0 ac 135 mmt 10.2 yrs 1,324 $2,091.2 mm $1,629.4 mm Added by Proposed Action 440.4 mmt 410.8 mmt 377.9 mmt -2,370.5 ac 6,351.4 ac 6,351.4 ac 0 mmt 2.8 yrs 0 $700.8 – $838.4 mm $559.7 – $697.3 mm Added by Alternative 2 1,147.9 mmt 1,049.1 mmt 965.2 mmt -7,191.3 ac 10,250.8 ac 10,250.8 ac 0 mmt 7.1 yrs 0 Added by Alternative 3 1,373.4 mmt 1,049.1 mmt 965.2 mmt - 8,570.1 ac 10,250.8 ac 10,250.8 ac 0 mmt 7.1 yrs 0

Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2008) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees (by 2013)4 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)5 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)6
1

$1,789.9 – $2,141.3 mm $1,789.9 – $2,141.3 mm $1,429.4 – $1,780.8 mm $1,429.4 – $1,780.8 mm

2 3

4 5

Under the Proposed Action, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath State Highway 450 ROW and associated buffer zone. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath State Highway 450 and Hilight Road ROWs and associated buffer zones. Under Alternative 3, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath the Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area. Assumes 92 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation. The lease area figure includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed area exceeds the leased area (total federal and state) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundaries. The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description. The mine projects to increase employment from 1,080 to 1,324 as projected production increases. Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production taxes (ad valorem), sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees and bonus bid payments. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.372 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus bid payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. T hese figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid payments. Federal revenues are based on a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.4 percent, plus $11.06 per ton price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payments on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states.

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-7. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance Mine Life, and Revenues for West , Hilight Field LBA Tract and Black Thunder Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative (Existing Black Thunder Mine) 1,344.0 mmt 1,344.0 mmt 1,236.4 mmt 1,071.0 mmt 17,856.0 ac 26,812.0 ac 29,201.0 ac 135 mmt 10.2 yrs 1,324 $2,091.2 mm $1,629.4 mm Added by Proposed Action 440.4 mmt 440.4 mmt 405.2 mmt -2,370.5 ac 6,351.4 ac 6,351.4 ac 0 mmt 3.0 yrs 0 Added by Alternative 2 1,147.9 mmt 1,147.9 mmt 1,056.1 mmt -7,191.3 ac 11,629.5 ac 11,629.5 ac 0 mmt 7.8 yrs 0 Added by Alternative 3 1,373.4 mmt 1,147.9 mmt 1,056.1 mmt - 8,570.1 ac 11,629.5 ac 11,629.5 ac 0 mmt 7.8 yrs 0

Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2008) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees (by 2013)4 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)5 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)6
1 2 3

$751.4 – $898.9 mm $1,958.4 – $2,343.0 mm $1,958.4 – $2,343.0 mm $600.1 – $747.6 mm $1,564.0 – $1,948.6 mm $1,564.0 – $1,948.6 mm

4 5

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-83

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-8. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract and Jacobs Ranch Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2007) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)4 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)5
1 2 3

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing Jacobs Ranch Mine) 450.0 mmt 450.0 mmt 423.0 mmt 629.0 mmt 8,399.5 ac 14,853.0 ac 15,625.0 ac 40 mmt 10.6 yrs 630 $715.4 mm $557.5 mm

Added by Proposed Action 957.0 mmt 744.0 mmt 669.6 mmt - 5,944.4 ac 7,023.0 ac 8,066.0 ac 0 mmt 16.7 yrs 155 $1,244.1 – $1,493.4 mm $994.1 – $1,243.3 mm

Added by Alternative 2 1,269.0 mmt 1,014.0 mmt 912.6 mmt - 8,076.2 ac 9,370.0 ac 10,766.0 ac 0 mmt 22.8 yrs 155 $1,695.6 – $2,035.3 mm $1,354.8 – $1,694.5 mm

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-9. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues fo West r Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract and Jacobs Ranch Mine – State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2007) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)4 Total Projected Federal Revenues
1 2 3

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative (Existing Jacobs Ranch Mine) 450.0 mmt 450.0 mmt 423.0 mmt 629.0 mmt 8,399.5 ac 14,853.0 ac 15,625.0 ac 40.0 mmt 10.6 yrs 630 $715.4 mm $557.5 mm

Added by Proposed Action 957.0 mmt 957.0 mmt 861.3 mmt -5,944.4 ac 7,023.0 ac 8,066.0 ac 0 mmt 21.5 yrs 155 $1,600.3 – $1,920.9 mm $1,278.6 – $1,599.2 mm

Added by Alternative 2 1,269.0 mmt 1,269.0 mmt 1,142.1 mmt - 8,076.2 ac 9,370.0 ac 10,766.0 ac 0 mmt 28.6 yrs 155 $2,122.0 – $2,547.2 mm $1,695.5 – $2,120.6 mm

(post-2007)5

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-85

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-10. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – Mackey Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2007) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)4 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)5
1

Added by Proposed Action 756.9 mmt 653.5 mmt 601.2 mmt -5,795.8 ac 9,864.0 ac 1,760.0 ac 0 mmt 6.3 yrs 0 $1,114.9 – $1,333.8 mm $890.3 – $1,109.3 mm

Added by Alternative 2 955.8 mmt 810.2 mmt 745.4 mmt - 7,366.8 ac 11,444.0 ac 3,120.0 ac 0 mmt 7.8 yrs 0 $1,382.3 – $1,653.7 mm $1,103.9 – $1,375.3 mm

2 3

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-11. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for North Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – Mackey Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2007) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)4 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)5
1

Added by Proposed Action 756.9 mmt 688.3 mmt 633.3 mmt -5,795.8 ac 10,167.0 ac 1,760.0 ac 0 mmt 6.7 yrs 0 $1,174.4 – $1,405.0 mm $937.9 – $1,168.4 mm

Added by Alternative 2 955.8 mmt 845.0 mmt 777.4 mmt - 7,366.8 ac 11,767.0 ac 3,120.0 ac 0 mmt 8.2 yrs 0 $1,441.6 – $1,724.7 mm $1,151.3 – $1,434.4 mm

2 3

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-87

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-12. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – 2.25-Mile Section of Antelope Road is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2007) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)4 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)5
1 2 3

Added by Proposed Action 422.2 mmt 336.6 mmt 309.7 mmt -3,186.0 ac 3,366.0 ac 200.0 ac 0 mmt 3.3 yrs 0 $574.3 – $687.1 mm $458.6 – $571.4 mm

Added by Alternative 2 470.9 mmt 368.8 mmt 339.3 mmt - 3,568.0 ac 4,068.0 ac 400.0 ac 0 mmt 3.6 yrs 0 $629.2 – $752.7 mm $502.5 – $626.0 mm

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-13. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for South Porcupine LBA Tract and North Antelope Rochelle Mine – 2.25-Mile Section of Antelope Road is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.
Item In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/08) Mineable Coal (as of 1/1/08)1 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/08)2 Coal Mined Through 2007 Lease Area3 Total Area To Be Disturbed3 Permit Area3 Average Annual Coal Production (post-2007) Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) Projected Number of Employees Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)4 Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2007)5
1 2 3

Added by Proposed Action 422.2 mmt 408.4 mmt 375.7 mmt - 3,186.0 ac 3,908.0 ac 200.0 ac 0 mmt 4.0 yrs 0 $696.7 – $833.5 mm $556.4 – $693.2 mm

Added by Alternative 2 470.9 mmt 440.6 mmt 405.4 mmt - 3,568.0 ac 4,610.0 ac 400.0 ac 0 mmt 4.3 yrs 0 $751.8 – $899.4 mm $600.4 – $748.0 mm

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the mineable coal figure excludes all coal that would not be mined beneath BNSF & UP railroad ROW and associated buffer zone. Assumes 92 percent recovery of mineable coal that occurs during normal mining operation. The lease area figure includes federal coal leases only and does not include state coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed area exceeds the leased area (total federal and state) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundaries. The permit area is larger than the leased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description. Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production taxes (ad valorem), sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees and bonus bid payments. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.372 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes  amount of recoverable coal, plus a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus bid payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. T hese figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. Federal revenues include black lung taxes and the federal government’s share of federal royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bid payments. Federal revenues are based on a projected coal price of $11.06 per ton  amount of recoverable coal  black lung tax of 4.4 percent, plus $11.06 per ton price  amount of recoverable coal  federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees  amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus bid payments on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments for the last 9 LBAs sold from 2004 through early 2009)  amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-89

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-14 presents a comparative summary for all six LBA tracts of the direct and indirect environmental impacts of implementing each alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. Each No Action Alternative assumes completion of currently permitted mining at the applicant mine for comparison to anticipated mining if the associated LBA tract is leased. Table 2-15 presents a comparative summary for the six LBA tracts regarding the cumulative environmental impacts of implementing each alternative for each tract. The environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and alternatives for each of the six LBA tracts are analyzed in Chapters 3 and 4. These summary impact tables are derived from the following explanation of impacts and magnitude. NEPA requires all agencies of the federal government to include, in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on: (i) the environmental impact of the Proposed Action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the Proposed Action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the Proposed Action should it be implemented (42 USC § 4332(C)). Impacts can be beneficial or adverse, and they can be a primary result of an action (direct) or a secondary result (indirect). They can be permanent, longterm (persisting beyond the end of mine life and reclamation) or short-term (persisting during mining and reclamation and through the time the reclamation bond is released). Impacts also vary in terms of significance. The basis for conclusions regarding significance are the criteria set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.27) and the professional judgment of the specialists doing the analyses. Impact significance may range from negligible to substantial; impacts can be significant during mining but be reduced to insignificant following completion of reclamation.

2-90

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives
1 Table 2-14. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for Alternative 1 (No Action), the Proposed Action, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts2.

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME
TOPOGRAPHY & PHYSIOGRAPHY (Applicable to all six tracts) Lower surface elevation Permanent topographic moderation, which could result in: Microhabitat reduction Habitat diversity reduction Big game carrying capacity reduction Reduction in water runoff and peak flows Increased precipitation infiltration Reduction in erosion Potential enhanced vegetative productivity Potential acceleration of groundwater recharge GEOLOGY AND MINERALS (Applicable to all six tracts) Removal of coal Removal and replacement of topsoil and overburden Physical characteristic alterations in replaced overburden Loss of unrecovered CBNG through venting and/or depletion of hydrostatic pressure Loss of access for development of sub-coal oil and gas resources and other minerals Destruction of paleontological resources that are not exposed on the surface AIR QUALITY (Applicable to all six tracts) Particulate Emissions: Elevated concentrations associated with projected average production of 270 mmtpy in compliance with ambient standards Potential for public exposure to particulate emissions along State Highway 450, various county roads, and occupied dwellings in area Potential for human health impacts as a result of exposure to particulate emissions
1 2

MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACT ALTERNATIVE 1 PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 2 and ALTERNATIVE 3

Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Moderate, Moderate, Moderate, Moderate, Moderate, Moderate, Moderate, Moderate, long term on existing mine areas long term on existing mine areas long term on existing mine areas beneficial, long term on existing mine beneficial, long term on existing mine beneficial, long term on existing mine beneficial, long term on existing mine beneficial, long term on existing mine

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same as Alternative as Alternative as Alternative as Alternative as Alternative as Alternative as Alternative as Alternative 1 on expanded 1 on expanded 1 on expanded 1 on expanded 1 on expanded 1 on expanded 1 on expanded 1 on expanded mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine areas areas areas areas areas areas areas areas

areas areas areas areas areas

Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Moderate to substantial, permanent on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, permanent on the existing mine areas

Same Same Same Same

as Alternative as Alternative as Alternative as Alternative

1 on expanded 1 on expanded 1 on expanded 1 on expanded

mine mine mine mine

areas areas areas areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

Moderate, short term on existing mines and surrounding areas Minor to moderate, short term on existing mines and surrounding areas Minor to moderate, short term on existing mines and surrounding areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mines and surrounding areas for 1.6 to 22.8 additional years Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mines and surrounding areas for 1.6 to 22.8 additional years Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mines and surrounding areas for 1.6 to 22.8 additional years

Refer to Chapter 3 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts. All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-91

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-14.
1 Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for Alternative 1 (No Action), the Proposed Action, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts2 (Continued).

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME
AIR QUALITY (Continued) (Applicable to all six tracts) NOx Emissions from Machinery: Elevated concentrations associated with average production of 270 mmtpy in compliance with ambient standards Potential for public exposure to NOx emissions from machinery along State Highway 450, various county roads, and occupied dwellings in area Potential for human health impacts as a result of exposure to NOx emissions NOx Emissions from Blasting (in compliance with Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Blasting Conditions): Potential for public exposure Potential for human health impacts as a result of exposure to NOx emissions Visibility: Elevated concentrations of fine particulate matter associated with average production of 270 mmtpy Acidification of Lakes: SO2 emissions derived from burning Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines’ coal to produce power WATER RESOURCES (Applicable to all six tracts) GROUNDWATER Removal of coal and overburden aquifers Replacement of existing coal and overburden with unconsolidated backfill material Depressed water levels in overburden and coal aquifers adjacent to mines Change in hydraulic properties in backfilled areas Increase in TDS concentrations in backfilled areas Use of subcoal aquifers for water supply

MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACT ALTERNATIVE 1 PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 2 and ALTERNATIVE 3

Moderate, short term on existing mines and surrounding areas Moderate, short term on existing mines and surrounding areas Moderate, short term on existing mines and surrounding areas

No projected events No projected events

No events projected No events projected

Moderate, short term on existing mines and surrounding areas Moderate, short term in vicinity of power plants

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mines and surrounding areas for 1.6 to 22.8 additional years Same as Alternative 1

Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Moderate, short to long term on existing mines and surrounding areas Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Negligible, short term on existing mines and surrounding areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative surrounding areas Same as Alternative Same as Alternative Same as Alternative surrounding areas 1 on expanded mines and 1 on expanded mine areas 1 on expanded mine areas 1 on expanded mines and

1 2

Refer to Chapter 3 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts. All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME
WATER RESOURCES (Continued) (Applicable to all six tracts) GROUNDWATER (Continued) Decrease in water supply for groundwater-right holders having wells completed in the coal or overburden aquifers within the 5-foot drawdown areas for each mine SURFACE WATER Diversion and disruption of surface drainage systems Reconstruction of surface drainage systems Increased runoff and erosion rates on disturbed lands due to vegetation removal Increased infiltration on reclaimed lands due to topographic moderation Increased runoff on reclaimed lands due to loss of soil structure Potential for adverse downstream effects as a result of sediment produced by large storms ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOORS (Applicable to all six tracts) While final determinations have not been made by WDEQ/LQD, it is believed that there are no AVFs significant to agriculture on the proposed lease tracts Removal and restoration of AVFs determined not to be significant to agriculture Disruptions to streamflows supplying downstream AVFs WETLANDS
(Applicable to all six tracts)
Removal of jurisdictional wetlands and loss of wetland function until reclamation occurs

MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACT ALTERNATIVE 1 PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 2 and ALTERNATIVE 3

Moderate, long term on existing mines and surrounding areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mines and surrounding areas

Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Permanent on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term for existing mining operations

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mining operations

Moderate, short term for existing mining operations Negligible, short term on existing leases

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

Moderate, short term on existing mining operations; jurisdictional wetlands would be replaced as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Moderate, short term to long term on existing mining operations; non-jurisdictional wetlands would be replaced as required by the surface land owner or WDEQ/LQD

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

Removal of non-jurisdictional wetlands and loss of wetland function until reclamation occurs

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

1 2

Refer to Chapter 3 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts. All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-93

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME
SOILS
(Applicable to all six tracts)
Changes in physical properties after reclamation would include: Increased near-surface bulk density and decreased soil infiltration rate resulting in increased potential for soil erosion More uniformity in soil type, thickness, and texture Decreased runoff due to topographic modification Changes in biological properties in soils that are stockpiled before reclamation would include: Reduction in organic matter Reduction in microorganism population Reduction in seeds, bulbs, rhizomes, and live plant parts Changes in chemical properties would include: More uniform soil nutrient distribution VEGETATION
(Applicable to all six tracts)
During mining: Progressive removal of existing vegetation Increased erosion Wildlife habitat and livestock grazing loss After revegetation: Changes in vegetation patterns Reduction in vegetation diversity Reduction in shrub density Decreased big game habitat carrying capacity Decreased habitat for shrub dependent species Potential invasion of non-native plant species
1 2

MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACT ALTERNATIVE 1 PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 2 and ALTERNATIVE 3

Moderate, long term on existing mine areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas
Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

Moderate, short to long term on existing mine areas Moderate, short to long term on existing mine areas Moderate, short to long term on existing mine areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas

Same Same Same Same Same Same

as as as as as as

Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative

1 1 1 1 1 1

on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded

mine mine mine mine mine mine

areas areas areas areas areas areas

Refer to Chapter 3 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts. All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME
WILDLIFE
(Applicable to all six tracts)
Big game displacement from active mining areas Increased competition on adjacent undisturbed or reclaimed lands, especially big game Restriction of wildlife movement, especially big game Increased mortality of small mammals Displacement of small and medium-sized mammals Surface and noise disturbance of active sage grouse leks Disturbance of sage grouse nesting habitat during mining Loss of sage grouse nesting habitat after reclamation Alteration of plant and animal communities after reclamation Abandonment of raptor nests Loss of foraging habitat for raptors Loss of nesting and foraging habitat for Migratory Birds of Management Concern Reduction in waterfowl resting and feeding habitat Loss of habitat for aquatic species, amphibians and reptiles Road kills by mine-related traffic Reduction in habitat carrying capacity and habitat diversity on reclaimed lands Potential reduction in microhabitats on reclaimed lands THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES (Refer to Appendix G in this EIS) (Applicable to all six tracts) Black-footed ferret Blowout penstemon Ute ladies’-tresses LAND USE AND RECREATION (Applicable to all six tracts) Reduction of livestock grazing Loss of wildlife habitat Loss of access for sub-coal oil and gas development Removal of oil and gas production facilities Loss of access to public land available for recreation and grazing
1 2

MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACT ALTERNATIVE 1 PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 2 and ALTERNATIVE 3

Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on adjacent areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, short to long term on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Negligible, short to long term on existing mine areas Negligible, short to long term on existing mine areas Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term on existing mine areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on adjacent areas Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same as as as as as as as as as as as as as as Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine areas areas areas areas areas areas areas areas areas areas areas areas areas areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

As determined by previous consultation with USFWS for all species

No effect No effect May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Moderate, Moderate, Moderate, Moderate, Moderate,

long term on existing mine areas long term on existing mine areas short term on existing mine areas short term on existing mine areas short term on existing mine areas

Same Same Same Same Same

as as as as as

Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative

1 1 1 1 1

on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded on expanded

mine mine mine mine mine

areas areas areas area areas

Refer to Chapter 3 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts. All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-95

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-14.
1 Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for Alternative 1 (No Action), the Proposed Action, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts2 (Continued).

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME
CULTURAL RESOURCES (Applicable to all six tracts) Sites that are not eligible for NRHP Sites that are eligible for NRHP

MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACT ALTERNATIVE 1 PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 2 and ALTERNATIVE 3

Sites that are unevaluated for eligibility

Ineligible sites may be destroyed without further work on existing mine areas Impacts to sites that are eligible for the NHRP are not permitted; eligible sites would be avoided or mitigated through data recovery prior to mining on existing mine areas Impacts to unevaluated sites are not permitted; unevaluated sites would be evaluated prior to mining on existing mine areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

NATIVE AMERICAN CONCERNS (Applicable to all six tracts) VISUAL RESOURCES (Applicable to all six tracts) During mining: Alteration of landscape by mining facilities and operations Visibility of mining operations from highway Following reclamation: Smoother sloped terrain Reduction in sagebrush density NOISE
(Applicable to all six tracts)
Increased noise levels

No impact identified on existing mine areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, short to long term on existing mine areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas

Moderate to substantial, short term on existing mines, surrounding areas (including occupied dwellings and businesses) within 2,500 feet of mining activities

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas and surrounding areas

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES (Applicable to all six tracts) Use of railroads and existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mine infrastructure to ship coal Employee and service contractor use of highways to and from mine sites
1 2

Moderate, for duration of existing approved mining operations Moderate, for duration of existing approved mining operations

Same as Alternative 1 for additional 1.6 to 22.8 years Same as Alternative 1 for additional 1.6 to 22.8 years

Refer to Chapter 3 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts. All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES (Continued) (Applicable to all six tracts) Relocation of pipelines Relocation of utility lines Relocation of county roads, if approved by Campbell County Commissioners, to allow recovery of coal under lease Mining operations near State Highway 450

MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACT ALTERNATIVE 1 PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 2 and ALTERNATIVE 3

Negligible, short to long term on existing mine areas Negligible, short to long term on existing mine areas No impact on existing mine areas

Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 on expanded mine areas Moderate, long term to permanent on expanded mine areas Same as Alternative 1 for additional 1.6 to 22.8 years (Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch Mines only)

Moderate, for duration of existing approved mining operations (Black Thunder Mine only)

HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE (Applicable to all six tracts) Waste generated by mining operations

Negligible, for duration of existing approved mining operations

Same as Alternative 1 for additional 1.6 to 22.8 years

SOCIOECONOMICS (Applicable to all six tracts) Employment Revenues from royalties and taxes to the state and local government Revenues from royalties and taxes to the federal government Economic development Additional housing and infrastructure needs

Substantial benefit, short term for existing approved mining operations Substantial benefit, short term for existing approved mining operations Substantial benefit, short term for existing approved mining operations Moderate, beneficial short term for existing approved mining operations No new impact related to existing approved mining operations

Same years Same years Same years Same years Same years

as Alternative 1 for additional 1.6 to 22.8 as Alternative 1 for additional 1.6 to 22.8 as Alternative 1 for additional 1.6 to 22.8 as Alternative 1 for additional 1.6 to 22.8 as Alternative 1 for additional 1.6 to 22.8

1 2

Refer to Chapter 3 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts. All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-97

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-15. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2.
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME ALTERNATIVE 1 MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF IMPACT PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 2 and ALTERNATIVE 3

TOPOGRAPHY & PHYSIOGRAPHY Alteration of topography following reclamation of coal disturbance Permanent topographic moderation following reclamation Same as Alternative 1
areas Alteration of topography to accommodate coal-related, oil and gas, Long term to permanent limited changes in discrete, scattered Same as Alternative 1
areas and oil- and gas-related facilities GEOLOGY AND MINERALS Moderate, long term to permanent Recovery of coal resulting in reduction in coal resources and disturbance and replacement of overburden and topsoil Surficial disturbance and reclamation on oil and gas well sites and Moderate, long term to permanent associated facilities PALEONTOLOGY Coal, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development disturbance of PFYC Class 5 Wasatch and Class 3 Fort Union Formations AIR QUALITY Impacts to Montana near-field receptors: - 24-hour PM10 - All other parameters Impacts to Wyoming near-field receptors: - 24-hour PM10

Same as Alternative 1
Same as Alternative 1

Permanent potential adverse effects to scientifically significant Same as Alternative 1
fossils that are present but not visible prior to disturbance

A maximum modeled impact in one area above NAAQS for the Same as Alternative 1
baseline year and both coal production scenarios for 2010 Modeled impacts in compliance with NAAQS and Montana Same as Alternative 1
AAQS Modeled impact above NAAQS at some receptors for both coal Same as Alternative 1
production scenarios for 2010 Maximum modeled impact above WAAQS at one receptor for the upper production scenario for 2010 Modeled impacts in compliance with NAAQS and Wyoming AAQS Same as Alternative 1
Same as Alternative 1

- Annual PM10 - All other parameters Non-regulatory PSD Impacts at Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas: - Class I Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation

Modeled impacts above Class I increment levels for 24-hour PM10, annual PM10, 24-hour SO2, 3-hour SO2 for baseline year and both coal production scenarios for 2010; above Class I increment for annual NO2 for upper coal production scenario for 2010

Same as Alternative 1

1 2

Cumulative impact discussion in this table and in Chapter 4 is based on the PRB Coal Review analyses (BLM 2005a-f, 2006b-d). All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-15. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 (Continued).
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME
AIR QUALITY (Continued) - Class I Washakie Wilderness Area and Wind Cave National Park and Class II Crow Indian Reservation - All other Class I and Sensitive Class II modeled receptors Visibility Impacts:

MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF IMPACT ALTERNATIVE 1
Modeled impacts above Class I increment levels for 24-hour PM10 for baseline year and both coal production scenarios for 2010 Modeled impacts within Class I increment levels for baseline year and both coal production scenarios for 2010 199 or more days with a change of 1.0 dv or greater at three Class I areas and seven sensitive Class II areas for the baseline year and both coal productions scenarios for 2010 All modeled impacts below the depositions threshold values for nitrogen and sulfur compounds Modeled impact above 10 percent ANC Modeled impact above 1 µeq/L Modeled impact below threshold values

PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 2 and ALTERNATIVE 3
Same as Alternative 1

Same as Alternative 1
Same as Alternative 1

Acid deposition Impacts: - Florence Lake - Upper Frozen Lake - All other modeled sensitive lakes GROUNDWATER RESOURCES Removal of coal aquifer and replacement with backfill material Lowering of water levels in aquifers around the mines Water level decline in sub-coal aquifers as a result of all development Change in groundwater quality as a result of all development Overlapping drawdown in the coal aquifer caused by surface mining and CBNG development SURFACE WATER RESOURCES Surface disturbance of intermittent and ephemeral streams and scattered ponds and reservoirs as a result of coal mining, coalrelated, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Discharge of coal mining and CBNG produced waters into intermittent and ephemeral streams Sediment input into intermittent and ephemeral streams and scattered ponds and reservoirs as a result of coal mining, coalrelated, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOORS Coal mining disturbance of AVFs determined to be significant to agriculture Coal mining disturbance of AVFs determined not to be significant to mining
1 2

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1

Moderate, permanent for mining areas Moderate, long term in area immediately west of mines No cumulative impacts anticipated No cumulative impacts anticipated Additive, long term in area immediately west of surface coal mines

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1

Moderate, short term

Same as Alternative 1

Moderate, short term Moderate, short term

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1

Not permitted by regulation AVFs disturbed by mining must be restored to essential hydrologic function; no cumulative impacts anticipated

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1

Cumulative impact discussion in this table and in Chapter 4 is based on the PRB Coal Review analyses (BLM 2005a-f, 2006b-d). All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-99

MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF IMPACT ALTERNATIVE 1 PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 2 and ALTERNATIVE 3

CBNG water disposal impacts to soil resources

Same as Alternative 1 Moderate, short term and long term impacts through accelerated wind or water erosion, declining soil quality factors through compaction, reduced microbial populations and organic matter, and potential mixing of soil zones Potential increase in soil alkalinity depending on SAR levels in Same as Alternative 1 water and method of water disposal

VEGETATION Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related removal and replacement of native vegetation Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related impacts to Special Status Plant Species Coal mining, coal related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related dispersal of noxious and invasive species

Moderate, short to long term impacts due to potential differences in species composition and presence and size of woody species on reclaimed lands Potential incremental loss of alteration of potential or known habitat Potential displacement of native species and changes in species composition

Same as Alternative 1

Same as Alternative 1
Same as Alternative 1

WETLAND AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION CBNG-related discharge of produced water

Moderate, short to long term creation of wetlands in areas that previously supported upland vegetation

Same as Alternative 1

WILDLIFE Direct and indirect coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oiland gas-related development impacts to game and non-game species, including direct mortality, habitat fragmentation, animal displacement, noise and increased human presence Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related disturbance of game and nongame species habitat during project development and operation Coal mining, coal related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related habitat changes after reclamation

Moderate, short term

Same as Alternative 1

Moderate, short term loss of all types of habitat present in disturbed areas

Same as Alternative 1

Moderate, long term change in habitat with potential changes Same as Alternative 1
in associated wildlife populations

FISHERIES Alteration or loss of habitat due to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Changes in water quality as a result of surface disturbance or introduction of contaminants into drainages caused by coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development
1 2

Moderate, short to long term Moderate, short to long term

Same as Alternative 1
Same as Alternative 1

Cumulative impact discussion in this table and in Chapter 4 is based on the PRB Coal Review analyses (BLM 2005a-f, 2006b-d). All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-15. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 (Continued).
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME ALTERNATIVE 1 MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF IMPACT PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 2 and ALTERNATIVE 3
Same as Alternative 1

FISHERIES (Continued) Moderate, short term Changes in available habitat as a result of water withdrawals or discharges related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oiland gas-related development SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Direct and indirect coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oiland gas-related development impacts, including direct mortality, breeding area, nest, or burrow abandonment, noise and increased human presence Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related disturbance of habitat during project development and operation Coal mining, coal related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related habitat changes after reclamation

Moderate, short term

Same as Alternative 1

Moderate, short term loss of all types of special status species Same as Alternative 1
habitat present in disturbed areas Moderate, long term change in habitat with potential changes Same as Alternative 1
in associated populations of special status species

LAND USE AND RECREATION Loss of forage and range improvements and restriction of livestock Moderate, short term movement due to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oiland gas-related development Negligible, short term Disturbance of developed recreation sites by coal mining, coalrelated, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Reduction or degradation of opportunities for dispersed recreation Moderate, short term on existing mine areas activities related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oiland gas-related development CULTURAL RESOURCES Disturbance of cultural resource sites TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES Movement of segments of existing public roads, pipelines, transmission lines, or railroads to accommodate coal mining development Increased vehicular traffic on roads and highways due to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development, and associated impacts including traffic accidents, road wear, air emissions, dust, noise, and vehicle collisions with wildlife and livestock Construction and operation of additional railroad and pipeline facilities and transmission lines to transport coal, oil and gas, and electricity
1 2

Same as Alternative 1

Same as Alternative 1
Same as Alternative 1

Moderate, permanent

Same as Alternative 1

Moderate, long term to permanent, disruptive effects would be Same as Alternative 1
minimized Moderate, short term Same as Alternative 1

Moderate, short to long term

Same as Alternative 1

Cumulative impact discussion in this table and in Chapter 4 is based on the PRB Coal Review analyses (BLM 2005a-f, 2006b-d). All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2-101

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-15. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 (Continued).
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME
SOCIOECONOMICS Increases in employment related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Increases in personal income due to employment increases related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Increase in population due to employment increases related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Expansion of housing supply due to employment increases related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Increases in school enrollment due to employment increases related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gasrelated development Need for additional local government facilities and services due to employment increases related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Increased federal, state, and local revenues related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil-and gas-related development
1 2

MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF IMPACT ALTERNATIVE 1
Significant, short to long term Significant, beneficial, short to long term

PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 2 and ALTERNATIVE 3
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1

Significant, short to long term

Same as Alternative 1

Significant, short to long term

Same as Alternative 1

Moderate, short term

Same as Alternative 1

Moderate, short to long term

Same as Alternative 1

Significant, beneficial, short to long term

Same as Alternative 1

Cumulative impact discussion in this table and in Chapter 4 is based on the PRB Coal Review analyses (BLM 2005a-f, 2006b-d). All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.

Draft EIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter describes the existing conditions of the physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic resources in the general Wright analysis area which includes all six of the Lease by Application (LBA1) tracts (the affected environment). This chapter also analyzes the direct and indirect impacts (the environmental consequences) to those resources if the tracts are leased and mined under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3. The potential environmental consequences of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1, rejecting the application for the tract) are also considered in this chapter. In addition to this EIS, a separate document entitled Supplementary Information on the Affected Environment in the General Analysis Areas for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS has been prepared. The supplemental document provides detailed site-specific information on the existing environment associated with the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA tracts. Copies of the supplemental information document are available upon request and can be viewed at the BLM offices in Casper and Cheyenne. Furthermore, this chapter considers regulatory compliance; mitigation; monitoring; residual impacts; the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance of long-term productivity; and the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would occur with the implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3 for each tract. As discussed in Chapter 2, regulatory compliance and mitigation and monitoring measures that are required by federal and/or state law are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 or 3 for each tract. Under the Proposed Action for each tract, the tract as applied for would be offered for lease at one sale. As discussed in Chapter 2, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has identified a study area for each LBA tract that consists of the tract as applied for and adjacent lands that BLM is considering adding to the tract. BLM is evaluating these study areas for the purpose of identifying potential alternate tract configurations to the Proposed Action that would be technically, economically, or environmentally preferable to the Proposed Action. Alternative 2 for each tract evaluates holding one sale for a tract modified by adding some or all of BLM’s study area to the tract. Alternative 3 for the West Hilight Field tract evaluates holding one sale for the tract modified by adding some or all of BLM’s study area and or some or all of Ark Land Company’s (ALC’s) permitted Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area to the tract. The Proposed Action and Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 for each LBA tract will be referred to collectively as the Action Alternatives.

Refer to page xxvi for a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this document.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-1

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences If any of the tracts are leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3, 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 the coal removal area would be due to activities like overstripping, highwall backsloping (including catch benches), highwall reduction after mining to match undisturbed topography, and construction of flood control and sediment control structures. For analysis purposes, this disturbance buffer is assumed to extend ¼ mile outside the BLM study area boundary, where future mining disturbance can occur. In this environmental impact statement (EIS), the general analysis area for each tract is defined as the BLM study area (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2) plus the ¼-mile disturbance buffer. Figure 3-1 shows the general Wright analysis area for most environmental resources. The general Wright analysis area does not have a defined boundary but includes the combined general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. The resources that are addressed here were identified during the scoping process or interdisciplinary team review as having the potential to be affected. Critical elements of the human environment (BLM 2008a) that could potentially be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3 for each tract include air quality, cultural resources, Native American religious concerns, T&E species, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species and Thunder Basin National Grassland plant species of local concern, migratory birds, hazardous or solid wastes, water quality, wetlands/riparian zones, invasive non-native species, and environmental justice. Five other critical elements (areas of critical environmental concern, prime or unique farmlands, floodplains, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness) are not present in the general Wright analysis area and are not addressed further. In addition to the critical elements that are potentially present in the general Wright analysis area, this EIS discusses the status and potential effects of mining each LBA tract on topography and physiography, geology and mineral resources, soils, water quantity, alluvial valley floors, vegetation, wildlife, land use and recreation, paleontological resources, visual resources, noise, transportation resources, and socioeconomics. Tables 3-1 through 3-6 show the total leased and disturbance areas for the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines (which represent the No Action Alternatives), and how the total leased areas and estimated total mine disturbance areas would change under the Proposed Action, Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. As indicated in Tables 3-1 through 3-3, Black Thunder Mine’s current coal leases include approximately 20,656 acres. Under the mine’s currently approved mining and reclamation plan, a total of approximately 26,812 acres 3-2 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Hilight Road
BNSF & UP RR

R. 71 W.

T. 44 N.

WEST JACOBS
RANCH LBA
TRACT

R. 70 W. Kee line Road
Jacobs Road

R. 69 W.

LEGEND
T. 44 N. Existing Lease Boundaries North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

Shroyer Road

Small Road

NORTH HILIGHT
FIELD LBA TRACT
Jacobs Ranch Mine

West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for

WEST HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT
T. 43 N. T. 43 N.
way

West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

Sta

Black Thunder Mine

High

West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 3

450

Matheson Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road
Antel ope R oad

S ch

ool

Cr ee k

Ro ad

SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT

BNSF & UP RR

South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

T. 42 N.

Reno Road

T. 42 N.

North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for
Mackey Road

North Antelope Rochelle Mine
Matheson Road

North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

NORTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT SOUTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT
Campbell County Converse County

South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for T. 41 N. South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

T. 41 N.

pe lo te An
BNSF & UP RR

R oad

Antelope
Mine

T. 40 N.

T. 40 N.
SCALE: 1"=3 MILES

Figure 3-1. General Wright Analysis Area.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

S ta te H ighw 9 ay 5

R. 71 W.

R. 70 W.

R. 69 W.

3-3

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-1. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Black Thunder Mine Disturbance Area and Mining Operations for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract.
No Action Alternative (Existing Permit Area) Additional Lease Area (Acres) Total Lease Area (Acres)1 Increase in Lease Area (Percent) Estimated Additional Mine Disturbance Area (Acres)2 Estimated Total Mine Disturbance Area (Acres) Increase in Estimated Disturbance Area (Percent) Estimated Additional Recoverable Coal (Million Tons)3 Estimated Recoverable Coal for Mine as of 1/08 (Million Tons) --20,656 ----26,812.0 ----1,236.4 Proposed Action 2,613.5 23,269.5 12.7 5,053.0 31,865 18.8 263.4 1,499.8 Alternative 2 7,139.4 27,795.4 34.6 12,908.8 39,720.8 48.1 652.8 1,889.2

Increase in Estimated Recoverable --21.3 52.8 Coal as of 1/08 (Percent) 1 Includes federal, state, and private coal. 2 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 3 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal  recovery factor (92 percent).

Table 3-2.

Comparison of Existing and Proposed Black Thunder Mine Disturbance Area and Mining Operations for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract.
No Action Alternative (Existing Permit Area) Proposed Action 1,976.7 22,632.7 9.6 1,126.0 27,938.0 4.2 213.6 1,450.0 Alternative 2 2,922.4 23,578.4 14.1 2,731.4 29,543.4 10.2 304.3 1,540.7

Additional Lease Area (Acres) Total Lease Area (Acres)1 Increase in Lease Area (Percent) Estimated Additional Mine Disturbance Area (Acres)2 Estimated Total Mine Disturbance Area (Acres) Increase in Estimated Disturbance Area (Percent) Estimated Additional Recoverable Coal (Million Tons)3 Estimated Recoverable Coal for Mine as of 1/08 (Million Tons)

--20,656 ----26,812.0 ----1,236.4

Increase in Estimated Recoverable Coal --17.3 24.6 as of 1/08 (Percent) 1 Includes federal, state, and private coal. 2 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 3 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal  recovery factor (92 percent).

3-4

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-3. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Black Thunder Mine Disturbance Area and Mining Operations for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract.
No Action Alternative (Existing Permit Area) Additional Lease Area (Acres) Total Lease Area (Acres)1 Increase in Lease Area (Percent) Estimated Additional Mine Disturbance Area (Acres)2 Estimated Total Mine Disturbance Area (Acres) Increase in Estimated Disturbance Area (Percent) Estimated Additional Recoverable Coal (Million Tons)3 Estimated Recoverable Coal for Mine as of 1/08 (Million Tons) --20,656 ----26,812.0 ----1,236.4 Proposed Action 2,370.5 23,026.5 11.5 6,351.4 33,163.4 23.7 377.9 1,614.3

Alternative 2 7,191.3 27,847.3 34.8 10,250.8 37,062.8 38.2 965.2 2,201.6

Alternative 3 8,570.1 29,226.1 41.5 10,250.8 37,062.8 38.2 965.2 2,201.6

Increase in Estimated Recoverable Coal as of 1/08 (Percent) --30.6 78.1 78.8 1 Includes federal, state, and private coal. 2 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 3 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal  recovery factor (92 percent).

Table 3-4.

Comparison of Existing and Proposed Jacobs Ranch Mine Disturbance Area and Mining Operations for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract.
No Action Alternative (Existing Permit Area) Proposed Action 5,944.4 15,664.4 61.2 7,023.0 21,876.0 47.3 669.6 1,092.6 Alternative 2 8,076.2 17,796.2 83.1 9,370.0 24,223.0 63.1 912.6 1,335.6

--9,720.0 ----14,853.0 ----423.0

Increase in Estimated Recoverable Coal as of 1/08 (Percent) --158.3 215.7 1 Includes federal, state, and private coal. 2 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 3 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal  recovery factor (90 percent).

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-5

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-5. Comparison of Existing and Proposed North Antelope Rochelle Mine Disturbance Area and Mining Operations for the North Porcupine LBA Tract.
No Action Alternative (Existing Permit Area) Additional Lease Area (Acres) Total Lease Area (Acres)1 Increase in Lease Area (Percent) Estimated Additional Mine Disturbance Area (Acres)2 Estimated Total Mine Disturbance Area (Acres) Increase in Estimated Disturbance Area (Percent) Estimated Additional Recoverable Coal (Million Tons)3 Estimated Recoverable Coal for Mine as of 1/08 (Million Tons) --18,066.0 ----27,443.0 ----1,031.4 Proposed Action 5,795.8 23,861.8 32.1 9,864.0 37,307.0 35.9 601.2 1,632.6 Alternative 2 7,366.8 25,432.8 40.8 11,444.0 38,887.0 41.7 745.4 1,776.8

Increase in Estimated Recoverable Coal as of 1/08 (Percent) --58.3 72.3 1 Includes federal and state coal. 2 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 3 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal  recovery factor (92 percent).

Table 3-6.

Comparison of Existing and Proposed North Antelope Rochelle Mine Disturbance Area and Mining Operations for the South Porcupine LBA Tract.
No Action Alternative (Existing Permit Area) Proposed Action 3,186.0 21,252.0 17.6 3,366.0 30,809.0 12.3 309.7 1,341.1 Alternative 2 3,568.0 21,634.0 19.7 4,068.0 31,511.0 14.8 339.3 1,370.7

--18,066.0 ----27,443.0 ----1,031.4

Increase in Estimated Recoverable Coal as of 1/08 (Percent) --30.0 32.9 1 Includes federal and state coal. 2 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 3 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal  recovery factor (92 percent).

3-6

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences will be disturbed in order to recover that coal. According to Black Thunder Mine’s 2007 Annual Report submitted to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD), the mine had disturbed a total of approximately 12,990.6 acres as of December 31, 2007. Of that total area of disturbance, approximately 4,323.1 acres (33.3 percent) were occupied by permanent or temporary facilities (stockpiles, hydrologic control structures, mine buildings and coal loading facilities, railroad loop, environmental monitoring areas, etc.), 2,555.1 acres (19.7 percent) were occupied by areas being actively mined, and 6,112.4 acres (47.0 percent) were occupied by areas that had been mined and reclaimed or were in the process of being reclaimed (TBCC 2007). If the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts are leased to the applicant as maintenance tracts under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3, the permit area for the adjacent Black Thunder Mine would have to be amended to include the new lease areas before they could be disturbed by mining activities. Tables 3-1 through 3-3 also show how the leased area and disturbance area would change, for each of the tracts as applied for and under Alternatives 2 and 3, if all the federal coal in the BLM study area discussed in Chapter 2 is included in the tract that is offered for sale. The estimates of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in Tables 3-1 through 3-3 and elsewhere in this chapter assume that coal currently unsuitable for mining due to the presence of public roads is not mined. If the Campbell County Board of Commissioners determine that the county roads that border or cross the tracts can be closed and/or moved, the estimated tons of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and Black Thunder Mine life would increase as discussed in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 and as indicated in Tables 2-2, 2-4, and 2-6 for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, respectively. A portion of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for lies inside the current mine permit area (Figure 2-2), a portion of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 3 lies inside the current mine permit area (Figure 2-3), and the North Hilight Field LBA Tract under both the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 borders, but lies entirely outside of, the current mine permit area (Figure 2-1). If a tract is leased, the area that would have to be added to the existing mine permit area would be that portion of the LBA tract that lies outside the existing permit boundary plus an adjacent strip of land that would be used for highwall reduction after mining and such mine-related activities as construction of diversions, flood and sediment control structures, roads, and stockpiles. Portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or as configured under Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 that are contiguous to existing coal leases (Figure 3-1) and within approved mine permit areas will be disturbed by the current mining operations. The environmental consequences of leasing the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts under any one of the Action Alternatives would be similar in nature, but selection of the Proposed Action would disturb less area of land surface.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-7

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences As indicated in Table 3-4, Jacobs Ranch Mine’s current coal leases include approximately 9,720 acres. Under the mine’s currently approved mining and reclamation plan, a total of approximately 14,853 acres will be disturbed in order to recover that coal. According to Jacobs Ranch Mine’s 2007 Annual Report submitted to WDEQ/LQD, the mine had disturbed a total of approximately 9,130 acres as of December 31, 2007. Of that total area of disturbance, approximately 1,184 acres (13 percent) were occupied by permanent or temporary facilities (stockpiles, hydrologic control structures, mine buildings and coal loading facilities, railroad loop, environmental monitoring areas, etc.), 1,964 acres (22 percent) were occupied by areas being actively mined, and 5,982 acres (65 percent) were occupied by areas that had been mined and reclaimed or were in the process of being reclaimed (JRCC 2007). If the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is leased to the applicant as a maintenance tract under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, the permit area for the Jacobs Ranch Mine would have to be amended to include the new lease area before it could be disturbed by mining activities. Table 3-4 also shows how the leased area and disturbance area would change, for the tract as applied for and under Alternative 2, if all the federal coal in the BLM study area discussed in Chapter 2 is included in the tract that is offered for sale. The estimates of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in Table 3-4 and elsewhere in this chapter assume that coal currently unsuitable for mining due to the presence of public roads is not mined. If the Campbell County Board of Commissioners determines that the portion of Hilight Road bordering the east side of the tract can be closed and/or moved, the estimated tons of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and Jacobs Ranch Mine life would increase as discussed in Section 2.4 and as indicated in Table 2-8 for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. As shown in Figure 2-4, no portion of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 lies inside Jacobs Ranch Mine’s current permit area; however, the eastern portion of the LBA Tract as applied for does lie within Black Thunder Mine’s current permit area, which is referred to as ALC’s or Black Thunder Mine’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area. Consequently, no portion of the tract has been disturbed by the Jacobs Ranch Mine, but as discussed in Sections 2.1, 2.3, and 2.4, surface disturbances related to the construction of a new rail spur, rail loops, storage silos, and coal loadout facilities for the Black Thunder Mine are presently occurring within ALC’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area (Figures 2-3 and 2-4). No portion of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract will be disturbed under the current mining plans in order to recover coal in the existing adjacent coal leases due to the presence of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe & Union Pacific (BNSF & UP) railroad, which borders the eastern side of the tract and effectively separates mining operations on either side of the rail line. If the tract is leased to the applicant, the area that would have to be added to the existing mine permit area would be the entire LBA tract plus an adjacent strip of land that would be used for highwall reduction after mining and such mine-related activities as construction of diversions, flood and sediment control structures, roads, and stockpiles. The environmental 3-8 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences consequences of leasing the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would be similar in nature, but selection of the Proposed Action would disturb a smaller area of land surface. As indicated in Tables 3-5 through 3-6, North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current coal leases include approximately 18,066 acres. Under the mine’s currently approved mining and reclamation plan, a total of approximately 27,443 acres will be disturbed in order to recover that coal. According to North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s 2007 Annual Report submitted to the WDEQ/LQD, the mine had disturbed a total of approximately 14,342 acres as of September 30, 2007. Of that total area of disturbance, approximately 3,303 acres (23 percent) were occupied by permanent or temporary facilities (stockpiles, hydrologic control structures, mine buildings and coal loading facilities, railroad loop, environmental monitoring areas, etc.), 6,200 acres (43 percent) were occupied by areas being actively mined, and 4,840 acres (34 percent) were occupied by areas that had been mined and reclaimed or were in the process of being reclaimed (PRC 2007). If the North Porcupine and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are leased to the applicant as maintenance tracts under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, the permit area for the adjacent North Antelope Rochelle Mine would have to be amended before the entire new lease areas could be disturbed by mining activities. Tables 3-5 and 3-6 also show how the leased area and disturbance area would change, for each of the tracts as applied for and under Alternative 2, if all the federal coal in the BLM study area discussed in Chapter 2 is included in the tract that is offered for sale. The estimates of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine lives shown in Tables 3-5 and 3-6 and elsewhere in this chapter assume that coal currently unsuitable for mining due to the presence of public roads is not mined. If the Campbell County Board of Commissioners determine that the county roads that border or cross the tracts can be closed and/or moved, the estimated tons of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine life would increase as discussed in Sections 2.5 and 2.6 and as indicated in Tables 2-10 and 2-12 for the North Porcupine and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, respectively. The North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for and under Alternative 2 lies entirely within the current mine permit boundary (Figure 2-5). The South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for lies entirely within the current mine permit area, as does all but approximately 60 acres of the tract configured under Alternative 2 (Figure 2-6). If a tract is leased however, additional area would have to be added to the existing mine permit area that would be used for highwall reduction after mining and such mine-related activities as construction of diversions, flood and sediment control structures, roads, and stockpiles. Portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or as configured under Alternative 2 that are contiguous to existing coal leases (Figure 3-1) will be disturbed by the current mining operations. The environmental consequences of leasing the North Porcupine and South Porcupine LBA Tracts under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would be similar in nature, but selection of the Proposed Action would disturb less area of land surface. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-9

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Surface mining and reclamation have been ongoing in the eastern Powder River Basin (PRB) for nearly 3 decades. During this time, effective mining and reclamation technologies have been developed and continue to be refined. Mining and reclamation operations are regulated under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and Wyoming statutes. WDEQ technically reviews all mine permit application packages to ensure that the mining and reclamation plans comply with all state permitting requirements and that the proposed coal mining operations comply with the performance standards of the Department of the Interior (DOI)-approved Wyoming program. BLM attaches special stipulations to all coal leases (Appendix D), and there are a number of federal and state permit approvals that are required in order to conduct surface mining operations (Appendix A). The regulations are designed to ensure that surface coal mining impacts are mitigated. Impacts can range from beneficial to adverse and they can be a primary result of an action (direct) or a secondary result (indirect). They can be permanent, long-term (persisting beyond the end of mine life and reclamation), or shortterm (persisting during mining and reclamation and until the time the reclamation bond is released). Impacts also vary in terms of significance. The basis for conclusions regarding significance are the criteria set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.27) and the professional judgment of the specialists doing the analyses. Impact significance may range from negligible to substantial; impacts can be significant during mining but be reduced to insignificance following completion of reclamation. 3.1 General Setting The general Wright analysis area is located in the PRB, a part of the Northern Great Plains that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. Vegetation is primarily sagebrush and mixed grass prairie. 3.1.1 Climate and Meteorology The climate in the general Wright analysis area is typical of a semi-arid, high plains environment with relatively large seasonal and diurnal variations in temperature and seasonal variation in precipitation. The average annual precipitation at a Western Regional Climate Center/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (WRCC/NOAA) meteorological station (Wright 12 W), located between 3 and 18 miles west to northwest of the general Wright analysis area, is 13.45 inches (WRCC 2008). May (2.06 inches) and June (2.03 inches) are the wettest months, whereas December (0.33 inch) and January (0.36 inch) are the driest. Snowfall averages 54.8 inches per year, with most occurring in March and April (9.3 inches each). Potential evapotranspiration has been estimated at 31 inches (NOAA 1969), which exceeds annual precipitation. Summers are relatively short and warm, while winters are longer and cold. The annual mean temperature for the WRCC/NOAA meteorological station at Wright for the period of record (1991 through 2007) is 44.7 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The highest recorded temperature was 103 degrees F and the 3-10 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences lowest was minus 39 degrees F. July is the warmest month, with a mean daily temperature of 69.7 degrees F, and January is the coldest month, with a mean daily temperature of 23.9 degrees F. The frost-free period is 100-120 days (Curtis and Grimes 2004). In the general Wright analysis area, surface wind speeds range from more than 30 miles per hour (mph) during the winter and spring to 10 to 12 mph during the summer. The area also experiences extreme wind gusts, especially during thunderstorm activity that occurs in June, July, and August. Distinct diurnal changes occur, with average wind velocities increasing during the day and decreasing during the night. Local variations in wind speed and direction are primarily due to differences in topography. Wind speeds are highest in the winter and spring (October through April) and are predominantly from the western and northern sectors. During the warmer months (May through September), wind directions are more random, although winds from the northern or southeastern sectors are slightly more predominant. During periods of strong wind, dust may impact air quality across the region. An average of 15 air-stagnation events occurs annually in the PRB with an average duration of 2 days each (BLM 1974). 3.2 Topography and Physiography 3.2.1 Affected Environment The general Wright analysis area is a high plains area within the unglaciated Missouri Plateau subregion of the Great Plains Province, near the eastern portion of the Powder River Basin (PRB) in the state of Wyoming. The PRB is both a topographic drainage and geologic structural basin. The structural basin is an elongated, asymmetrical syncline approximately 120 miles east to west and 200 miles north to south. It is bounded in Wyoming by the Black Hills on the east; the Big Horn Mountains on the west; and the Hartville Uplift, Casper Arch, and Laramie Mountains on the south. The northern extent of the structural basin is the Miles City Arch and the Yellowstone River in Montana. The axis of the structural basin trends from the southeast to the northwest near the western margin of the syncline. The general Wright analysis area is located on the gently dipping eastern limb of the structural basin. In general, geologic strata along the eastern limb of the structural PRB dip to the west at 1 to 2 degrees toward the axis of the basin. The Powder River Basin is so named because it is drained by the Powder River, although it is also drained in part by other major rivers, including the Big Horn, Tongue, Little Missouri, Belle Fourche, and Cheyenne rivers. The general Wright analysis area is within the Cheyenne River drainage basin. Little Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, Porcupine Creek and Antelope Creek, tributaries of the Cheyenne River, are the most prominent natural topographic features in the general Wright analysis area. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-11

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Broad plains, rolling hills, and tablelands dominate the PRB landscape. Internally-drained playas are common in the basin, as are buttes and plateaus capped by sandstone or clinker. Elevations throughout the PRB range from less than 2,500 feet to more than 6,000 feet above sea level. The major river valleys have wide, flat floors and broad floodplains. The drainages dissecting the basin are incised, typically are ephemeral or intermittent, and do not provide year-round water sources. The topography of the general Wright analysis area, like the areas within the adjacent mines’ existing permit areas, is relatively subdued. The landscape of the general Wright analysis area consists primarily of gently rolling terrain broken by minor drainages and internally-drained playa areas. Drainage densities are quite low, and the playas are common topographic and hydrologic features. Much of the land surface covered by the LBA tracts as applied for and the lands added by the BLM study areas do not contribute runoff to any stream, and playas have formed in the lowest portion of these non-contributing drainage areas. Land surface elevations range from about 4,690 to 5,170 feet above sea level and slopes range from essentially flat to over 50 percent within the general Wright analysis area. Gently rolling uplands comprise most of the general Wright analysis area; most of the land surface (between 75 and 90 percent, depending on the particular LBA tract) seldom exceeds a 5 percent slope. The steepest slopes typically occur near the highest elevations along the ridge lines and drainage divides and at the breaks or transitions between uplands and bottomlands that are dissected by small ravines and gullies. Of the six LBA tracts included in the general Wright analysis area, the topography of the South Porcupine tract is somewhat unique due to the presence of a number of steep draws and gullies that are formed by the headwaters of Antelope, Horse, and Porcupine creeks. However, gently rolling uplands comprise approximately 51 percent of the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract, and the steepest slopes within the erosionally dissected areas are slightly over 30 percent. 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Surface mined lands, both active and reclaimed, dominate the landscape east of Wyoming State Highway 59 in the vicinity of the general Wright analysis area. Surface coal mining would permanently alter the topography of each LBA tract if it is leased and mined. Topsoil would be removed and stockpiled or placed directly on recontoured areas. Overburden would be blasted and stockpiled or directly placed into already mined pits, and coal would be removed. Highwalls with vertical heights equal to overburden (and interburden, if present) plus coal thickness would exist in the active pits. If necessary, streams would be diverted into temporary channels around active 3-12 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences mining areas or would be contained within temporary reservoirs to prevent pits from being flooded. Typically, a direct permanent impact of coal mining and reclamation is topographic moderation. After reclamation, the postmining topography would be similar to the premining topography, but would be somewhat gentler and more uniform. The original topography in North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine and South Porcupine LBA Tracts ranges from essentially flat playa areas to gently rolling hills to relatively rugged draws and gullies. As discussed above, slopes on the LBA tracts as applied for range from around zero to over 50 percent, and the average slopes range from about 2.2 percent (for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract) to 6.2 percent (for the South Porcupine LBA Tract). Following reclamation, the average surface elevation on each LBA tract would be lower due to coal removal (see Table 3-7). The removal of the coal would be partially offset by the swelling that occurs when the overburden (and interburden, if present) is blasted, excavated, and backfilled. Table 3-7 presents the approximate postmining surface elevation change for each LBA tract as applied for under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. West Hilight’s Alternative 3 is also included in the table. These figures represent the estimated average change in surface elevation over the entire area of coal removal. After the coal is removed, highwalls would be eliminated and the land surface would be restored to its approximate original contour or to a configuration approved by WDEQ/LQD when the surface coal mining permit for the existing mine is amended to include the LBA tract, if the tract is leased. Direct adverse impacts resulting from topographic moderation include a reduction in microhabitats (e.g., cutbank slopes and steep bedrock bluffs and escarpments) for some wildlife species and a reduction in habitat diversity, particularly in slope-dependent shrub communities and associated habitat. These impacts, which would be greater in those areas characterized as rough breaks, may result in a long-term reduction in the carrying capacity for some species. The applicant mines’ existing reclamation plans include measures, to the extent possible, to establish wildlife enhancement features. A direct beneficial impact of the lower and flatter terrain would be reduced water runoff, which would allow increased infiltration and result in a minor reduction in peak flows and potentially accelerate recharge of groundwater. This may help counteract the potential for increased erosion that could occur as a result of higher nearsurface bulk density of the reclaimed soils (Section 3.8). It may also increase vegetative productivity, which would result in a benefit to livestock grazing. The approximate original drainage pattern of all streams within each LBA tract would be restored (Section 3.5). In-channel stockponds and playas (shallow Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-13

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-7. Average Overburden, Interburden, and Coal Thicknesses and Approximate Postmining Surface Elevation Changes of the Six LBA Tracts.
Overburden Thickness (ft) 246 246 292 292 428 428 428 Interburden Thickness (ft) 1 1 94 94 32 32 32 Included with overburden 0 0 Total Coal Thickness (ft) 61 61 81 81 93 93 93 Swell Factor (percent) 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Coal Recovery Factor (percent) 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Postmining Elevation Change1 16.6 ft lower
16.6 ft lower
12.8 ft lower
12.8 ft lower
12.0 ft lower 12.0 ft lower 12.0 ft lower

LBA Tract and Configuration North Hilight Field Proposed Action Alternative 2 South Hilight Field Proposed Action Alternative 2 West Hilight Field Proposed Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Existing Black Thunder Mine Leases No Action Alternative for North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts West Jacobs Ranch Proposed Action Alternative 2 Existing Jacobs Ranch Mine Leases No Action Alternative for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract North Porcupine Proposed Action Alternative 2 South Porcupine Proposed Action Alternative 2 Existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine Leases

282 475 486

78 102 104

16 18 18

92 90 90

26.6 ft lower 6.3 ft lower
6.1 ft lower

168 343 354 346 347

9 0 0 11 10

57 75 75 76 76

18 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5

90 92 92 92 92

19.4 ft lower 15.8 ft lower
13.9 ft lower
14.7 ft lower
14.7 ft lower

No Action Alternative for North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts 211 17 71 15.5 30.0 ft lower 92 Reclaimed (postmining) surface elevation change calculated as: ((overburden thickness + interburden thickness) × swell factor) – (coal thickness × coal recovery factor).

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences topographic depressions) would be replaced to provide livestock and wildlife watering sources. These topographic changes would not conflict with regional land use, and the postmining topography would be designed to adequately support anticipated land use. These impacts are occurring on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines’ coal leases as coal is mined and mined-out areas are reclaimed. Under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3, the areas that would be permanently topographically changed would increase as shown in Tables 3-1 through 3-6. 3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and the associated disturbance and impacts to topography and physiography would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under currently approved surface coal mining permits. Coal removal and the associated impacts to topography and physiography would continue as currently permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases. Table 3-7 presents the approximate postmining surface elevation change for the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. Impacts to topography and physiography related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring The mined-out areas must be restored to approximate original contour or other topographic configuration approved by WDEQ/LQD. Topographic configurations would be developed and approved as part of the required mining and reclamation plans within the surface mining permits for the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. WDEQ/LQD monitors topographic restoration by regularly checking the as-built topography in the annual reports filed by the mines to see if it conforms to the approved topography. 3.2.4 Residual Impacts Topographic moderation is a permanent consequence of mining. Reclaimed landforms are expected to mimic premining topography, but be more subdued in topographic variation and slightly lower in elevation (Table 3-7). The indirect Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-15

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences impacts of topographic moderation on wildlife habitat diversity would also be considered permanent. 3.3 Geology, Mineral Resources and Paleontology 3.3.1 General Geology and Coal Resources 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment Geologic units in the general Wright analysis area that would be impacted if the LBA tracts under consideration for leasing are mined include, in descending order, recent (Holocene age) alluvial and eolian deposits; the Eocene age Wasatch Formation (the overburden); and the Paleocene age Fort Union Formation (which contains the target coal seams). Variations between the LBA tracts occur primarily in the thickness of the mineable coal seams, the thickness of overburden, the parting thickness(es) between the various seams comprising the Wyodak coal, and the surface topography. Figure 3-2 shows the stratigraphic relationships of the geologic units in the general Wright analysis area that are typical for the eastern part of the PRB in Wyoming. Additional information about these units is included in Section 3.5 of this EIS. The majority of the recent Quaternary Holocene age surface deposits in the general Wright analysis area are reworked Wasatch Formation residuum or deposits that are of mixed alluvial and eolian nature. The lithologies of these unconsolidated deposits represent materials eroded locally from the Wasatch Formation and reflect relatively near-source deposition. The alluvial deposits are comprised of fine sands and silts interbedded with clays and fine gravels. Thin (ranging from nearly absent to less than 20 feet thick) alluvial and eolian deposits occur along the larger ephemeral stream channels such as Little Thunder Creek. The valley floor of Porcupine Creek contains appreciable amounts of alluvium, both in width and depth, and the alluvial deposits of Porcupine Creek are comprised of coarser-grained material than the other ephemeral streams that drain the general Wright analysis area. Eolian deposits occur throughout the general Wright analysis area, although are more common in the southern portion where these fine-grained sand, silt and clay deposits can blanket the terrain up to 15 feet thick (Reheis and Coates 1987). Eolian processes have reworked some of the surficial deposits, resulting in isolated deflation basins having no natural drainage. These internally-drained surface features (playas) commonly contain fine-grained sediments recently deposited from seasonal rainfall or snowmelt runoff events. The Eocene Wasatch Formation forms most of the overburden in the general Wright analysis area. The Wasatch overburden consists of interbedded lenticular sands/sandstones, silts/siltstones, clays and shales with thin discontinuous coal seams. Wasatch rocks are exposed in some localities, particularly along steep bluffs and hills formed by the more erosionally resistant sandstone strata and in the eroded gullies and ravines that separate upland and bottomland areas. Wasatch coals, where present, are typically of 3-16 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Geologic Unit
RECENT ALLUVIUM HOLOCENE

Hydrologic Characteristics
Typically fine grained and poorly sorted sands interbedded with silts and clays in ephemeral drainages. Occasional very thin, clean interbedded sand lenses. More laterally extensive, thicker, and coarse-grained along the larger stream courses. Excessive dissolved solids generally make this aquifer unsuitable for domestic and agricultural use and marginal for livestock (Class III) use standards. Low infiltration capacity in ephemeral draws unless covered by sandy eolian blanket. Low to moderate infiltration along Little Rawhide Creek. Baked and fused bedrock resulting from burning coal seams which ignite on the outcrop from lightning, manmade fires or spontaneous combustion. The reddish clinker (locally called scoria, red dog, etc.) formed by melting and partial fusing of overburden above the burning coal. The baked rock varies greatly in the degree of alteration; some is dense and glassy while some is vesicular and porous. It is commonly used as a road construction material and is an aquifer wherever saturated. Considered to be part of the Wasatch Formation. Lenticular fine sands interbedded in predominantly very fine grained siltstone and claystone may yield low to moderate quantities of poor to good quality water. The discontinuous nature and irregular geometry of these sand bodies result in low overall permeabilities and very slow groundwater movement in the overburden on a regional scale. Water quality in the Wasatch Formation generally does not meet Wyoming Class I (drinking water) standards due to the dissolved mineral content. Some wells do, however, produce water of considerably better quality that does meet the Class I standard. The coal beds serve as regional groundwater aquifers and exhibit highly variable aquifer properties. Permeability and porosity associated with the coal arise almost entirely from fractures. Coal water typically does not meet Class I or Class II (irrigation) use standards. In most cases, water from coal wells is suitable for livestock use. The coal water is used throughout the region as a source of stock water and occasionally for domestic use. USGS (Flores et al. 1999) refers to the thick mineable coals in the Gillette coal field as the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation. The Lebo member, also referred to as the “Lebo Confining Layer” or “Lebo Shale”. Has a mean thickness of 711 ft in the PRB and a thickness of about 400 ft in the vicinity of Gillette. The Lebo typically yields small quantities of poor quality groundwater. Where sand content is locally large, caused by channel or deltaic deposits, the Lebo may yield as much as 10 gpm. The Tullock member has a mean thickness of 785 ft in the PRB and a mean sand content of 53 percent which indicates that the unit generally functions well as a regional aquifer. Yields of 15 gpm are common but vary locally and may be as much as 40 gpm. Records from the SEO indicate that maximum yields of approximately 300 gpm have been achieved from this aquifer. Water quality in the Tullock Member often meets Class I standards. The extensive sandstone units in the Tullock Member are commonly developed regionally for domestic and industrial uses. The City of Gillette is currently using eight wells completed in this zone to meet part of its municipal water requirements. Silty, calcareous sandstones and interbedded sandy shales, claystones, and coals. Provides yields generally less than 20 gpm. Higher yields can occur where sand thicknesses are greatest. Water quality is typically fair to good. Also referred to as the “Upper Lance Confining Layer.” Marine sandstones and sandy shales. Has a mean thickness of 666 ft and a mean sand content over 50 percent in the PRB. Yields up to 200 gpm are common; however, yields can be significantly less. Water quality is good, with TDS concentrations commonly less than 1,000 mg/L. The City of Gillette is currently using five wells completed in this aquifer to meet municipal water requirements. This unit is comprised predominantly of dark marine shales with only occasional local thin sandstone lenses. Maximum yields are minor and overall the unit is not water bearing. Water obtained from this unit is poor with high concentrations of sodium and sulfate as the predominant ions in solution.

CLINKER HOLOCENE TO PLEISTOCENE

WASATCH FORMATION EOCENE

FORT UNION FORMATION PALEOCENE

TONGUE RIVER MEMBER

LEBO MEMBER

TULLOCK MEMBER

UPPER CRETACEOUS

LANCE FORMATION/HELL CREEK FORMATION FOX HILLS SANDSTONE

PIERRE SHALE

Stratigraphy from Stratigraphic Nomenclature Committee, Wyoming Geological Association, 1969.

Figure 3-2. Stratigraphic Relationship and Hydrologic Characteristics of Upper Cretaceous, Lower Tertiary, and Recent Geologic Units, PRB, Wyoming. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-17

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences no economic significance. Clinker (also referred to as burn or scoria) is sedimentary rocks that were baked, fused or melted in place when an underlying coal seam burned in-situ. Scoria is often exposed on the surface as predominantly red-colored, resistant rock outcrops. The occurrence of scoria is site-specific, typically occurring in areas where coal seams crop out at the surface. Underlying the Wasatch Formation is the Paleocene Fort Union Formation. The boundary between the Wasatch Formation and the Fort Union Formation is not distinct. From a practical standpoint, however, the top of the mineable coal zone is considered as the contact between the two formations. Table 3-7 indicates the overburden thicknesses in the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts as applied for and under Alternative 2. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, the regional dip in this area is to the west; as a result, the overburden thickness generally increases from east to west. The overburden is also generally thinner in the vicinity of the major drainage channels and increases in thickness away from the channel bottoms. There are no known local, major geologic structures in the general Wright analysis area. The Fort Union Formation consists primarily of siltstones, mudstones, claystones, shales, lenticular sands/sandstones, and coal seams. As shown in Figure 3-2, the Fort Union Formation is divided into three members: the Tongue River (which contains the mineable coal seams), the Lebo, and the Tullock, in descending order. The Tongue River Member consists of interbedded siltstone, claystone, silty shale, carbonaceous shale, and coal, with lesser amounts of fine-grained sands and sandstones. The U.S. Geological Survey (Flores et al. 1999) refers to the thick mineable coals in the Gillette coal field as the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation. The nomenclature of the mineable coal seams in the Tongue River Member varies from mine operator to mine operator in the eastern PRB and are locally referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, Roland and Smith, Wyodak-Anderson, and Wyodak. Operators of the mines in the general Wright analysis area refer to the mineable coal zone as either the Wyodak (Upper Wyodak, Middle Wyodak and Lower Wyodak) or the Wyodak-Anderson. The number of coal seams varies from tract to tract. There are two coal seams (referred to as Upper and Middle Wyodak) in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for and three coal seams (referred to as Upper, Middle, and Lower Wyodak) in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract configured under Alternative 2; however, due to quality issues, the Upper Wyodak may not be recovered. There are two coal seams (referred to as Upper and Middle Wyodak) in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for and three coal seams (referred to as Upper, Middle, and Lower Wyodak) in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract configured under Alternative 2; however, due to quality issues, the Upper Wyodak may not be recovered. There are two coal seams (referred to as Upper and Middle Wyodak) in the West Hilight Field LBA 3-18 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Tract as applied for and as configured under Alternative 2; however, due to quality issues, the Upper Wyodak may not be recovered. There is one mineable seam (referred to as the Wyodak) in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for and as configured under Alternative 2. There are two mineable coal seams (referred to as the Wyodak-Anderson 1 and Wyodak-Anderson 2) in both the Porcupine North and Porcupine South LBA Tracts as applied for and under Alternative 2. The combined average thicknesses of the mineable coal seams within each LBA tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2 (and Alternative 3 for the West Hilight Field tract) are shown in Table 3-7. The combined average thicknesses of interburden between coal seams are also given in Table 3-7. The Fort Union coal seams are subbituminous and are generally low-sulfur, low-ash coals. Typically, the coal being mined south of Gillette has a higher heating value and lower sulfur content than the coal being mined north of Gillette. In these six tracts that are under consideration for leasing, the heating value of the coal seams is expected to range from around 8,500 to 9,200 Btu/lb; the ash content is expected to vary from about 3.5 to 6.5 percent; the sulfur content is expected to vary from about 0.1 to 0.7 percent; the fixed carbon is expected to vary from 30 to 55 percent, and the moisture content is expected to vary from around 22 to 30 percent. 3.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences 3.3.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 The stratigraphic units from the base of the lowest coal seam mined to the land surface would be subject to permanent change after the coal is removed on the LBA tracts under the respective Proposed Action or Alternative 2. The subsurface characteristics of these lands would be radically changed by mining. The replaced overburden and interburden (backfill) would be a mixture of the geologically distinct layers of sandstone, siltstone, claystone, and shale that currently exist. As a result, the physical characteristics of the backfill would be different from the physical characteristics of the existing layered overburden stratigraphy. 3.3.1.2.1.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract Mining would remove an average of 246 feet of overburden, 1 foot of interburden, and 61 feet of coal from about 2,349 acres up to about 6,738 acres for the BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2. These figures represent the estimated area of actual coal removal, assuming that Shroyer Road is not moved. Table 3-7 presents the average overburden, interburden, and coal thicknesses for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for and for the BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2. The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous (compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-19

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences recompacted mixture averaging about 291 feet in thickness under both the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Approximately 263.4 million tons of coal would be recovered from the tract as applied for, and an estimated 652.8 million tons would be recovered from BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2. 3.3.1.2.1.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract Mining would remove an average of 292 feet of overburden, 94 foot of interburden, and 81 feet of coal from about 1,675 acres for the tract as applied for up to about 2,373 acres for the BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2. These figures represent the estimated area of actual coal removal, assuming that Reno Road is not moved. Table 3-7 presents the average overburden, interburden, and coal thicknesses for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for and for the BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2. The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous (compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly recompacted mixture averaging about 454 feet in thickness under both the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Approximately 213.6 million tons of coal would be recovered from the tract as applied for, and an estimated 304.3 million tons would be recovered from BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2. 3.3.1.2.1.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Mining would remove an average of 428 feet of overburden, 32 foot of interburden, and 93 feet of coal from about 2,211 acres for the tract as applied for up to about 6,577 acres for the tract as it would be configured under Alternatives 2 and 3; Alternative 2 being BLM’s preferred tract configuration. These figures represent the estimated area of actual coal removal, assuming that Wyoming State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are not moved. Table 3-7 presents the average overburden, interburden, and coal thicknesses for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for and for the tract configured under Alternatives 2 and 3. The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous (compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly recompacted mixture averaging about 541 feet in thickness under both the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3. Approximately 377.9 million tons of coal would be recovered from the tract as applied for, compared to an estimated 965.2 million additional tons that would be recovered from the tract configured under Alternatives 2 and 3.

3-20

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.3.1.2.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Mining would remove an average of 475 feet of overburden, no interburden, and 102 feet of coal from about 4,798 acres for the tract as applied for. Under Alternative 2, which is BLM’s preferred alternative, mining would remove an average of 486 feet of overburden, 0.5 foot of interburden (where it exists), and 104 feet of coal from about 6,691 acres. These figures represent the estimated area of actual coal removal, assuming that Wyoming State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are not moved. Table 3-7 presents the average overburden, interburden, and mineable coal thicknesses for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for and for the BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2. The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous (compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly recompacted mixture averaging about 571 feet in thickness under the Proposed Action and about 584 feet in thickness under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative. Approximately 669.6 million tons of coal would be recovered from the tract as applied for, and an estimated 912.6 million tons would be recovered from BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2. 3.3.1.2.1.5 North Porcupine LBA Tract Mining would remove an average of 343 feet of overburden, no interburden, and 75 feet of coal from about 5,024 acres for the tract as applied for. Under Alternative 2, which is BLM’s preferred alternative, mining would remove an average of 353.7 feet of overburden, no interburden, and 74.7 feet of coal from about 6,258 acres. These figures represent the estimated area of actual coal removal, assuming that Mackey Road is not moved. Table 3-7 presents the average overburden, interburden, and mineable coal thicknesses for the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for and for the BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2. The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous (compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly recompacted mixture averaging about 402 feet in thickness under the Proposed Action and about 415 feet in thickness under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative. Approximately 601.2 million tons of coal would be recovered from the tract as applied for, and an estimated 745.4 million tons would be recovered from BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2. 3.3.1.2.1.6 South Porcupine LBA Tract Mining would remove an average of 345.7 feet of overburden, 10.9 feet of interburden, and 76.1 feet of coal from about 2,531 acres for the tract as applied for. Under Alternative 2, which is BLM’s preferred alternative, mining would remove an average of 348.6 feet of overburden, 10.2 feet of interburden, and 76.4 feet of coal from about 2,783 acres. These figures represent the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-21

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences estimated area of actual coal removal, assuming that a portion of Antelope Road approximately 2.25 miles in length is not moved. Table 3-7 presents the average overburden, interburden, and mineable coal thicknesses for the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for and for the BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2. The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous (compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly recompacted mixture averaging about 418 feet in thickness under the Proposed Action and about 421 feet in thickness under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative. Approximately 309.7 million tons of coal would be recovered from the tract as applied for, and an estimated 339.3 million tons would be recovered from BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2. 3.3.1.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected. Coal removal and the associated disturbance to the stratigraphic units from the base of the lowest coal seam that would be mined to the land surface would not occur on the LBA tracts as applied for or configured under Alternative 2.. Coal removal and associated impacts described above would continue as currently permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases. Table 3-7 presents the average overburden, interburden, and coal thicknesses for the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit areas. Impacts to the stratigraphic units from the base of the lowest coal seam mined to the land surface related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.3.1.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring State and federal regulations require that drilling and sampling programs be conducted on existing leases by all mine operators to identify overburden material that may be unsuitable for reclamation (i.e., material that is not suitable for use in reestablishing vegetation or that may affect groundwater quality due to high concentrations of certain constituents, such as selenium, or adverse pH levels). As part of the mine permitting process, each mine operator develops a management plan to ensure that this unsuitable material is not placed in areas where it may affect groundwater quality or revegetation success. Each mine operator also develops backfill monitoring plans as part of the mine permitting process to evaluate the quality of the replaced overburden. 3-22 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences These plans are in place for the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines and would be developed for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts if they are leased. The portions of Wyodak coal seams that may not be recovered (e.g., the Upper Wyodak seam may not be mined in the three Hilight Field tracts) due to quality issues are similar with respect to low sulfur content; therefore, the potential for acid formation is minimal, and any acid formed would be diluted or neutralized by the alkaline overburden. The waste coal from both the mined and unmined seams remains in the pit to be mixed with and covered by backfilled overburden and interburden materials. Any unsuitable materials in the backfill would be buried under adequate fill so as to be below the replaced soil to meet regulatory guidelines for vegetation root zones. Regraded overburden would be sampled to verify suitability as subsoil. 3.3.1.4 Residual Impacts Geology from the base of the coal to the land surface would permanently change from layered stratigraphy to a mixture of unconsolidated backfill material. 3.3.2 Other Mineral Resources 3.3.2.1 Affected Environment The PRB contains large reserves of fossil fuels including oil, natural gas (from conventional reservoirs and from coal beds), and coal, all of which are currently being produced. In addition, uranium, bentonite, and scoria are mined in the PRB (WSGS 2003). 3.3.2.1.1 Conventional Oil and Gas The following discussion is based on information in BLM’s Task 2 Report of the PRB Coal Review, the Wyoming State Geological Survey’s Oil and Gas Fields Map of the PRB, a May 2008 review of Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) database, and a January 2008 reserve estimate prepared by Allen & Crouch Petroleum Engineers, Inc. (A&C) of conventional oil and gas resources in the general Wright analysis area. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated means of undiscovered oil and non-coal bed natural gas resources in the PRB, as of December 2006, are 639 million barrels of oil, 1.16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 131 million barrels of natural gas liquids (USGS 2006). Depths to conventional gas and oil-bearing strata generally range from 4,000 to 13,500 feet. The Powder River structural basin is one of the richest petroleum provinces in the Rocky Mountain area. Conventional oil and gas resources occur in Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-23

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences reservoirs ranging from Mississippian to Late Cretaceous age rocks, in both structural and stratigraphic traps. Oil was first produced from the PRB in 1887 from the Lower Cretaceous Newcastle Sandstone on the east flank of the basin near Moorcroft, Wyoming. In the 1960s and 1970s, drilling moved into deeper parts of the basin that resulted in the discovery of prolific oil fields in stratigraphic traps in Upper and Lower Cretaceous age rocks. The discovery of oil from the Lower Cretaceous Muddy Sandstone on the Montana side of the basin set off a flurry of exploration that resulted in a number of discoveries in Wyoming in the Muddy Sandstone. Muddy Sandstone production fields in the vicinity of the general Wright analysis area include portions of the Hilight, Porcupine, Payne, and Rocky Hill fields (De Bruin 2002). Drilling continued for deeper targets and resulted in the recovery of oil and gas in deeper reserves in the Permian-Pennsylvanian Minnelusa Formation in the Hilight Field and other fields. Through 2005, there had been a 15-year period of very little conventional oil and gas development activity in the PRB (BLM 2005a). There are several conventional oil and gas fields that produce in the vicinity of the general Wright analysis area, including the Hilight, Rocky Hill, Porcupine, and Payne Oil and Gas Fields. The Hilight Field is overlain by portions of the North Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, and West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tracts. The Rocky Hill Field is overlain by portions of the North Hilight Field and West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tracts; the Porcupine Field is overlain by portions of the North Porcupine, South Porcupine and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts; and the Payne Field is overlain by a portion of the North Porcupine LBA Tract (De Bruin 2002). The Hilight Field is producing from or has produced primarily oil from the Lower Cretaceous Muddy-Newcastle Sandstone, which is the main zone of production within that oil and gas field. The Muddy Sandstone play covers much of the PRB and consists of stratigraphic traps, including marine bar, strandline, alluvial, and delta plain sandstone bodies. Depths to productive traps range from 3,000 to 14,000 feet, with most ranging from roughly 9,000 to 10,000 feet below the surface in the general Wright analysis area. Most of the Muddy Sandstone wells in this field were completed in the 1960s and 1970s, and development within the Hilight Field has tended to occur on a 160-acre well spacing. The Rocky Hill Field, which is a minor oil and gas field adjacent to the Hilight Field, is producing or has produced oil and natural gas from the Muddy Sandstone, as well as the Upper Cretaceous Teckla Sandstone Member of the Mesaverde Group, the Upper Cretaceous Niobrara Formation, the Lower Cretaceous Fuson and Lakota Formations and Skull Creek Shale, and the Pennsylvanian Minnelusa Formation. Depths to these Upper and Lower Cretaceous production zones in this field are generally around 9,000 to 10,000 feet below land surface, while depths to the older Minnelusa Formation are around 12,000 feet (WOGCC 2008a). In the general Wright analysis area, the Porcupine Field and the adjacent Payne Field are producing or have produced oil and gas from the Upper Cretaceous Sussex Sandstone Member of the Cody Shale and the Turner 3-24 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sandy Member of the Carlile Shale. Production of oil and gas from these two fields has also been from or is currently from the Lower Cretaceous Muddy Sandstone, Skull Creek Shale, Dakota Sandstone, and Morrison Formation. Depths to these Upper and Lower Cretaceous production zones in these two fields generally range from 8,000 to 11,000 feet below land surface (WOGCC 2008a). According to the WOGCC database as of May 2008, a total of 74 conventional oil and gas wells have been drilled within the six LBA tracts as applied for and the lands added by the respective BLM study areas included in this analysis. A total of 37 oil wells have been drilled within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 2: 20 of which were still producing; seven were shut in; and 10 were plugged and abandoned. A total of two oil wells have been drilled within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 2: one of which was still producing and one was plugged and abandoned. A total of six oil and gas wells have been drilled within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 2: one gas well of which was still producing; one gas well was shut in; and four oil wells were plugged and abandoned. A total of 12 oil and gas wells have been drilled within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under Alternative 2: one oil well of which was still producing; one oil well was shut in; and nine oil wells and one gas well were plugged and abandoned. A total of 14 oil and gas wells have been drilled within the North Porcupine LBA Tract under Alternative 2: six gas wells and three oil wells of which were still producing; four oil wells were plugged and abandoned; and one gas well was plugged and abandoned. A total of three oil and gas wells have been drilled within the South Porcupine LBA Tract under Alternative 2: one gas well of which was still producing and two oil wells were plugged and abandoned. As of May 2008, no oil or conventional gas wells have been drilled within these six LBA tract study areas since 1990. According to the January 2008 reserve estimate of conventional oil and gas resources that was prepared by Allen & Crouch Petroleum Engineers, Inc. of Casper, Wyoming, of the 33 wells capable of producing oil or conventional gas that are located within these six LBA tracts, each configured under Alternative 2, 16 wells are considered to have recoverable reserves using in-place recovery methods. Estimated remaining recoverable reserves from these 16 wells are approximately 43,308 barrels of oil and 1.654 million cubic feet (mmcf) of natural gas (A&C 2008). Higher oil prices experienced recently have helped prevent the abandonment of low-producing wells and could potentially increase conventional oil and gas exploration in the PRB. Enhanced oil recovery using carbon dioxide (CO2) flooding has the potential to increase oil recovery in the general Wright analysis area, but the infrastructure (e.g., CO2 pipelines, etc.) is not currently in place (BLM 2005a). Section 3.11 includes a discussion of the ownership of the oil and gas resources in each of the BLM study areas for the six LBA tracts included in this Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-25

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences analysis. The 33 conventional oil and gas wells located in the BLM study areas for the six LBA tracts that are capable of production are listed in Appendix E. 3.3.2.1.2 Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) CBNG has been commercially produced in the PRB since 1989 when production began at the Rawhide Butte Field located northwest of the Gillette, Wyoming (De Bruin and Lyman 1999). Extensive CBNG development has occurred on lands immediately west of the surface coal mines, including the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. The predominant CBNG production to date in this area has occurred from the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone, which are the same coal beds (or equivalent to the coal beds) being mined by the surface coal mines. The Wyodak-Anderson zone appears to be gasbearing throughout the PRB and the methane in the coal beds has been determined to be biogenic in origin. CBNG is also being produced from other, deeper coal seams locally throughout the PRB. In order for CBNG to be produced, the hydrostatic pressure in the coal must be reduced to a level that can vary from coal to coal, which allows the gas to desorb from the coal. This is accomplished by removing water from the coal bed. CBNG reservoirs can be affected by any nearby activities, including coal mining, that reduce the hydrostatic pressure in the coal bed. The Wyoming BLM State Office-Reservoir Management Group (WSO-RMG) has recently prepared a variety of detailed analyses of CBNG resources in the lands near (meaning those townships within and adjacent to) the existing surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB for coal leasing and other actions. The WSO RMG completed a report in 2006 that describes the existing/affected environment of the coal mining areas and adjacent lands, with respect to CBNG resources, and documents the observed and inferred resource depletion that has and will continue to occur (WSO-RMG 2006). WSO-RMG and the USGS have collected coal gas content data from coal cores near the mines and in other areas of the PRB. Measured gas content was minimal in all of the Wyodak-Anderson coal cores collected in 2000 at locations near the surface coal mines, indicating that the coal seams were already substantially depleted of CBNG in the vicinity of the mines at that time. Average total gas content from the core desorption analyses was approximately 6.8 standard cubic feet per ton (scf/ton) near the coal mines in 2000, compared with an average measured gas content of 37.6 scf/ton from coal cores taken outside the mining areas. Analyses by WSO-RMG, USGS, CBNG operators, and others have shown that dewatering of the coal beds, by both CBNG production and mine dewatering, reduces the hydrostatic pressure in the coals and allows the CBNG to desorb and escape from the coal. These effects have been ongoing and it is likely that desorption has continued since 2000; as a result, coal gas content and the gas-in-place adjacent to the existing mines would currently be expected to be less than in 2000. 3-26 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences WOGCC well data from the areas adjacent to the PRB surface coal mines generally show that operator interest peaked prior to 2000 and declined following 2001. By 2005, drilling activity in the areas adjacent to the coal mines had declined significantly, with only 128 applications to drill CBNG wells filed in all of the townships including and bordering the coal mines in 2005 (WSO-RMG 2006). CBNG wells were initially drilled on 40-acre spacing in the Wyoming PRB. Production/reservoir analyses that have been submitted to the WOGCC in various public hearings have indicated that CBNG wells in the PRB will produce reserves from larger areas than 40 acres. As a result, the WOGCC established an 80-acre spacing pattern as the default spacing for CBNG wells completed in the PRB within the Fort Union and Wasatch Formations. Most CBNG wells on and near the general Wright analysis area were drilled on an 80-acre pattern, although some were drilled on a 40-acre pattern because they were drilled before the spacing was changed to 80 acres. Certain townships in the PRB are exempt from the 80-acre spacing pattern rule; however, those townships are north of the general Wright analysis area (WOGCC 2008b). Although CBNG has been produced in this area for about 10 years, there are still some undrilled 80-acre spacing units in and around the general Wright analysis area. However, there has been little recent interest in drilling additional wells for completion in the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone in this area. CBNG is also being produced locally from other deeper seams in the PRB (e.g., Cook, Wall, and Pawnee coal seams of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation)., although no wells have been completed in the deeper seams on and immediately west of the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts (WOGCC 2008a). According to the WOGCC database as of May 2008, a total of 287 wells have been drilled for CBNG production within the six LBA tracts as applied for and the lands added by the respective BLM study areas included in this analysis. A total of 40 wells have been drilled within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 2: 34 of which were still producing and six were shut in. A total of 32 wells have been drilled within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 2: 10 of which were still producing; nine were plugged and abandoned, seven were shut it; and six were dry holes. A total of 61 wells have been drilled within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 2: 38 of which were still producing; 13 were plugged and abandoned, nine were shut it; and one was a dry hole. A total of 99 wells have been drilled within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under Alternative 2: 78 of which were still producing; 11 were shut in; and 10 were plugged and abandoned. A total of 43 wells have been drilled within the North Porcupine LBA Tract under Alternative 2: 42 of which were still producing and one was shut in. A total of 12 wells have been drilled within the South Porcupine LBA Tract under Alternative 2: 10 of which were still producing and two were shut in. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-27

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The ownership of oil and gas resources in the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, which includes the CBNG resources, is discussed in Section 3.11. The 248 CBNG wells located in the BLM study areas for the six LBA tracts that are capable of production (including those that are currently shut in) are listed in Appendix E. 3.3.2.1.3 Other Minerals Bentonite, uranium, and clinker are commercially produced in the PRB in addition to conventional oil and gas and CBNG. Layers of bentonite (decomposed volcanic ash) of varying thickness are present throughout the PRB. Some of the thicker layers are mined where they are near the surface, mostly around the edges of the basin. Bentonite has a large capacity to absorb water, and because of this characteristic it is used in a number of processes and products, including drilling mud. No mineable bentonite reserves have been identified on any of the LBA tracts under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3. There are substantial uranium resources in southwestern Campbell and western Converse Counties. There is currently one active uranium mining operation in Wyoming, the Smith Ranch-Highland in-situ recovery operation, which is located in west-central Converse County (WSGS 2008). No known uranium reserves exist within the general Wright analysis area. Clinker, which is also sometimes referred to as scoria, burn, or porcelanite, has been and continues to be a major source of aggregate for road construction in the area due to the shortage of more competent materials. Scoria consists of sediments that were baked, fused, or melted in place when an underlying coal seam burned. Scoria is present within the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mine permit areas, predominantly east of the mineable coal limit. Scoria does occur on the eastern-most portion of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract configured under Alternative 2, but does not occur on the other five LBA tracts as applied for under the Proposed Actions or within the additional areas evaluated under Alternative 2 or 3. A search of the BLM Land and Mineral Use Records revealed that no active mining claims are presently located on the LBA tracts as applied for under the Proposed Actions or within the additional areas evaluated under Alternatives 2 or 3 (BLM 2008b).

3-28

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.3.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 During mining, other minerals present on the LBA tracts could not be developed. Some of these other minerals could, however, be developed after coal mining and reclamation are completed. The conventional oil and gas reservoirs below the mineable Wyodak-Anderson coal beds would not be directly disturbed by removal of the mineable coal. The existing conventional oil and gas wells on the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3, as discussed above, would have to be plugged and abandoned, and all production equipment would have to be removed before mining operations could begin. Following mining and reclamation, the oil and gas lessees could drill new wells to recover oil and gas resources from any productive subcoal oil and gas reservoirs. This would only occur if they believe that the value of the reserves would justify the expense of drilling the wells and rebuilding the production infrastructure. As discussed above, conventional oil and gas resources in the general Wright analysis area have been extensively developed. According to the A&C’s 2008 evaluation, the actively producing wells within the BLM study areas for the six LBA tracts included in this EIS appear to have exhausted most of their recoverable reserves, with approximately 5 percent of the recoverable oil and 11 percent of the recoverable gas remaining in these wells (A&C 2008). No wells have been drilled in this area over the last 18 years, so the area generally appears to be unfavorable for additional production from known reservoirs or new discoveries. Before mining operations could begin, all active CBNG wells would have to be plugged and abandoned, and all gas production equipment would have to be removed. CBNG resources that have not been recovered from the WyodakAnderson zone prior to mining would be lost when the coal is removed. CBNG production requires withdrawal of water from the coal seams to reduce hydrostatic pressure and enable methane desorption from the coals. WSO RMG’s analyses indicate that depletion of the hydrostatic pressures and methane resources starts to occur adjacent to mining areas a short time after mining begins, and that CBNG depletion had already occurred near the mining areas in the Wyodak-Anderson zone by the time that CBNG development began to accelerate in the late 1990s (WSO-RMG 2006). Groundwater level data compiled by the Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization (GAGMO) in 2000 and earlier indicated that widespread hydrostatic pressure depletion in the affected coal seam aquifers had occurred since mining began in the late 1970s and early1980s. Hydrostatic pressures had declined by as much as 60 percent in the southern group of mines, and coal gas in place can be inferred to have been depleted by similar proportions. The ongoing reduction of Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-29

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences hydrostatic pressure in the coal beds due to mining has been accelerated by extensive CBNG production from surrounding lands. WSO-RMG’s analyses of the production and reservoirs indicate that the CBNG resource within the Wyodak-Anderson seam has been substantially depleted, either by mining or by recovery from producing wells. It seems likely that the wells presently capable of production that are located within the BLM study areas for the six LBA tracts included in this EIS (Appendix E) will have exhausted their economic reserves prior to initiation of mining in the LBA tracts. It is also likely that any undrilled spacing units in the BLM study areas will have been drained by production from the existing wells and nearby mining activity prior to initiation of mining in the LBA tracts. Mining operations within the LBA tracts could not begin until permitting is completed, which generally requires several years after a lease is acquired. By that time, it is likely that most of the economically recoverable CBNG resource would have been produced. CBNG production from the coal zones underlying the WyodakAnderson coal zone would not be directly disturbed by surface mining operations and could be delayed as the parcel is mined. If production from these lower seams is established on the LBA tracts in the future, additional measures would be required to accommodate both mining and CBNG production (see Section 3.3.2.3). Section 3.11.1 includes a discussion on the ownership of the oil and gas resources on the LBA tracts and the oil and gas facilities in the area of the tracts. 3.3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and the associated disturbance would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Mining operations would continue to limit the development of other mineral resources described above on the existing adjacent Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases. Mineral development limitations related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future.

3-30

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.3.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring The reservoir analyses conducted by the A&C (2008) indicate that most of the recoverable conventional oil and gas resources on the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts have been extracted by the existing wells. Reservoir analyses conducted by the BLM WSO-RMG indicate that most of the recoverable CBNG resources in the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone on these six LBA tracts have probably been produced by the existing wells. Potential does exist for conflicts between coal operations and CBNG and conventional oil and gas wells completed in formations and coal zones below the Wyodak-Anderson seam. If the federal coal in the tracts is leased and conflicts do develop between the operators of the oil and gas wells and the surface coal mine operators, there are several mechanisms that can be used to facilitate recovery of the conventional oil and gas and CBNG resources prior to mining. These include:


BLM will attach a Multiple Mineral Development stipulation to the federal coal lease, which states that BLM has the authority to withhold approval of coal mining operations that would interfere with the development of mineral leases issued prior to the coal lease (see Appendix D). Conventional oil and gas wells must be abandoned while mining and reclamation operations are in progress but could be recompleted or redrilled following mining if the value of the remaining reserves would justify the expense of reestablishing production. BLM has a policy in place on CBNG-coal conflicts (BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153), which directs BLM decision-makers to optimize the recovery of both resources and ensure that the public receives a reasonable return (BLM 2006a). This memorandum offers royalty incentives to CBNG operators to accelerate production in order to recover the natural gas while simultaneously allowing uninterrupted coal mining operations. In addition, this memorandum also states that it is the policy of the BLM to encourage oil and gas and coal companies to resolve conflicts between themselves; when requested, the BLM will assist in facilitating agreements between the companies. Mining of these LBA tracts cannot occur until the coal lessee has a permit to mine the tract approved by the WDEQ/LQD and a MLA mining plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Before the MLA mining plan can be approved, BLM must approve the R2P2 for mining the tract. Prior to approving the R2P2, BLM can review the status of CBNG and conventional oil and gas development on the tracts and the mining sequence proposed by the coal lessee. The permit approval process generally takes the coal lessee several years, during which time CBNG resources can continue to be recovered. 3-31



Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences


Prior to mining the federal coal, the coal lessee can negotiate an agreement with owners and operators of existing oil and gas facilities on the tract, including owners and operators of oil and gas well and pipeline facilities, regarding removal and relocation of those facilities prior to mining.

3.3.2.4 Residual Impacts WSO-RMG’s 2006 analyses of the CBNG production and reservoirs within the Wyodak-Anderson seam in the areas within and adjacent to the existing PRB coal mines indicated that the resource has been substantially depleted, either by mining or by recovery from producing wells. It therefore seems likely that the CBNG wells capable of production that are located within the BLM study areas for the six LBA tracts (Appendix E) will have exhausted the reserves prior to initiation of mining in the LBA tracts. In the unprobable event that any CBNG remains in the Wyodak-Anderson coal when it is exposed by mining, the gas would be vented to the atmosphere and permanently lost. 3.3.3 Paleontology 3.3.3.1 Affected Environment The formation exposed on the surface of the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts is the sedimentary Eocene Wasatch Formation, which is known to produce fossil vertebrates of scientific significance throughout Wyoming, including the PRB (Delson 1971, Winterfeld 1978, EVG 2001). BLM ranks areas according to their potential to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. The Wasatch Formation is ranked as fulfilling BLM Paleontology Condition No. 1, which is described in the Paleontological Resource Management Handbook 8270-I as “areas that are known to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils.” According to the handbook, “consideration of paleontological resources will be necessary if the Field Office review of available information indicates that such fossils are present in the area.” The BLM in Wyoming uses an additional planning tool, called the Fossil Yield Potential Classification (FYPC), which was developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (USFS). The FYPC is a planning tool used to classify geological units, usually at the formation or member level, according to the probability that they will yield paleontological resources that are of concern to land managers. This classification system is based largely on how likely a geologic unit is to produce scientifically significant fossils. BLM considers the Wasatch Formation to fulfill either the FYPC Class 4 or Class 5, depending on the nature of bedrock exposures present. FYPC classes 4 and 5 are described as follows: 3-32 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Class 4 - These geologic units are Class 5 units (see below) that have lowered risks of human-caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation. Class 5 - Fossilferous geologic units that regularly and predictably produce vertebrate fossils and/or scientifically significant non-vertebrate (plant and invertebrate) fossils, and that are at risk of natural degradation and/or human-caused adverse impacts. The FYPC was used by the USFS in their 2001 revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG). The USFS has designated the Wasatch Formation in the PRB as a FYPC 5. As coal mining progresses westward, it becomes increasingly likely that significant vertebrate fossils may be encountered. Vertebrate fossils that have been described from the Wasatch Formation include mammals such as early horses, tapiroids, condylarths, primates, insectivores, marsupials, creodonts, carnivores, and multituberculates; reptiles such as crocodilians, alligators, lizards, and turtles; birds; eggs; amphibians; and fish. Non-marine invertebrates such as mollusks and ostrocods have also been described from the Wasatch. Fossil plant material is common in the Wasatch Formation. The fossil plants inventoried are primarily leaves and fossilized wood. The leaves usually occur as lignitic impressions in sandstone and siltstone and as compact masses in shale. Leaves are the most abundant fossils found during paleontological surveys and are frequently encountered during mining operations. Fossilized wood often occurs near the top of a coal seam, in carbonaceous shale or within channel sandstone. Exposures of fossil logs are common, but usually very fragmentary. Like fossil leaves, fossil logs can be readily collected in the PRB. Although the Wasatch Formation is known to produce fossil vertebrates of scientific significance in Wyoming, outcrops of the Wasatch Formation in the PRB are not generally well-exposed and the conditions of deposition of the formation have contributed to a low preservation potential for fossils. Surficial geologic mapping of the general Wright analysis area by the USGS (Reheis and Coates 1987) indicate that unconsolidated surficial deposits (i.e., colluvial and eolian deposits) occur widespread over the area and actual outcrops of the Wasatch Formation that could be prospected for fossils occur infrequently. The landscape of the LBA tracts’ general analysis areas is not particularly well suited to bedrock and paleontological exposure. Professional archeologists, in effort to locate unique pockets of fossilized bone such as those reported elsewhere in the Wasatch Formation in the PRB, closely examined outcrop localities in conjunction with their intensive pedestrian surveys for cultural resources. Such concentrations of fossilized bone were not found. Fossilized (a.k.a. petrified or silicified) wood is much more common and observed at many unrecorded locations, particularly associated with coal. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-33

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Because of the ubiquitous nature of fossilized plants and invertebrates, reporting is typically confined to vertebrate specimens or unique finds. The only observed fossils were of petrified wood fragments. No significant or unique paleontological resource localities have been recorded in the general Wright analysis area, no specific mitigation was recommended for paleontology, and no additional paleontological work is recommended. 3.3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 3.3.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 The rock outcrops present on the general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts were examined for the presence of fossils, as discussed above, and no scientifically significant fossils were located. Fossils with scientific significance could be present on the tracts but not exposed at the surface. If the tracts are leased under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3, paleontological resources located on the tract that are not exposed on the surface would be destroyed when the overburden is removed. 3.3.3.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and the potential associated impacts to paleontological resources would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Mining operations would continue as permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases. Impacts to paleontological resources related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.3.3.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring If the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are leased, BLM will attach a stipulation to each lease requiring the operator to report significant paleontological finds to the authorized federal agency and suspend production in the vicinity of the find until an approved paleontologist can evaluate the paleontological resource (Appendix D). No such incidents have occurred on the applicant mines’ existing leases. 3-34 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.3.3.4 Residual Impacts Paleontological resources that are not identified and removed prior to or during mining operations would be lost. 3.4 Air Quality The information in this section and in Appendix F (Supplemental Air Quality Information) is based on the air quality information provided by the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines and from various state and federal sources. This section summarizes the affected environment in the general Wright analysis area and the potential air quality impacts if the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are leased and mined. Appendix F provides background information on the air quality regulatory framework, regional conditions, dispersion model methodology, the best available control technology (BACT) process, etc. Existing and projected cumulative air quality impacts are discussed in Section 4.2.3. 3.4.1 Background The air quality of any region is controlled primarily by the magnitude and distribution of pollutant emissions and the regional climate. The transport of pollutants from specific source areas is strongly affected by local topography. In the mountainous western United States, topography is particularly important in channeling pollutants along valleys, creating upslope and downslope circulations that may entrain airborne pollutants, and blocking the flow of pollutants toward certain areas. In general, local effects are superimposed on the general weather regime and are most important when the large-scale wind flow is weak. The general Wright analysis area, shown in Figure 3-1, is located in the eastcentral portion of the PRB, a part of the Northern Great Plains that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, the topography is primarily rolling plains and tablelands of moderate relief (with occasional valleys and buttes). Elevations range from about 4,690 feet to 5,170 feet above sea level. The climate in the general Wright analysis area is semiarid with relatively short warm summers and longer cold winters. Evaporation exceeds annual precipitation. Section 3.1.1 includes additional information about the climate in the general Wright analysis area. Air Quality regulations applicable to surface coal mining may include the National Ambient Air Quality Standards/Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS/WAAQS), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Title V). These regulatory programs are described in Appendix F. Air pollution impacts are limited by local, state, tribal, and federal air quality regulations and standards, and state implementation plans, or SIPs, Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-35

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences established under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990 (CAAA). In Wyoming, air pollution impacts are managed by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD) under the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). 3.4.1.1 Emission Sources Air quality conditions in rural areas are typically better than in large urban/industrial centers. Rural areas generally have a smaller number of emission sources (few industrial facilities and residential emissions in the relatively small communities and isolated farms and ranches) and favorable atmospheric dispersion conditions which can result in relatively low air pollutant concentrations. For these reasons, air quality conditions in the rural areas of the PRB are likely to be very good. However, the potential exists for localized pockets of higher concentrations of fugitive dust particles and gaseous emissions related to oil and gas development in the basin (BLM 2005b). Occasional high concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter may also occur in more urbanized areas (e.g., cities of Gillette, Sheridan, and Buffalo) and around industrial facilities (e.g., surface coal mines and coal-fired power plants), especially under stable atmospheric conditions that occur occasionally during winter. Surface coal mining activities generate fugitive dust particulates, and gaseous tailpipe emissions from large mining equipment. Specifically, activities such as blasting, excavating, loading and hauling of overburden and coal, and wind erosion of disturbed and unreclaimed mining areas produce fugitive dust. Coal crushing, storage, and handling facilities are the most common stationary or point sources associated with surface coal mining and preparation. Particulate matter is the pollutant emitted from coal mine point sources, although small amounts of gaseous pollutants are emitted from small boilers and off-road diesel engines. Wyoming’s ambient air standards for particulates are shown in Table 3-8. Blasting is also responsible for another type of emission from surface coal mining. Overburden and coal blasting sometimes produces gaseous, orangecolored clouds that contain nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Exposure to NO2 may have adverse health effects, as discussed in Section 3.4.3. NO2 is one of several products resulting from the incomplete combustion of explosives used in the blasting process. Wyoming’s ambient air standards for NO2 are shown in Table 3-8. Other existing air pollutant emission sources within the region include:


CO and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from internal combustion engines used at natural gas and CBNG pipeline compressor stations; Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-36

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-8.
Criteria Pollutant Carbon monoxide Nitrogen dioxide Ozone Sulfur dioxide

Assumed Background Air Pollutant Concentrations, Applicable AAQS, and PSD Increment Values (in µg/m3).
Averaging Time1 1-hour 8-hour Annual 8-hour 3-hour 24-hour Annual 24-hour Annual 24-hour Annual Background Concentration 3,3364 1,381 55 706 1817 627 137 549 139 1310 410 Primary NAAQS2 40,000 10,000 100 157 --365 80 150 -35 15 Secondary NAAQS2 40,000 10,000 100 157 1,300 ----150 -35 15 WAAQS 40,000 10,000 100 157 1,300 260 60 150 50 65 15 PSD Class I Increments3 ----2.5 --25 5 2 8 4 ----PSD Class II Increments3 ----25 --512 91 20 30 17 -----

PM10 8 PM2.5 8
1 2

Annual standards are not to be exceeded; short-term standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. Primary standards are designed to protect public health; secondary standards are designed to protect public welfare. 3 All NEPA analysis comparisons to the PSD increments are intended to evaluate a threshold of concern and do not represent a regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. 4 Data collected by Amoco at Ryckman Creek for an eight-month period during 1978-1979, summarized in Riley Ridge EIS (BLM 1983). 5 Data collected at Thunder Basin National Grassland, Campbell County, Wyoming in 2002. 6 Data collected at Thunder Basin National Grassland, Campbell County, Wyoming in 2002-2004 (8-hour 4th high). 7 Data collected by Black Hills Power & Light at Wygen 2, Campbell County, Wyoming in 2002. 8 On October 17, 2006, EPA published final revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter that took effect on December 18, 2006. The revision strengthens the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 to 35 µg/m3 and revokes the annual PM10 standard of 50 µg/m3. The State of Wyoming will enter into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS. 9 Data collected at the Eagle Butte Mine, Campbell County, Wyoming in 2002. 10 Data collected at the Buckskin Mine in 2002. Source: (BLM 2005b and WDEQ/AQD)

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-37

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences




 

CO, NOX, particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from gasoline and diesel vehicle tailpipe emissions; Particulate matter (dust) generated by vehicle travel on unpaved graded roads, agricultural activities such as plowing, and paved road sanding during the winter months, as well as windblown dust from neighboring areas; NO2 and PM10 emissions from railroad locomotives used to haul coal; SO2 and NOX from power plants. The closest coal-fired power plants are the Dave Johnston plant, located about 40-60 miles south-southwest of these six LBA tracts, and the Wyodak, Wygen, and Neil Simpson plants, located about 35-55 miles north of these six LBA tracts; Air pollutants transported from emission sources located outside the PRB; and Ground level ozone (O3) is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between NOX and VOCs in the presence of sunlight.

3.4.2 Particulate Emissions 3.4.2.1 Affected Environment for Particulate Emissions The federal standard for particulate matter pollutant was specified as total suspended particulates (TSP) until 1987. This measurement included all particulates generally less than 100 microns in diameter. In 1987, the form of the standard was changed from TSP to PM10 to better reflect human health effects. PM10 represents particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less that can potentially penetrate into the lungs and cause health problems. In 1997, EPA set separate standards for fine particles (particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less, or PM2.5), based on their link to serious health problems. In 2006, EPA revised the air quality standards for particulate matter by tightening the 24-hour fine particle standard from the previous level of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (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 3-8. While retaining the TSP standard until March 2000, Wyoming added the PM10 standard in 1989. Wyoming also adopted a PM2.5 standard in March 2000. In view of the December 2006 revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter, the State of Wyoming will enter into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS for particulate matter so that they remain as stringent as or more stringent than the NAAQS. 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.

3-38

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences WDEQ/AQD requires monitoring data to document the air quality at all of the PRB mines. As a result, 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. TSP and PM10 data have been collected since 1980 and 1989, respectively. Through 2004, approximately 57,000 TSP samples had been collected and approximately 47,555 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 F. Existing site specific air quality information is included in the Supplementary Information Document, which is available on request. Historical particulate matter ambient air quality data for the general Wright analysis area air quality monitoring sites generally show the same results as described above for the PRB as a whole. The locations of PM10, PM2.5, and TSP (if monitored) particulate emission monitoring samplers at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines are shown on Figures 3-3 through 3-5, respectively. The progression of mining operations requires that the location and number of particulate monitors be adjusted in order to provide the best documentation of the ambient air quality. Figure 3-6 presents the average annual particulate emissions, as PM10, measured by the general Wright analysis area mines’ particulate monitoring samplers from 1998 through 2007. Annual coal and overburden production for the general Wright analysis area mines for these same years are also shown on Figure 3-6. There were no monitored exceedances of the PM10 standard in the PRB through 2000. No exceedances of the annual PM10 particulate standards were documented by the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, or North Antelope Rochelle mines through 2007. From 2001 through 2006, there were a total of nine exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 particulate standards associated with the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. In 2007, a total of three 24-hour PM10 exceedances were reported at these three mines (two at North Antelope Rochelle, one at Black Thunder, and none at Jacobs Ranch). Prior to 2007, there was no mechanism in place to account for exceedances demonstrated to be the result of natural events. The WDEQ/AQD collaborated with the Wyoming Mining Association (WMA) to develop a Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP) for the coal mines of the PRB, based on EPA Natural Event Policy guidance. Under certain conditions, excessive PM10 concentrations resulting from dust raised by exceptionally high winds or other natural events will be treated as uncontrollable natural events. The NEAP is discussed in Appendix F. All of the nine exceedances that occurred at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines between 2001 and 2006 were associated with elevated wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour (mph), which could have qualified as a high wind event under the NEAP. The two exceedances reported in 2007 at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine have been flagged by EPA as exceptional events under the NEAP and will not be considered when determining the region’s air quality designation. The Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-39

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Road
7 8

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 7
12

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
12 7

Hilight

Ke
16 15 14

el in e

Jacobs Road

Ro 13 ad

Shroyer Road
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20

Small Road

T. 44 N.

33 31 32 34 35 36

BTM-31 (discontinued October 2006)
32 33

T. 5 43 6 State Highway 450 N.
7 8 9

BTM-9 (new February 2008)
4 3 2 1 6 5 4

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.
9

Official BT Meteorological Station
3 2 1 6 5 4

BNSF & UP RR

Black Thunder Mine Plant Facilities Area
10 11

Sta

BTM-26 (relocated to BTM-25 February 2008) 30
29 28

High

way

450
30 28

C re ek

Ro ad

T. 43 31 N. T. 42 N.
7 6

BTM-25

T. 43 N.

Matheson Road

BTM-36
2

Edwards Road

ool S ch

Tracy Ranch T. Site 4 42
5

Hilight Road

Reno Road
Antelope Road
10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
N

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 3 South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative TSP and/or PM10 Air Quality Sampling Locations Meteorological Station Tracy Ranch NO 2 Monitoring Site
0 6000 12000 24000

KEY 0 3 6 10 16 m.p.h. 21 >24 Windrose Period: 2000-2004

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-3. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the Black Thunder Mine.

3-40

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
BNSF & UP RR
6 5 4

Hilight Road

Site 5 (July 2003 to Present)
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15

Ke el
14

ine

Ro ad 13

Jacobs Road

Shroyer Road
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20

Meteorological Station (August 2005 to Present)
22 23 24

Small Road
26

T. 44 31 N. T. 43 6 N.

Site 5 (to July 2003)
4 3 6

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

Jacobs Ranch Mine Plant Facilities Area
9 10

State Highway 450
7 8 9 10 11 12
7 8

Meteorological Station (to August 2005)
17 16 15

Site 3

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

Sta

Site 4
te

High

way

450
30

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Boundary West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative TSP and/or PM10 Air Quality Sampling Locations Meteorological Station (temperature, wind, and precipitation)
W 0% E

5000

10000

20000

KEY 0 4.0 7.4 12.1 19.0 m.p.h. 25.8 >25.8 Windrose Period: 1998-2007

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-4. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the Jacobs Ranch Mine.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-41

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
NA-7
(new in 2008)

16 15 14

Antelope Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
18
17

Reno Road

Mackey Road

NA-6 or NA/RC (mid-2000 to mid-2008)
35 36
31 32

Mackey Road
33

T. 42
N. T. 41
N.

BNSF & UP RR

NA-6
(through mid-2000)

T. 42
N. T. 41
N.

Matheson Road
3 2 1
6 5 4 3

North Antelope Rochelle Mine Plant Facilities Area
11 12 7

PRCC-1

9 10
11
12 7 8 9 10 8

RO-1
NA-5

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

30
28 27 26 25 29 28

Campbell County
30

Antelope

ad Ro

Converse County

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
N

LEGEND
North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2,
BLM's Preferred Alternative
South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2,
BLM's Preferred Alternative
TSP and/or PM10 Air Quality Sampling Locations
Meteorological Station

W E

5000

10000

20000

KEY 0 3 6 10 16 m.p.h. 21 >24
Windrose
Period: 2000-2004

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-5. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine.

3-42

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Annual Average
PM10 Concentration (µg/m3)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2006 2007

ANNUAL AVERAGE PM10 vs. PRODUCTION

Production Year

2002

2003

2004

720

600

480

360

240

120

Coal Production (million tons) and Overburden Removal (million cubic yards)
Figure 3-6. Annual Coal Production and Overburden Removal vs. Ambient Particulates for the General Wright Analysis Area (1998 through 2007).

1998

1999

2000

Coal Production

Overburden Removal

2001

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

WAC Mines Average Annual PM10 Concentration

2005

3-43

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences one exceedance reported at the Black Thunder Mine in 2007 is currently under review by EPA and may be flagged as an exceptional event under the NEAP. 3.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences Related to Particulate Emissions Particulates include solid particles and liquid droplets that can be suspended in air. Particulates, especially fine particles (<2.5 µg/m3), have been linked to numerous respiratory-related illnesses and can adversely affect individuals with pre-existing heart or lung diseases (EPA 2007a). They are also a major cause of visibility impairment in many parts of the United States. While individual particles cannot be seen with the naked eye, collectively they can appear as black soot, dust clouds, or gray hazes. 3.4.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Potential particulate emissions related to mining operations at the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines are described below. As part of the applicant mines’ mining permit applications, air quality impact analyses were prepared using air quality dispersion modeling to predict the effects of the existing mine operations on nearby air quality. Modeling for the three existing mine sites is discussed below and in Appendix F. Due to the similarities in mining rates and mining operations, the potential impacts of mining the LBA tracts have been inferred from the projected impacts of mining the existing coal leases as currently permitted. To model potential ambient impacts in the area surrounding the mine operations, receptor locations were placed at approximately 500-meter intervals along the Lands Necessary to Conduct Mining (LNCM) boundary, which is also referred to as the ambient air quality boundary, for each mine. As discussed in Appendix F, a PM10 concentration of 14.91 µg/m3 was added to the Black Thunder Mine and the Jacobs Ranch Mine modeled emissions to account for background fugitive dust. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine used a 15.00 µg/m3 concentration value for PM10 modeling. Predicted PM10 emissions from the other regional mining operations were inventoried using those mines’ most recent WDEQ/AQD air quality permit applications. Impacts on ambient air from the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines and other regional mines vary by year due to annual changes in emission strength, emission density, pit proximity to defined ambient air boundaries, and pit configuration. Emissions for each year are ranked and candidate worst-case years are further evaluated regarding proximity to neighboring mining operations and emissions. The total PM10 concentration at each receptor was determined by summing the concentration due to each active mine in the general area and adding the appropriate background concentration. The resulting particulate levels were then compared to the average annual PM10 standard of 50 µg/m3 to determine compliance with the annual WAAQS. This constitutes a demonstration of compliance with the “long-term” or annual WAAQS. 3-44 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences As discussed in Appendix F, surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB have not been subject to PSD requirements. Only some fraction of the mine emissions included in the WDEQ/AQD air quality permit analyses consumes increment based on permits in place in the baseline year of 1997. As a result, the concentrations predicted by the WDEQ/AQD air quality permit analyses should not be compared to PSD increments. The Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines’ point source emissions inventories include all coal preparation and processing facilities (i.e., crushers, material transfer points, silos, and loadouts). All point source parameters for the regional mining operations, which were obtained from WDEQ/AQD files, were also considered in the modeling analysis. As discussed in Appendix F, a proposed new point source that has the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year (tpy) of any criteria pollutant (the primary pollutant being particulate matter) must undergo a regulatory PSD increment consumption analysis as well as a BACT review. In Wyoming, monitoring results have been used in lieu of short-term (24-hour) modeling for assessing short-term coal mining-related impacts in the PRB. WDEQ has chosen this procedure in accordance with an agreement between the EPA and the State of Wyoming. That agreement recognizes that appropriate models do not exist to accurately predict 24-hour impacts. Twenty-four-hour impacts have been estimated from recent monitoring and emission control activities. From 2001 through 2006, there were nine exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 particulate standards associated with the three applicant mines. All of the nine exceedances were associated with elevated wind speeds exceeding 20 mph, which could have qualified as a high wind event under the NEAP. Three exceedances were reported in 2007. Two of the three exceedances reported in 2007 have been designated by EPA as exceptional events under the NEAP and will not be considered when determining the region’s air quality designation. The third exceedance is currently under review by EPA and may be designated as an exceptional event under the NEAP. The estimated average overburden thickness is generally greater in each of the LBA tracts than within the current leases, but the thickness of the coal in the LBA tracts is about the same as in the existing mine areas (see Table 3-7). The acquisition and mining of the LBA tracts by the applicant mines could result in an increase in fugitive emissions per ton of coal mined above current levels due to the increased volume of overburden that would have to be removed to recover the coal. The increase in fugitive dust emissions could potentially be moderated somewhat if removal of the larger volume of overburden material results in a slower rate of mining advancement through the LBA tracts. This would potentially decrease the number of acres disturbed annually and cause haul distances to increase more slowly. Current mining and emission mitigation methods to recover the coal in the LBA tracts would be expected to continue for a longer period of time than is shown Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-45

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences in the mines’ currently approved air quality permits. The mines would continue to utilize direct cast blasting, draglines, and/or truck and shovel fleets to remove and replace overburden and truck and shovel fleets and overland conveyors to remove and transport coal. Truck haul distances to transport the coal to the processing and rail loadout facilities are not expected to increase, because overland conveyors are likely to be extended onto the tracts. The facilities shown in the current air quality permits would not change as a result of proposed mining of the LBA tracts. There are no plans to change blasting procedures or blast sizes associated with the mining of the LBA tracts. In addition, current BACT measures for particulates would continue to be employed. If the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mines acquire the LBA tracts, they will have to amend their current air quality permits to include the new leases before mining activities can proceed into the new lease areas. New air quality modeling would need to be conducted in support of that permit application demonstrating on-going compliance with all applicable ambient standards. 3.4.2.2.1.1 North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts The North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts would be mined as integral parts of the Black Thunder Mine under the Proposed Actions and Alternatives 2 and 3. TBCC projects that the annual coal production is expected to have a maximum production rate of 135 million tons, with or without the North, South, or West Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Black Thunder Mine’s currently approved air quality permits from the WDEQ/AQD limit annual coal production to 135 million tons of coal. According to TBCC, if they acquire the additional coal in the LBA tracts, production would continue at an average rate of 135 million tons per year (mmtpy) for approximately 6.4 years under the Proposed Action, or for about 14.2 years under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred configuration for all three tracts. As discussed in Section 3.0, the estimates of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in Tables 3-1 through 3-3 assume that Shroyer, Reno and Hilight Roads and State Highway 450 are not moved. As indicated in Tables 2-3, 2-5, and 2-7, approximately 132.1 million additional tons of coal could be recovered if these public roads are moved, which would extend operations at the mine for a total of about one additional year under Alternative 2 for all three tracts. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-417A for the Black Thunder Mine on July 1, 1999. This air quality permit was issued based on an analysis using emission factors, estimation methods, and model selection consistent with WDEQ/AQD policy. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-6824 on January 22, 2008, which reclassified the Black Thunder Mine as below the minor source threshold (BTM 2008a). Air quality permit MD-3851 was issued on August 18, 2008, combining the Black Thunder Mine and North Rochelle Mine air quality permits and increasing the permitted production from 100 to 135 mmtpy (BTM 2008b). Material movement currently utilizes direct cast 3-46 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences blasting, draglines, and/or truck and shovel fleets for overburden and truck and shovel fleets and overland conveyors for coal removal and transport. Particulate emission inventories for the mining activities at Black Thunder Mine were prepared for all years in the currently anticipated life of the mine. Two years were then selected for worst-case dispersion modeling of PM10 based on mine plan parameters and emission inventories. Fugitive emission sources and point sources were modeled using the ISCLT3 Model to estimate average annual PM10 concentrations. Long-term modeling for air quality permit MD-3851 indicates the currently projected mine activities will be in compliance with the annual PM10 ambient air standard for the life of the Black Thunder Mine. Based on mine plan parameters and highest emissions inventories, the years 2015 and 2017 were selected as the worst-case years. The dispersion model showed a maximum concentration on the Black Thunder Mine LNCM boundary of 41.9 µg/m3 in 2015 and 49.96 µg/m3 in 2017. Coal production in both years was modeled at the maximum permitted production level of 135 million tons (BTM 2008b). The locations of the maximum-modeled PM10 concentrations for 2015 and 2017 are shown on Figures 3-7 and 3-8, respectively. An initial inventory of all point sources, controls, and emissions for the Black Thunder Mine air quality permit showed a maximum potential to emit 110.4 tpy. A reevaluation of point sources emissions (air quality permit MD-6824) estimated the maximum potential to emit 32.2 tpy. Therefore, a PSD increment consumption analysis was not necessary, and because this value is now below the 100 tpy major source threshold limit specified in Chapter 6, Section 3 of the WAQSR, Black Thunder Mine will not be subject to the Title V Operating Permit program (BTM 2008a). Modeling conducted for air quality permit MD-3851 to revise air quality permit MD-6824 predicted no exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS at a 135-mmtpy production rate. There were six exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 particulate standards at the Black Thunder Mine from 2001 through 2006. All six exceedances were associated with elevated wind speeds exceeding 20 mph, which could have qualified as a high wind event under the NEAP. There was one exceedance reported in 2007, which is currently under review by EPA and may be designated as an exceptional event under the NEAP. There have been no exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS. TBCC estimates that the Black Thunder Mine would produce at an average annual rate of 135 mmtpy if it acquires and mines the North, South, and/or West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, but fugitive dust emissions are projected to remain within daily and annual AAQS limits. Public exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass near and through the areas of mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. Roads, highways, currently occupied dwellings, Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-47

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Ke elin e

Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
14 13 18 17 16 15 14

Ro 13 ad

Jacobs Road

Shroyer Road
23 24 19

PM10=41.9 µg/m
30 29 28 27 26 25 30

Small Road

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

NO x=46.3 µg/m 3
31 32 33 34 35 36

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450

BNSF & UP RR

Sta

High

way

450

T. 42 N.

Hilight Road

T. 43 N.

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Matheson Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road

Antel ope R oad

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Reno Road

LEGEND

Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases Haul Roads Area Source Ambient Air Boundary Receptor Location
0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-7. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NO X Concentrations at the Black Thunder Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2015.

3-48

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
14 13 18 17 16 15 14

Ke elin e

Ro 13 ad

Jacobs Road

Shroyer Road
23 24 19

PM10=49.96 µg/m
30 29 28

NO x=52.5 µg/m
T. 44 N. T. 43 N.
31 32 33

Small Road

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450

BNSF & UP RR

Sta

High

way

450

T. 42 N.

Hilight Road

T. 43 N.

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Matheson Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road

Antel ope R oad

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Reno Road

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases Haul Roads Area Source Ambient Air Boundary Receptor Location
0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-8. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NO X Concentrations at the Black Thunder Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2017.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-49

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences businesses, and school bus stops in the vicinity of the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts are shown in Figures 3-9 through 3-11, respectively. 3.4.2.2.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract The West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would be mined as an integral part of the Jacobs Ranch Mine under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. JRCC projects that the annual coal production is expected to average 40 million tons, with or without the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. Jacobs Ranch Mine’s currently approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD limits annual coal production to 55 million tons of coal. According to JRCC, if they acquire the additional coal in the LBA tract as applied for, production would continue at the present average rate of 40 mmtpy for approximately 16.7 years under the Proposed Action, or for about 22.8 years under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred configuration for the tract. As discussed in Section 3.0, the estimates of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in Table 3-4 assume that Hilight Road and State Highway 450 are not moved. As indicated in Table 2-9, approximately 229.5 million additional tons of coal could be recovered if these public roads are moved, which would extend operations at the mine for a total of about 5.8 additional years under Alternative 2. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1005 for the Jacobs Ranch Mine on August 6, 2004. This air quality permit was issued based on an analysis using emission factors, estimation methods, and model selection consistent with WDEQ/AQD policy. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1005A on December 1, 2004 to modify operations at the Jacobs Ranch Mine to add a dragline for overburden removal. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD 1005A2 on January 22, 2007 to revise the LNCM boundary. Material movement currently utilizes direct cast blasting, draglines, and/or truck and shovel fleets for overburden and truck and shovel fleets and overland conveyors for coal (JRM 2007). Particulate emission inventories for the mining activities at Jacobs Ranch Mine were prepared for all years in the currently anticipated life of the mine. Two years were then selected for worst-case dispersion modeling of PM10 based on mine plan parameters and emission inventories. Fugitive emission sources and point sources were modeled using the ISCLT3 Model to estimate average annual PM10 concentrations. Long-term modeling indicates the currently projected mine activities will be in compliance with the annual PM10 ambient air standard for the life of the Jacobs Ranch Mine. Based on mine plan parameters and highest emissions inventories, the years 2013 and 2015 were selected as the worst-case years. The dispersion model showed a maximum concentration on the Jacobs Ranch Mine LNCM boundary of 44.70 µg/m3 in 2013 and 49.61 µg/m3 in 2015. Coal production in both years was modeled at the maximum permitted production 3-50 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
Road
20

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
20 21 22 23 24 19

BNSF & UP RR

Breen Road

Lawver Road

Hilight

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

B
32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

Keeline Road

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Jacobs Road

Shroyer

Road
20 21 22 23

B
24 19

Small Road

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450

BLACK THUNDER MINE OFFICE
8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

JACOBS RANCH MINE OFFICE
17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18

Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
B School Bus Stop Single Occupied Residence Multiple Occupied Residences Exist Within this Area (Boundaries are Approximate) 3 Mile Buffer
0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-9. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-51

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
25 30

Road

Small Road
26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
25 30 29 28

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

Hilight

BLACK THUNDER MINE OFFICE
6 5

JACOBS RANCH MINE OFFICE
4 3 2

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450

T. 42 N.

Road

T. 43 N.

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Hilight

Matheson Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road

BNSF & UP RR

Antel ope R oad

Reno Road

Mackey Road

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

3 Mile Buffer No school bus stops exist within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-10. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2.

3-52

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Hilight Road

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
13 18 17 16 15

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
Shroyer Road
23 24 19 14 13 18

Jacobs Road

State Highway 59

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

Wright, Wyoming Town Site 28 87 y3 wa ig h eH tat
33 34

Small Road
26

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

BUSINESS

State Highway 450

BUSINESS
9 10

ty Road r Coun C os n e
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

BLACK THUNDER MINE OFFICE
25 30

Hilight Road

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

B
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32

T.
33 43

Matheson Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road

T. 42 N.

BNSF & UP RR

Hig

Antel ope

State

R oad

hw a y

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
B School Bus Stop Single Occupied Residence Multiple Occupied Residences Exist Within this Area (Boundaries are Approximate) 3 Mile Buffer
0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-11. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2 .

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-53

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences level of 55 million tons (JRM 2007). The locations of the maximum-modeled PM10 concentrations for 2013 and 2015 are shown on Figure 3-12. An inventory of all point sources, controls, and emissions for air quality permit MD-1005A2 showed a potential to emit of 21.9 tpy; therefore, a PSD increment consumption analysis was not necessary, and because this value is below the 100 tpy major source threshold limit specified in Chapter 6, Section 3 of the WAQSR, Jacobs Ranch Mine will not be subject to the Title V Operating Permit program (JRM 2007). Modeling conducted for the current Jacobs Ranch Mine air quality permit predicted no exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS at a 55-mmtpy production rate. There has been one exceedance of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS since PM10 monitoring began at the mine and no exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS. JRCC estimates that the Jacobs Ranch Mine would continue to produce at an average annual rate of 40 mmtpy if it acquires and mines the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, but fugitive dust emissions are projected to remain within daily and annual AAQS limits. Public exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass near and through the areas of mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. Roads, highways, currently occupied dwellings, businesses, and school bus stops in the vicinity of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract are shown in Figure 3-13. 3.4.2.2.1.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts The North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts would be mined as integral parts of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. PRC projects that the annual coal production is expected to average 95 million tons, with or without the North or South Porcupine LBA Tracts. North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s currently approved air quality permits from the WDEQ/AQD limit annual coal production to 99 million tons of coal. According to PRC, if they acquire the additional coal in the LBA tracts, production would continue at an average rate of 95 mmtpy for approximately 9.9 years under the Proposed Action, or for about 11.4 years under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred configuration for both tracts. As discussed in Section 3.0, the estimates of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in Tables 3-5 and 3-6 assume that Mackey Road and the remaining 2.25-mile section of Antelope Road are not moved. As indicated in Tables 2-11 and 2-13, approximately 98.1 million additional tons of coal could be recovered if these public roads are moved, which would extend operations at the mine for a total of about one additional year under Alternative 2 for both tracts. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1309 for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine on January 24, 2006. This air quality permit was issued based on an analysis using emission factors, estimation methods, and model selection 3-54 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
30 29 28 27 26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R.70W. R.69W. T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Keeline Road

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

PM10=49.61 µg/m 3 (2015)
4 3 2

PM10=44.70 µg/m 3 (2013)
11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

Ke elin e

Jacobs Road

Ro 13 ad

Shroyer Road
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20

Small Road
26

T. 44 31 N. T. 43 N.

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

Sta

High

way

450

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R.70W. R.69W.

LEGEND
Haul Roads Area Source (2013) Area Source (2015) Ambient Air Boundary Receptor Location
0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-12. Maximum Modeled PM 10 Concentrations at the Jacobs Ranch Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Years 2013 and 2015.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-55

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
28 27 26

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
State Highwa y 59

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Keeline

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Hilight Road

ad
6 5

Jacobs Road

Shroyer Road
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

B
24 19 20

BUSINESS
Wright, Wyoming Town Site 87 3 28 ay hw 27 Hi g te S ta
Small Road
26

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

BNSF & UP RR

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

BUSINESS

BUSINESS
9 10

State Highway 450
7 8 9 10 11

S ta

te Hig hw ay

450

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

C os n e

ty Road r C ou n

State Highway 59

BLACK THUNDER MINE OFFICE
26 25 30 29 28

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

5000

10000

20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-13. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2 .

3-56

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences consistent with WDEQ/AQD policy. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD 1331 on March 7, 2006 to modify operations at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. Material movement utilizes direct cast blasting, draglines, and/or truck and shovel fleets for overburden and truck and shovel fleets and overland conveyors for coal (PRC 2006). Particulate emission inventories for the mining activities at North Antelope Rochelle Mine were prepared for all years in the currently anticipated life of the mine. Two years were then selected for worst-case dispersion modeling of PM10 based on mine plan parameters and emission inventories. Fugitive emission sources and point sources were modeled using the ISCLT3 Model to estimate average annual PM10 concentrations. Long-term modeling for North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s air quality permit MD 1309 indicates the currently projected mine activities will be in compliance with the annual PM10 ambient air standard for the life of the mine. Based on mine plan parameters and highest emissions inventories, the years 2012 and 2015 were selected as the worst-case years. The dispersion model showed a maximum concentration on the North Antelope Rochelle LNCM boundary of 30.40 µg/m3 in 2012 and 38.00 µg/m3 in 2015. Coal production in both years was modeled at a maximum production level of 99 million tons (PRC 2006). The locations of the maximum-modeled PM10 concentrations for 2012 and 2015 are shown on Figures 3-14 and 3-15, respectively. An initial inventory of all point sources, controls, and emissions for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine air quality permit showed a maximum potential to emit 30.1 tpy. Therefore, a PSD increment consumption analysis was not necessary and because this value is below the 100 tpy major source threshold limit specified in Chapter 6, Section 3 of the WAQSR, North Antelope Rochelle Mine will not be subject to the Title V Operating Permit program (PRC 2006). Modeling conducted for the current air quality permit predicted no exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS at a 99-mmtpy production rate. There were two exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 particulate standards at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine from 2001 through 2006. Both exceedances were associated with elevated wind speeds exceeding 20 mph, which could have qualified as a high wind event under the NEAP. There were two exceedances reported in 2007, both of which have been designated by EPA as exceptional events under the NEAP and will not be considered when determining the region’s air quality designation. There have been no exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS. PRC estimates that the mine would produce at an average annual rate of 95 mmtpy if it acquires and mines the North and/or South Porcupine LBA Tracts, but fugitive dust emissions are projected to remain within daily and annual AAQS limits. Public exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass near and through the areas of mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-57

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Hilight Road
2

Edwards Road

Reno Road
Sc
Antel ope R oad

ek l Cre hoo
12

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
1 6

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
1 6

BNSF & UP RR

Reno Road

Mackey Road

MathesonRoad
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

MIDDLE PIT
33 34 35 36 31

NORTH PIT

Mackey Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Matheson
4 3

Road
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

EAST PIT
6 5

WEST PIT
30 25 29 28 27 26 25 30

Campbell County Converse County
29

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.
8

NO x=45.0 µg/m 3
33 34

PM10=30.4 µg/m 3
3 2 1

T. 41 N.
5

te An
9 10 11

pe lo

ad
6 5 4

T. 40 N.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
Haul Roads Area Source Ambient Air Boundary Receptor Location
0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-14. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NO X Concentrations at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2012.

3-58

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Hilight Road
4 3 2

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
1 6

Edwards Road

Reno Road
Sc

ek l Cre hoo
12

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
1 6

BNSF & UP RR

Antel ope R oad

Reno Road

Mackey Road

MathesonRoad
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27

MIDDLE PIT

Mackey Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

EAST PIT

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Matheson
4 3

Road
2 1 6 5 4 3

NORTH PIT
2 1 6 5

WEST PIT
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

Campbell County Converse County
29

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.
8

PM10=38.0 µg/m 3
33 34

NO x=26.0 µg/m 3
3 2 1

T. 41 N.
5

te An
9 10 11

pe lo

ad
6 5 4

T. 40 N.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
Haul Roads Area Source Ambient Air Boundary Receptor Location
0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-15. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NO X Concentrations at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2015.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-59

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences the area could also be affected. Roads, highways, businesses, and currently occupied dwellings in the vicinity of the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are shown in Figures 3-16 and 3-17, respectively. 3.4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and projected impacts related to PM10 emissions discussed above would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved mining and air quality permits. Mining operations would continue as currently permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases. Projected impacts related to PM10 emissions would not be extended onto those portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the mines’ current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.4.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring for Particulate Emissions Control of particulate emissions at all PRB coal mines is accomplished with a variety of measures. The WDEQ/AQD permits for all of the surface coal mines in the PRB require the following dust control measures, which are considered to be BACT measures: 1. No mines are allowed to have out-of-pit open coal stockpiles. All coal removed from the mine pits must be stored in totally enclosed coal silos or barns. 2. Unless specifically exempted, all coal mine main access roads must be paved. 3. As use and condition warrant, the minor access roads at coal mines that are unpaved must be watered or treated with dust suppressants. 4. All coal conveyor transfer points must be shrouded or otherwise enclosed to direct coal fines from one belt to the next. 5. The transfer point and crushers within coal processing plants must be equipped with control devices and measures specified in individual permits. These control devices and measures may include, but are not limited to, the use of dust collection baghouses, cyclones, scrubbers, fog systems, and controlled flow transfer chutes. 6. All out-of-pit conveyors must be hooded or contained in a conveyor gallery. 7. All out-of-pit coal dump hoppers must be fitted with a dust control stilling shed, water sprays, or a baghouse dust collector. 3-60 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
24 19 20 21 22 23

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
25 30

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
Sta te
25 30

Highway
29

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

450
28

T. 42 N.
12

Cre ek

Ro ad

T. 43 N.

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.
9

Edwards Road
7 8 9 10 11

Reno Road
12 7 8 10 11 12

ol 6 ho Sc
7

Matheson Road

Antel ope R oad

Reno Road

Mackey Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.
12

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.
9

Matheson
6 5 4 3

Road
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

NORTH ANTELOPE ROCHELLE MINE OFFICE 11 12
9 10

BUSINESS
Campbell County
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

Converse County

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.

6 7

5 8

4 9

3 10

2 11

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

l te An

e op

ad
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 8

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

No occupied residences, school bus stops, or other publicly accessible facilities exist within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-16. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-61

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
2

Edwards Road

Reno Road

oad k R ee Cr

Matheson Road

Antel ope R oad

BNSF & UP RR

School

Reno Road

Mackey Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Matheson
6 5 4 3

Road
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

NORTH ANTELOPE ROCHELLE 11 MINE OFFICE
9 10

BUSINESS
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

ANTELOPE MINE OFFICE
30 29 28 27 26 25 30

Campbell County
29 28 27 26 25

Converse County

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.

te An
7 8 9 10 11

pe lo

ad
6 5 4

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

No occupied residences or school bus stops exist within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-17. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2.

3-62

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 8. Active longer-term coal haul roads must be treated with dust control chemicals and/or water. 9. Active short-term mine haul roads which must be continuously relocated are maintained and watered while in use. 10. All haul roads must be regularly maintained to reduce the amount of dust re-entrained by haulage equipment (WDEQ/AQD 2007). Additional site-specific requirements related to mine-specific layout and mining practices may be included in individual mine permits. Fugitive emissions are also controlled with a variety of other measures that the WDEQ/AQD considers BACT. Haul truck speed limits are voluntarily set to further help to reduce fugitive emissions from roads. Material drop heights for shovels and draglines (bucket to truck bed or backfill) are voluntarily limited to the minimum necessary to conduct the mining operations. Timely temporary and permanent revegetation of disturbed areas is utilized to minimize wind erosion. All of these control measures are employed at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. 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 in a joint effort with PRB mining stakeholders, developed a Natural Events Action Plan, or NEAP, for the coal mines of the Campbell and Converse counties, Wyoming, in April 2006 (revised January 2007). The NEAP was developed under the framework afforded by EPA’s Natural Events Policy of May 30, 1996. While PRB mining operators have already implemented these measures in practice, formal approval of the NEAP by EPA Region VIII is still pending. The PRB mine operators are presently complying with the NEAP that was developed jointly by them WDEQ/AQD. A report describing the plan in detail can be accessed on the WDEQ/AQD’s website on the Internet (WDEQ/AQD 2007), and the NEAP is discussed in Appendix F. If a NEAP 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 exceedances are demonstrated to be the result of natural events under the following conditions: 1) the dust originated from non-anthropogenic sources, or 2) the dust originated from anthropogenic sources controlled with the best available control measures (BACM). WDEQ/AQD may require implementation of the control steps outlined in the NEAP and may require continual evaluation of activity plans when exceedances are monitored at surface coal mines. Some of these measures have been formally implemented at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines through the establishment of a formal, site-specific mitigative response plan at each of those mines. A mitigative response plan will be developed by any mine that records an exceedance or violation of the NAAQS downwind of its mining operations. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-63

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Other operational control measures that WDEQ/AQD may require at specific mines when exceedances occur include, but are not limited to, site-specific watering of inactive areas and problem areas; relocation of overburden truckdumping operations and deferring blasting. The mines are experimenting with dust control treatments, including magnesium chloride, surfactants, and petroleum-based products. In addition, WDEQ/AQD may require additional monitoring, action levels based on continuous monitoring, expedited reporting of monitored exceedances, detailed reporting of contributing factors (e.g., meteorological conditions), and continual evaluation of activity plans when exceedances are monitored at surface coal mines. The WDEQ/AQD is continually reviewing the data and considering regulatory options, such as increasing the frequency of monitoring, to be used as tools to mitigate dust problems. Where elevated emissions have occurred, WDEQ/AQD has increased monitoring frequency requirements including installation of continuous PM10 monitors, or TEOMs, which allow monitoring of emissions on a real-time basis. Other regulatory options may include enforcement actions such as Notices of Violation resulting in a consent decree and/or modified permit conditions. WDEQ/AQD is also coordinating with EPA to develop additional monitoring requirements in CBNG development areas, high PM10 mitigation action plans in permits, and additional mitigation measures under the SIP. The PRB has one of the most extensive networks of monitoring sites for PM10 in the nation; most of these monitoring sites are funded and operated by the mines. WDEQ/AQD requires the collection of information documenting the quality of the air resource at each of the PRB mines. A discussion of the monitoring network, monitoring requirements, the data that have been collected, and PM10 concentration trends since monitoring began are included in Appendix F. WDEQ/AQD’s Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan provides an overview of the number and types of air quality monitors AQD runs or oversees within the state of Wyoming, and is available for review on its website at: http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/downloads/AirMonitor/Network%20Plan_2008.pdf 3.4.3 Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Ozone (O3) 3.4.3.1 Affected Environment for NOX and O3 Emissions Gases that contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts are referred to as nitrogen oxides (NOX). One type of NOX, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), is a highly reactive, reddish brown gas that is heavier than air and has a pungent odor. NO2 is by far the most toxic of several species of NOX. NO2 can combine with atmospheric moisture to form nitric acid and nitric oxide. Because several NOX species can be chemically converted to NO2 in the atmosphere, NO2 emissions control is focused on all NOX species, while the ambient standard is expressed in terms of NO2. O3 has been included in discussions on emissions of NOX 3-64 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences since NOX is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of ground level O3. Ground-level O3 is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between NOX and VOCs in the presence of sunlight. According to the EPA (EPA 2001a):
  

NO2 may cause significant toxicity because of its ability to form nitric acid with water in the eye, lung, mucous membranes, and skin. Acute exposure to NO2 may cause death by damaging the pulmonary system. Chronic or repeated exposure to lower concentrations of NO2 may exacerbate pre-existing respiratory conditions, or increase the incidence of respiratory infections.

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, in 2002, all motor vehicles (including non-road equipment) produced about 60 percent of the manmade NOX emissions, utilities produced approximately 22 percent of the emissions, industrial/commercial/residential activities produced about 17 percent of the manmade NOX emissions, and other sources accounted for the remaining 1 percent of the manmade emissions (EPA 2009a). 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. Blasting that is done to assist in the removal of 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. Incomplete combustion during blasting may be caused by wet conditions in the overburden, incompetent or fractured geological formations, deformation of boreholes, and blasting agent factors. The rate of release is not well known but is believed to be dependent on a wide number of factors that likely include, but are not necessarily limited to: downhole confinement; downhole moisture; type/blend of ammonium nitrate, fuel oil (ANFO) and emulsion; and detonation velocity. Generally, blasting-related NOX emissions are more prevalent at operations that use the blasting technique referred to as cast blasting. Cast blasting refers to a type of blasting in which the blast is designed to directly cast the overburden from on top of the coal into the previously mined area. All three of the applicant mines employ cast blasting. 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-65

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences “bad.” Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOX and VOCs that help form O3 in the presence of sunlight. Ground-level O3 is the primary constituent of smog. 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 NAAQS 8-hour standard for O3 was 0.080 parts per million (ppm) (157 µg/m3). Effective May 27, 2008, the 8-hour standard was revised by EPA to 0.075 ppm (147 µg/m3). Ozone monitoring is not required by WDEQ/AQD at the PRB coal mines, but levels have been monitored by WDEQ/AQD at its ambient air quality monitoring sites in the PRB since 2001 (Table 3-9). An exceedance of the O3 8-hour standard occurs if the 4th-highest daily maximum value is above the level of the standard. Table 3-9.
Site Address TBNG Campbell County

2001 Through 2008 Annual 4th Max, 8-Hour Average Ozone Values (ppm).
2001 0.069 -2002 0.071 -2003 0.074 0.077 2004 0.065 0.061 2005 0.063 0.063 2006 0.072 0.065 2007 0.072 0.072 2008 0.074 0.064

Monitor values from EPA (2009b) Pre May 27,2008 8-Hour O3 NAAQS = 0.080 ppm Post May 27, 2008 8-Hour O3 NAAQS = 0.075 ppm

3.4.3.1.1 Site Specific NOX Emissions Sources of fugitive NOX emissions at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines include overburden and coal blasting events, tailpipe emissions from the mining equipment, and emissions from the trains used to transport the coal away from the mines. NOX point sources at the mines could include stationary engines, coal-fired hot water generators, and natural-gas fired heaters. To date, there have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting activities at the Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle mines. The WDEQ has not required the mines to implement any specific measures to control or limit public exposure to NO2 from blasting, although the mines have instituted voluntary blasting restrictions to avoid NOX impact to the public, which are discussed in more detail in Section 3.4.3.3. Black Thunder Mine received several reports of public exposure to NO2 from blasting prior to 2001. Measures to control or limit future such incidences, which are part of Black Thunder Mine’s settlement agreement, have been instituted when large overburden blasts are planned at that mine, and those measures are discussed in Section 3.4.3.3. 3-66 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-9 shows that 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 were recorded. If the strengthened 2008 standard was applied retroactively, one exceedance would have occurred in 2003 at Campbell County site. 3.4.3.2 Environmental Consequences Related to Short-Term NOX Emissions There are various compounds and derivatives in the family of nitrogen oxides, including NO2, nitric acid, nitrous oxide, nitrates, and nitric oxide, which may cause a wide variety of health and environmental impacts. According to EPA, the main causes of concern with respect to NOX are:
       

it is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of ground level ozone, which can trigger serious respiratory problems; it reacts to form nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO2, which also cause respiratory problems; it contributes to the formation of acid rain; it contributes to nutrient overload that deteriorates water quality; it contributes to atmospheric particles that cause visibility impairment, most noticeably in national parks; it reacts to form toxic chemicals; one member of the NOX family, nitrous oxide or N2O, is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming; and it can be transported over long distances (EPA 2009a).

Potential health risks associated with inhalation of ground level ozone and NOX related particles include acute respiratory problems, aggravated asthma, decreases in lung capacity in some healthy adults, inflammation of lung tissue, respiratory-related hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia (EPA 2007b). Neither the EPA nor the WDEQ have established NAAQS for NO2 for averaging times shorter than one year. According to EPA, “…the exact concentrations at which NO2 will cause various health effects cannot be predicted with complete accuracy because the effects are a function of air concentration and time of exposure, and precise measurements have not been made in association with human toxicity. The information that is available from human exposures also suggests that there is some variation in individual response” (EPA 2001a). While extensive expert testimony was provided to the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council (EQC) during hearings in 2002 arguing for the establishment of a de facto “standard” ranging from 0.5 to 5.0 parts per million (ppm) for a 10-minute exposure, the EQC determined there was insufficient evidence to establish a short-term exposure limit and concluded additional study was required. The primary control measure for mitigating exposures to offsite residences is to avoid overburden cast blasting when wind direction or Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-67

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences atmospheric conditions are unfavorable. Such approaches are employed at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mines and will continue to be employed. Studies that have been conducted to evaluate NO2 exposures from blast clouds in the PRB are described in Appendix F. Although there is no NAAQS that regulates short-term NO2 levels, there is concern about the potential health risk associated with short-term exposure to NO2 from blasting emissions. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and EPA have identified the following short-term exposure criteria for NO2:
  



NIOSH’s recommended Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health level is 20.0 ppm (37,600 g/m3); EPA’s Significant Harm Level, a 1-hour average, is 2.0 ppm (3,760 µg/m3); OSHA’s Short-Term Exposure Limit, a 15-minute time-weighted average, which was developed for workers, is 5.0 ppm (9,400 g/m3), which must not be exceeded during any part of the workday, as measured instantaneously); NIOSH’s recommendation for workers is a limit of 1.0 ppm (1,880 µg/m3) based on a 15-minute exposure that should not be exceeded at any time during the workday; and EPA recommends that concentrations not exceed 0.5 ppm (940 µg/m3) for a 10-minute exposure to protect sensitive members of the public (EPA 2003a).

The Black Thunder Mine also conducted a study designed to provide information on safe setback distances for blasting activities at that mine (TBCC 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. Blast clouds are of a short-term, transient nature. While disagreement still exists regarding acceptable exposure levels, a large amount of actual data are now available from which informed decisions can be made regarding blasting practices. The data show clearly that reduction in blast (agent) size and increases in setback distances are effective methods for mitigating the frequency and extent of public exposure to blasting clouds. See Appendix F for additional information about studies that were conducted to evaluate the levels of public exposure to NOX. 3.4.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Potential NOX emissions related to mining operations at the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines are described 3-68 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences below. Due to the similarities in mining rates and mining operations, the potential impacts of mining the LBA tracts have been inferred from the projected impacts of mining the existing coal leases as currently permitted. WDEQ/AQD has determined that an assessment of annual NOX impacts must be included as part of an air quality permitting analysis for new surface coal mines and existing mine plan revisions. As discussed in Section 3.4.2.2.1, the applicant mines conducted modeling analyses for PM10 and NOX for a maximum projected coal production rate as part of their air quality permit applications. Receptor locations were placed at approximately 500-meter intervals along the mines’ LNCM boundaries. The regional background NOX annual concentration used for the Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch Mines was 14.0 µg/m3, while the North Antelope Rochelle Mine used a regional background concentration of 20.0 µg/m3. Pursuant to WDEQ/AQD requirements, emissions from all stationary engines, coal-fired hot water generators, and natural-gas fired heaters, which are considered to be NOX point sources at the mine, were considered in the inventory. Additional mobile sources were added to describe the railroad locomotives and large mining equipment on each mine site. The estimated average overburden thickness is generally greater in each of the LBA tracts than within the current leases, but the thickness of the coal is about the same as in the existing mine areas (Table 3-7). If the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines acquire the LBA tracts, there are no plans to change blasting procedures or blast sizes associated with the mining of the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. However, if the average annual rates of production are maintained, there would potentially be an increase in the frequency of blasting in order to remove the additional volume of overburden overlying the coal. If the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines acquire the LBA tracts, they will have to amend their current air quality permits to include the new leases before mining activities can proceed into the new lease areas. Current mining and mitigation methods to recover the coal in the LBA tracts would be expected to continue for a longer period of time than is shown in the mines’ current air quality permits. The mines would continue to use cast blasting, and there are currently no plans to change blasting procedures or blast sizes associated with mining of the LBA tracts. According to WDEQ, permit conditions designed to control or limit public exposure to NO2 and flyrock from blasting operations would be no less stringent for mining operations on the LBA tracts than the permit conditions that are in place for blasting operations on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine leases (Emme 2007).

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-69

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.4.3.2.1.1 North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts The North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts would be mined as integral parts of the Black Thunder Mine under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3. As discussed in Section 3.4.2.2, WDEQ/AQD issued the most recent air quality permit, MD-3851, for the Black Thunder Mine on August 18, 2008, and the mine was required to conduct NO2 dispersion modeling similar in scope to the PM10 analysis. Emission rates were determined for the same worst-case years used in the PM10 modeling. The amount of NO2 emissions from blasting is related to the amount of ANFO utilized. NO2 emission rates for 2015 and 2017 are expected to be 4,507 tpy and 4,743 tpy, respectively. NOX modeling closely followed many of the same procedures used in the PM10 analysis. Emissions were apportioned in a similar manner and the same meteorological data set was used. Area source, haul road, and point source information for the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines and information for railroads, roads, power plants, and regional sources provided by WDEQ/AQD were included in the model. Long-term modeling indicated the currently projected mine activities will be in compliance with the annual NOX AAQS for the life of the Black Thunder Mine. For year 2015, the maximum annual NOX concentration along the Black Thunder Mine LNCM boundary was 46.3 µg/m3 and for year 2017, the maximum annual NOX concentration along the Black Thunder Mine LNCM boundary was 52.5 µg/m3 (BTM 2008b). Coal production in both years was assumed to be the maximum permitted production level of 135 million tons. The locations of the maximum-modeled NOX concentrations along the Black Thunder Mine LNCM boundary for 2015 and 2017 are shown on Figures 3-7 and 3-8, respectively. Modeling conducted for the current Black Thunder Mine air quality permit projected no exceedances of the annual NO2 NAAQS at the permitted production rate. TBCC estimates that the Black Thunder Mine would produce at an average rate of 135 mmtpy if it acquires and mines the North, South, and/or West Hilight Field LBA Tracts; therefore, air quality impacts that result from mining the LBA tracts should also be within annual NAAQS limits. Public exposure to NOX emissions caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass near and through the areas of mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. Roads, highways, currently occupied dwellings, businesses, and school bus stops in the vicinity of the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts are shown in Figures 3-9 through 3-11, respectively. 3.4.3.2.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract The West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would be mined as an integral part of the Jacobs Ranch Mine under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. 3-70 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences As discussed in Section 3.4.2.2, WDEQ/AQD issued the most recent air quality permit, MD-1005A2, for the Jacobs Ranch Mine on January 22, 2007; however, NO2 dispersion modeling for the mine is included in air quality permit MD-1005, issued August 6, 2004. Based on mine plan parameters and highest emissions inventories, the worst-case years of 2006 and 2013 were selected. The amount of NOX emissions from blasting is related to the amount of ANFO utilized. NOX emission rates for 2006 and 2013 were expected to be 1,447 tpy and 1,450 tpy, respectively. NOX modeling closely followed many of the same procedures used in the PM10 analysis except for selecting different modeling years and different source areas. Area source, haul road, and point source information for the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines and information for railroads, roads, power plants, and regional sources provided by WDEQ/AQD were included in the model. Long-term modeling indicated the currently projected mine activities will be in compliance with the annual NOX AAQS for the life of the Jacobs Ranch Mine. For year 2006, the maximum annual NOX concentration along the Jacobs Ranch Mine LNCM boundary was 50.0 µg/m3 and for year 2013, the maximum annual NOX concentration along the Jacobs Ranch Mine LNCM boundary was 55.0 µg/m3 (JRM 2004). Coal production in both years was assumed to be the maximum permitted production level of 55 million tons. The locations of the maximummodeled NOX concentrations along the Jacobs Ranch Mine LNCM boundary for 2006 and 2013 are shown on Figure 3-18. Modeling conducted for the current Jacobs Ranch Mine air quality permit projected no exceedances of the annual NOX NAAQS at the permitted production rate. JRCC estimates that the Jacobs Ranch Mine would produce at the current average rate of 40 mmtpy if it acquires and mines the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract; therefore, air quality impacts that result from mining the LBA tract should also be within annual NAAQS limits. Public exposure to NOX emissions caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass near and through the areas of mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. Roads, highways, currently occupied dwellings, businesses, and school bus stops in the vicinity of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract are shown in Figure 3-13. 3.4.3.2.1.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts The North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts would be mined as integral parts of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. As discussed in Section 3.4.2.2, WDEQ/AQD issued the most recent air quality permit, MD-1331, for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine on March 7, 2006, which modified air quality permit MD-1309 that was issued on January 24, 2006. The mine was required to conduct NO2 dispersion modeling similar in scope to the PM10 analysis. Emission rates were determined for the same worst-case years used in the PM10 modeling. The amount of NOX emissions Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-71

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
30 29 28 27 26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R.70W. R.69W. T. 45
N. T. 44 N.

T.
45 N. T. 44 N.

Keeline Road

Hilight Road

BNSF & UP RR

NO x=55.0 µg/m (2013)
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

Ke elin e

Jacobs Road

Ro 13 ad

Shroyer Road
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20

Small Road
26 25

T. 44 31 N. T. 43 6 N.

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

Sta

NO x=50.0 µg/m (2006)
30 29 28

High

way

450

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R.70W. R.69W.

LEGEND
Haul Roads Area Source (2006) Area Source (2013) Ambient Air Boundary Receptor Location
0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-18. Maximum Modeled NO X Concentrations at the Jacobs Ranch Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Years 2006 and 2013.

3-72

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences from blasting is related to the amount of ANFO utilized. NOX emission rates for 2012 and 2015 are expected to be 3,068 tpy and 2,988 tpy, respectively. NOX modeling closely followed many of the same procedures used in the PM10 analysis. Emissions were apportioned in a similar manner and the same meteorological data set was used. Area source, haul road, and point source information for the North Antelope Rochelle, Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, North Rochelle (now part of the North Antelope Rochelle and Black Thunder mines), and Antelope mines and information for railroads, roads, power plants, and regional sources provided by WDEQ/AQD were included in the model. Long-term modeling indicated the currently projected mine activities will be in compliance with the annual NOX AAQS for the life of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. For year 2012, the maximum annual NOX concentration along the North Antelope Rochelle Mine LNCM boundary was 45.0 µg/m3 and for year 2015, the maximum annual NOX concentration along the North Antelope Rochelle Mine LNCM boundary was 46.0 µg/m3 (PRC 2006). Coal production in both years was assumed to be the maximum permitted production level of 99 million tons. The locations of the maximum-modeled NOX concentrations for 2012 and 2015 are shown on Figures 3-14 and 3-15, respectively. The potential NOX impacts from mining the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts have been inferred to be similar to the currently permitted impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine because of the similarities in mining rates and mining operations. Modeling conducted for the current North Antelope Rochelle Mine air quality permit projected no exceedances of the annual NOX NAAQS at the permitted production rate. PRC estimates that the North Antelope Rochelle Mine would continue to produce at the an average rate of 95 mmtpy if it acquires and mines the North and/or South Porcupine LBA Tracts; therefore, air quality impacts that result from mining the LBA tract should also be within annual NAAQS limits. Public exposure to NOX emissions caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass near and through the areas of mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. Roads, highways, currently occupied dwellings, and businesses in the vicinity of the North and South Porcupine LBA Tract are shown in Figures 3-16 and 3-17, respectively. 3.4.3.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and projected impacts related to NOX emissions discussed above would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved mining and air quality permits. Mining operations would continue as currently permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-73

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Rochelle Mine coal leases. Projected impacts related to NOX emissions would not be extended onto those portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the mines’ current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.4.3.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring for NOX Emissions Several of the surface coal mines in the PRB have undertaken voluntary blasting restrictions to avoid NOX emissions impact to the public. Voluntary measures that have been instituted, particularly when large blasts are planned include:
     

telephone notification of neighbors (both private parties and other mining operations) in the general area of the mine prior to large blasts; monitoring of weather and atmospheric conditions prior to the decision to detonate a large blast; minimizing blast size to the extent possible; posting of signs on major public roads that enter the general mine area and on all locked gates accessing the active mine area; closing public roads that enter the general mine area, depending on wind conditions and blast location with respect to the road; and providing post-blast notification to neighbors of potential exposure to the blasting cloud.

To date, there have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting activities at the Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle mines. The WDEQ has not required those mines to implement any specific measures to control or limit public exposure to NO2 from blasting, although the mines have instituted voluntary blasting restrictions to avoid NOX impact to the public. WDEQ received reports of public exposure to NO2 from blasting operations at some of the PRB mines prior to 2001, including the Black Thunder Mine. Measures to control or limit future such incidences when large overburden blasts are planned, have been instituted at the Black Thunder Mine. There have been no incidents in the southern PRB reported by the public to the WDEQ for the past 4 years. Measures to avoid impacts to the public are requirements for the Black Thunder Mine as part of a settlement agreement reached in 2000. Many of the other mines have voluntarily implemented similar administrative controls to avoid impacts to the public, as discussed above. Measures that have been implemented include:
 

notification of neighbors and workers in the general area of the mine prior to a blast; blast detonation between 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. whenever possible to avoid temperature inversions and minimize inconvenience to neighbors; Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-74

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
  

monitoring of weather and atmospheric conditions prior to the decision to detonate a blast; posting of signs on major public roads that enter the general mine area and on all locked gates accessing the active mine area; and closing public roads when appropriate to protect the public.

The Wyoming EQC has issued orders that address procedures and notification protocols related to providing protections from overburden blasting within PRB mine areas. The conditions state that specific procedures would be used when overburden blasting occurs within a certain distance of residences and businesses adjacent to the mines. Orders have also placed limits on the size of the blasting that can be conducted within the mine areas and restricted blasting under certain atmospheric conditions. WDEQ has required several PRB surface coal mines, including North Antelope Rochelle, Black Thunder, Belle Ayr, Eagle Butte, and Wyodak (Figure 1-1), to stop traffic on public roads during blasting due to concerns with fly rock and the “startle factor”. During blasting operations, public access to some of the roads in the area, including the Antelope Road and State Highway 450, are currently blocked and will continue to be blocked when wind directions or proximity to the road warrant such closure. Significant research has been conducted at the mines to reduce NOX emissions from blasting activities. Efforts to eliminate NOX production have included working with blasting agent manufacturers to reduce NOX emissions by the use of different blasting agents, different blends of blasting agents, different additives, different initiation systems and sequencing, borehole liners, and smaller cast blasts. Operators have tried adding substances like microspheres and rice hulls, using different blends of ANFO and slurries and gels, using electronic detonation systems that can vary shot timing, different shot hole patterns, and using plastic liners within the shot holes. No one single procedure or variation has proven consistently successful due to the numerous factors that are believed to contribute to the production of NO2. The most successful control measure has been reducing the size of the cast blasting shots (Emme 2003, Chancellor 2003). The North Antelope Rochelle Mine has had success in eliminating NOX in over 75 percent of their cast blasting through the use of borehole liners and changing their blasting agent blends (Chancellor 2003). Mitigation measures implemented to reduce mine-related NOX emissions should also reduce the potential for the formation of ground-level O3 in the PRB. 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, including Gillette. Table 3-10 summarizes the results of that monitoring. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-75

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-10. Annual Ambient NO2 Concentration Data.
Black Thunder Mine Percent of Standard1 Belle Ayr Mine Percent of Standard1

Site Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 19832 1996-973
1

Gillette, WY Percent of Standard1 6* 4* 4* 11* 11 12 14 11 17 16

Bill, WY Percent of Standard1 1* 5*

Based on arithmetic averaging of data. 2 M oniorng di contnued D ecem ber1983,r i ed M ar 1996 t A prl1997.
t i s i eactvat ch o i 3 Arithmetic average – actual sampling ran from March 1996 to April 1997. * Inadequate number of samples for a valid annual average. Source: (McVehil-Monnett 1997)

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. Through a cooperative agreement between AQD and the Wyoming Mining Association, the PRB NOX network began operation in January 2001 (WDEQ/AQD 2008). Industry funded and operated the network for approximately 3 years. Ownership of some of the monitoring equipment was transferred to WDEQ by the mines and WDEQ now funds and operates that NO2 monitoring equipment. The mines have been given ongoing access to all of 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 3-8). The 2002 through 2007 data from this regional network are summarized in Table 3-11. With respect to the general Wright analysis area, the Tracy Site is located roughly in the center of the area (TBCC owns and operates that site), the Thunder Basin National Grassland Site is approximately 67 miles north, and the Campbell County Site is approximately 33 miles northwest. As noted in Tables 3-9 and 3-10, the mean annual NO2 concentrations for all monitoring sites have historically been significantly below the WAAQS and NAAQS annual standard (100 µg/m3).

3-76

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-11.
Site Address TBNG1 Belle Ayr Mine1 Antelope Mine1 Campbell County1 Tracy Ranch2 Average
1 2

2002 Through 2008 Annual Mean NO2 Concentration Data (µg/m3).
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 (2009b) Monitor values from TBCC (2009)

The WDEQ/AQD’s Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan provides an overview of the number and types of air quality monitors AQD runs or oversees within the state of Wyoming, and is available for review on its website at: http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/downloads/AirMonitor/Network%20Plan_2008.pdf 3.4.4 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) AQRVs are evaluated by the land management agency responsible for a Class I area, according to the agency’s level of acceptable change (LAC). These AQRVs include potential air pollutant effects on visibility and the acidification of lakes and streams. The AQRVs, and the associated LAC, are applied to PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas and are the land management agency’s policy and are not legally enforceable as a standard. 3.4.4.1 Visibility Visibility refers to the clarity with which scenic vistas and landscape features are perceived at great distances. Visibility can be defined as the distance one can see and the ability to perceive color, contrast, and detail. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is the main cause of visibility impairment. Visual range, one of several ways to express visibility, is the furthest distance a person can see a landscape feature. Without the effects of human-caused air pollution, a natural visual range is estimated to be about 140 miles in the western U.S. and 90 miles in the eastern U.S. (EPA 2001b). Visibility is also expressed in terms of deciview (dv). The dv index was developed as a linear perceived visual change (Pitchford and Malm 1994), and is the unit of measure used in the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule to achieve the National Visibility Goal. The National Visibility Goal was established as part of the CAA in order to prevent any future, and remedy any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Federal Class I areas that result from manmade air pollution. The deciview index is a scale related to visual perception that has a value near zero for a pristine atmosphere. A change in visibility of 1.0 dv represents a “just noticeable change” by an average person under most Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-77

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences circumstances. Increasing dv values represent proportionately larger perceived visibility impairment. 3.4.4.1.1 Affected Environment for Visibility AQRVs, including the potential air pollutant effects on visibility, are applied to PSD Class I and Class II areas. The land management agency responsible for the Class I area sets an LAC for each AQRV. The AQRVs reflect the land management agency’s policy and are not legally enforceable standards. Table 3-12 shows the distances from 31 PSD Class I and Class II areas in the vicinity of the PRB to the general Wright analysis area. The Wyoming State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection states: “Wyoming’s long term strategy will focus on the prevention of any future visibility impairment in Class I areas that can be attributed to a source or small group of sources as the Federal Land Managers have not identified any current impairment in the State’s Class I areas due to such sources”. WDEQ/AQD prepared the 2003 Review Report on Wyoming’s Long Term Strategy for Visibility Protection in Class I Areas, as required by WAQSR, which calls for AQD to review and revise, if appropriate, the Long Term Strategy every 3 years. The 2003 Review Report is available on the WDEQ/AQD visibility monitoring website at http://www.wyvisnet.com (WDEQ/AQD 2009). The Regional Haze Rule calls for improved visibility on the most-impaired days and no additional impairment on the least-impaired days. EPA participates in the Interagency Management of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) visibility monitoring program as part of its visibility protection program. The IMPROVE monitoring sites were established to be representative of all Class I areas. On December 20, 2005, the IMPROVE Steering Committee approved a new algorithm for calculating current and natural background visibility. Figure 3-19 shows annual averages, based on the new algorithm, for the 20 percent best (clearest), average, and worst (haziest) visibility days at Badlands National Park in South Dakota and Bridger Wilderness Area in Wyoming from1989 through 2005 (IMPROVE 2008). Through 2005 (the most recent data available on IMPROVE website), Badlands National Park has statistically shown a trend toward improved visibility on the least, average, and most-impaired days. The Bridger Wilderness has statistically shown a trend toward improved visibility on the average and least-impaired days and no change in visibility on the most-impaired days. 3.4.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences for Visibility 3.4.4.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 The impacts to visibility from mining the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts have been inferred from the currently permitted impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the Black Thunder Mine. The impacts to visibility from mining the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract have been inferred from the 3-78 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-12. Approximate Distances and Directions from the General Wright Analysis Area to Mandatory Federal PSD Class I, Tribal Federal PSD Class I, and Federal PSD Class II Areas. Distance (miles) Mandatory Federal PSD Class I Area Badlands Wilderness Area1 143 Bridger Wilderness Area 199 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 207 Gates of the Mountain Wilderness Area 382 Grand Teton National Park 254 North Absaroka Wilderness Area 213 Red Rocks Lake Wilderness Area 320 Scapegoat Wilderness Area 426 Teton Wilderness Area 221 Theodore Roosevelt National Park (North Unit) 290 Theodore Roosevelt National Park (South Unit) 242 U.L. Bend Wilderness Area 290 Washakie Wilderness Area 187 Wind Cave National Park 91 Yellowstone National Park 235 Tribal Federal PSD Class I Fort Peck Indian Reservation 301 Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation 132 Federal PSD Class II Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area 224 Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 114 Badlands National Park 121 Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 166 Black Elk Wilderness Area 88 Cloud Peak Wilderness Area 93 Crow Indian Reservation 124 Devils Tower National Monument 70 Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 327 108 Fort Laramie National Historic Site 74 Jewel Cave National Monument Mount Rushmore National Memorial 94 Popo Agie Wilderness Area 194 Soldier Creek Wilderness Area 106 Receptor Area
1

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

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-79

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

20 18 16 14

Visibility in Badlands National Park

Visibility (dv)

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

IMPROVE Station: BADL1
20% Clearest Average 20% Haziest

20 18 16 14

Visibility in Bridger Wilderness

Visibility (dv)

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

IMPROVE Station: BRID1
20% Clearest Average 20% Haziest Source: IMPROVE (2008)

Figure 3-19. Visibility in the Badlands and Bridger Wilderness Areas.

3-80

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences currently permitted impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the Jacobs Ranch Mine. The impacts to visibility from mining the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts have been inferred from the currently permitted impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. If the mines acquire the additional coal in the LBA tracts, the LBA tracts would be mined as an integral part of the applicant mines. The average annual coal production for each applicant mine is anticipated to remain at the projected post-2008 rates, with or without the LBA tracts. Therefore, impacts to visibility under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract, would be similar to the impacts under the No Action Alternative, except they would be extended by 1.6 years (for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for) up to as many as 22.8 years (for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under Alternative 2). Current techniques for blasting, coal removal, and coal processing would be expected to continue for a longer period of time than is shown in the applicant mines’ currently approved air quality permits. Material movement would continue to utilize direct cast blasting, draglines, and/or truck and shovel fleets for overburden and truck and shovel fleets and overland conveyors for coal. The applicant mines would not propose significant changes to the facilities shown in the current air quality permits or the blasting procedures or blast sizes if they acquire the tracts. However, when the mining permits are amended to include the new lease areas, the techniques proposed for coal and overburden removal, coal processing, and blasting processes would be reviewed and modified if necessary to incorporate the BACT protection measures that are in effect at that time. Overburden is generally thicker in the LBA tracts than the current lease areas; therefore, state of the art methods to minimize any increases in blast sizes and/or blasting agents will be employed. Thus, emissions from blasting are not expected to increase significantly, notwithstanding the increased thicknesses of overburden that would be excavated in these LBA tracts. Surface coal mines are not considered to be major emitting facilities in accordance with Chapter 6, Section 4 of WDEQ/AQD Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the State of Wyoming does not require mines to evaluate their impacts on Class I areas; however, BLM considers such issues during leasing. 3.4.4.1.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and related visibility impacts would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approve surface coal mining permits. Mining operations would continue as permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases. Visibility impacts related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-81

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the mines’ current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.4.4.1.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring for Visibility Impacts As discussed above, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is the main cause of visibility impairment. Mitigation measures being used to limit emissions of particulate matter are discussed in Section 3.4.2.3. Visibility monitoring within the State of Wyoming consists of both the WDEQ/AQD sponsored Wyoming Visibility Monitoring Network and the IMPROVE program. WDEQ has sited two visibility monitoring stations in the PRB. One of these sites (the Thunder Basin National Grasslands site) is 32 miles north of Gillette and includes a nephelometer, a transmissometer, an IMPROVE aerosol sampler, instruments to measure meteorological parameters (temperature, RH, wind speed, wind direction), a digital camera, instruments to measure ozone, and instruments to measure oxides of nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOX). The second visibility monitoring station (the Cloud Peak Wilderness Area site) is located 14 miles west of Buffalo and includes a nephelometer, a transmissometer, an IMPROVE aerosol sampler, instruments to measure meteorological parameters, and a digital camera. These sites are being utilized to characterize the extent, frequency of occurrence, and magnitude of visual air quality impacts. The IMPROVE Steering Committee approved the incorporation of the TBNG and Cloud Peak sites into the IMPROVE network in June 2002. Although these stations are not located in areas classified as Class I areas, the collected data will be comparable to monitoring data available from the state’s Class I areas. This information can help scientists determine the types and concentrations of air pollutants and their direction of travel in order to project visibility impacts to Class I areas. The Wyoming Visibility Monitoring Network was recently supplemented with the development of a website on the Internet at http://www.wyvisnet.com/all.html to allow public access to real-time monitored visibility and air quality conditions (WDEQ/AQD 2009). 3.4.4.2 Acidification of Lakes The acidification of freshwater lakes and streams is caused by atmospheric deposition of acid pollutants (acid rain). According to EPA, SO2 and NOX, primarily derived from the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary causes of acid rain. Most lakes and streams have a pH between 6 and 8, although some lakes are naturally acidic even without the effects of acid rain. Acid rain primarily affects sensitive bodies of water, which are located in watersheds 3-82 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences whose soils have a limited ability to neutralize acidic compounds (called “buffering capacity”). Lakes and streams become acidic (pH value goes down below a value of 7 on a scale of 1 to 14) when the water itself and its surrounding soil cannot buffer the acid rain enough to neutralize it. Lakes and streams that are generally regarded as acidified are typically very nutrient poor waters draining unreactive geology such as granitic mountainous areas. In areas where buffering capacity is low, acid rain also releases toxic metals such as aluminum from soils into lakes and streams. Both the lower pH and higher aluminum concentrations in surface water can cause damage to fish and many other species of aquatic organisms. The plants and animals living within an ecosystem are highly interdependent, and because of the connections between the organisms living in an aquatic ecosystem, changes in pH or aluminum levels affect biodiversity as well. Thus, as lakes and streams become more acidic, the numbers and types of fish and other aquatic plants and animals that live in these waters decrease. Several regions in the U.S. were identified in a national surface water survey as containing many of the surface waters sensitive to acidification. They include the Adirondacks and Catskill Mountains in the State of New York, the midAppalachian highlands along the east coast, the upper Midwest, and mountainous areas of the western U.S. Scientists predict that the decrease in SO2 emissions required by the Acid Rain Program will significantly reduce acidification due to atmospheric sulfur. Without the reductions in SO2 emissions, the proportions of acidic aquatic ecosystems would remain high or dramatically worsen (EPA 2005a). The USFS has been monitoring air quality in the Wind River Mountain Range in Wyoming since 1984 and is seeing a general trend of decreasing sulfates. Nitrates, on the other hand, have been increasing globally (EPA 2007b). 3.4.4.2.1 Affected Environment AQRVs, including the potential air pollutant effects on the acidification of lakes and streams, are applied to PSD Class I and Class II areas. The land management agency responsible for the Class I area sets an LAC for each AQRV. The AQRVs reflect the land management agency’s policy and are not legally enforceable standards. Lake acidification is expressed as the change in acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), measured in microequivalents per liter (µeq/L); the lake’s capacity to resist acidification from acid rain. The USFS considers lakes with ANC values between 25 and 100 µeq/L to be very sensitive to atmospheric deposition and lakes with ANC values less than or equal to 25 µeq/L to be extremely sensitive to atmospheric deposition. Table 3-13 shows the existing ANC monitored in some mountain lakes and their distance from the general Wright analysis area.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-83

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-13. Existing Acid Neutralizing Capacity in Sensitive Lakes.
Distance from General Wright Analysis Area (miles) 203 204 222 204 113 104 218 198

Wilderness Area Bridger

Cloud Peak Fitzpatrick Popo Agie
1

Lake BlackJoe Deep Hobbs Upper Frozen Emerald Florence Ross Lower Saddlebag

Background ANC (µeq/L) 69.0 61.0 68.0 5.81 55.3 32.7 61.4 55.5

The background ANC is based on only six samples taken between 1997 and 2001. Source: Argonne (2002)

3.4.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4.4.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 The North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts would be mined as integral parts of the Black Thunder Mine. The West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would be mined as an integral part of the Jacobs Ranch Mine. The North Porcupine and South Porcupine LBA Tracts would be mined as integrals part of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. Therefore, the impacts to air quality from mining the LBA tracts have been inferred from the impacts at the currently permitted mining operations. The applicant mines anticipate that coal production would remain unchanged from the projected post-2008 levels if the LBA tracts are acquired. Impacts to air quality related to lake acidification under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternatives for each tract, would therefore be similar to the impacts under the No Action Alternative, except they would be extended by 1.6 years (for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for) up to as many as 22.8 years (for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under Alternative 2). The Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines would employ the best measures available to mitigate any potential emission increases associated with mining the LBA tracts. These would include, but would not necessarily be limited to, extension of overland conveyors to minimize haul distances and associated particulate and gaseous (i.e., nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides and sulfur dioxides) emissions from coal haulage, as well as state-of-the-art blasting practices to mitigate any potential increases in nitrogen oxide emissions, which can also contribute to acidification.

3-84

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.4.4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and the associated disturbance would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Mining operations would continue as currently permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases. Mining operations and associated emissions that contribute to the acidification of lakes would not be extended onto those portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the mines’ current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.4.4.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring Mitigation and monitoring for coal mine emissions, including the emissions that contribute to the acidification of lakes, are discussed in Sections 3.4.2.3, 3.4.3.3, and 3.4.4.1.3. Other air quality monitoring programs that are in place in the PRB include Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System (WARMS) monitoring of sulfur and nitrogen concentrations near Buffalo, Sheridan, and Newcastle, and the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) monitoring of precipitation chemistry in Newcastle. The WDEQ/AQD’s Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan provides an overview of the number and types of air quality monitors AQD runs or oversees within the state of Wyoming, and is available for review on its website at: http://deq. state.wy.us/aqd/downloads/AirMonitor/Network%20Plan_2008.pdf. 3.4.5 Residual Impacts to Air Quality No residual impacts to air quality would occur following mining and reclamation. 3.5 Water Resources 3.5.1 Groundwater 3.5.1.1 Affected Environment The general Wright analysis area contains three water-bearing geologic units that have been directly affected by existing mining activities and would be directly affected by mining the six LBA tracts. In descending order, these units are the recent alluvial deposits, the Wasatch Formation overburden, and the mineable coal seam(s) in the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-85

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Formation, which is referred to as the Wyodak or Wyodak-Anderson. The underlying, sub-coal Fort Union Formation and the Lance-Fox Hills aquifer are utilized for water supply at the existing coal mines within the general Wright analysis area, but these units are not physically disturbed by mining activities. Both regional and site-specific baseline hydrogeologic environments within and around the general Wright analysis area are extensively characterized in the WDEQ/LQD mine permits for the three applicant mines included in this analysis (TBCC 2005, JRM 2004, and PRC 2004). Figures 3-20, 3-21, and 3 22 depict the locations of the groundwater monitoring wells that are actively being monitored by TBCC, JRCC, and PRC at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mines, respectively. Figure 3-2 presents the stratigraphic relationships and hydrologic characteristics of the units underlying the general Wright analysis area. 3.5.1.1.1 Recent Alluvium Alluvial (unconsolidated stream laid) deposits will form localized aquifers where they are extensive enough and provided they receive recharge from precipitation infiltration, surface water flows, or in some cases, discharge from the adjacent overburden. Alluvial groundwater flow is typically in the same direction as the surface drainage. Discharge is typically to the surface, to the adjacent overburden sediments, or to evapotranspiration (Ogle and Calle 2006). Within the general Wright analysis area, alluvial deposits are present and primarily occupy the valleys of the larger drainages, namely Little Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, and Porcupine Creek. Less extensive alluvial deposits are also found along the lower reaches of the tributaries to these larger streams. The alluvial, colluvial, sheetwash and playa deposits associated with minor surface drainages are typically very thin and not laterally extensive enough to be considered aquifers. In addition, these less extensive unconsolidated stream laid deposits are generally very fine-grained and have very limited permeabilities, precluding any significant storage and movement of groundwater. Alluvial groundwater quality in this area is highly variable spatially and generally poor but suitable for livestock and wildlife use. However, the concentrations of individual constituents may exceed livestock use standards at some locations. Based on the analyses of 793 alluvial groundwater samples collected in the southern PRB, the median concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) was 2,110 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and the predominant chemical constituents were calcium and sulfate, although significant quantities of sodium, magnesium and bicarbonate were also present (Ogle and Calle 2006). Within the BLM study area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, alluvial deposits are associated primarily with Springen Draw, a relatively large closed basin (over 8,000 acres in size) into which several ephemeral draws drain. These unconsolidated stream laid deposits have been mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as overbank, fan, apron and sheetwash deposits, and consist of intermixed silt and sand locally interbedded with thin clay or gravel 3-86 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
Jacobs Road
14 13 18 17 16 15 14

Ke elin e

Ro13 ad

Shroyer
Road

23 24 19

Small Road

BNSF & UP RR

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450

BTW-29 BTW-26 BTW-16
8 BMW-6-17 9 BMW-3-16 BMW-5-17 BMW-4-17 12

BTW-1 BTR-1
16 15 14 13 18 BTFU-17-2

BTR-28 BTW-17
19 20 21 22 23 24 19

BTB-3 BTFU-16-2 15 14 16 BTA-27 BTA-26 BTA-25 17-1-LFH BTA-24e
21 23

BTR-158
30 29 28 27 26 25 30

BTB-27 22 BTB-6 BTFU-20-1 BTB-28 BTFU-27-1 BTB-5
29 28

Sta

High

way

450

BTA-28 BTA-22 26 BTA-22A
25

BTB-22

BTA-12e BTA-12f BTB-24

Hilight Road

T. 43 31 N. T. 42 N.

BTW-19
32 33 34 35 36 31 32

BTB-23
33

BTR-159

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

BNSF & UP RR

Antel ope R oad

Matheson Road

Edwards Road

BTR-160 Reno Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Reno Road

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases Water Supply Well Monitoring Well Completion Aquifer Alluvium Overburden
0 5000 10000 20000

Backfill Coal

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-20. Locations of Currently Active Groundwater Monitoring and Water Supply Wells at the Black Thunder Mine.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-87

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
30 29 28 27 26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R.70W. R.69W. T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Keeline Road

Hilight Road

BNSF & UP RR

Ke eli n
Jacobs Road
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

Ro ad 13

Shroyer
Road
JRM-26-2W41
23

JRM-21-2W40

JRM-21-1C40

JRM-19-2W40
Small Road
26 25 30

JRM-29-2W40

T. 44 31 N. T. 43 6 N.

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

JRM-12-1R
State Highway 450

JRM #18
10 11 12 7 8 9

JRM-11-2K
11

JRM-10-1R
10

JRM #19 JRM-11-1R JRM #16

JRM-7-2K JRM-12-3K 7
12

JRM-7-1R

JRM-15-2R JRM #17 JRM-8

JRM #3 Sta te 23

High

way

450

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R.70W. R.69W.

LEGEND
Water Supply Well Monitoring Well Completion Aquifer Overburden Backfill Coal Scoria Coal/Underburden
0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-21. Locations of Currently Active Groundwater Monitoring and Water Supply Wells at the Jacobs Ranch Mine.

3-88

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Hilight Road
4 3 2

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
1 6

Edwards Road

Reno Road
Sc
Antel ope R oad

ek l Cre hoo
12

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
1 6

BNSF & UP RR

Reno Road

Mackey Road

PRCC-20B
MathesonRoad
28 27 26 25

PRCC-1F PRCC-4B PRCC-8D
30 29 28 27

PRCC-7C

PRCC-8E

Mackey

R-37 R-10A R-10C R-10U R-41
36

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

PRCC-21B PRCC-6C
33 34

PRCC-3
36 31 32 33 34 35

R-11A R-11 R-40 R-32 R-4
31

R-38

Road

PRCC-6B
Matheson
4 3

NARC#24 SP-19-NA
1 5

R-12 R-12A R-20

T. 42 N.
R-14

Road
2 6

SP-22-NA

SP-20-NA SP-21-NA

SP-24-NA SP-18-NA
4

SP-10-R
3

R-35

R-36 R-1A R-2U
7

PRCC-22B
11

PRCC-5B PRCC-5C
12

26 25

SP-7-R SP-13-NA SP-9-R SP-14-NA SP-8-R SP-16-NA SP-12-NA NARC#5 7 11 10 12 SP-12-U SP-25-NA 8 SP-3-R NA-60A SP-17-NA NARC#4 SP-4-NA AW-59 SP-10-NA RCC#2 SP-2-NA SP-6-NA SP-3-NA NA-61A R-9 RCC#1 NA-61B SP-11-NA SP-1-NA 18 14 13
17 SP-5-NA 15 NARC#22
DOW-118 SOW-117 NA-33 SP-15-NA 201 AW-62 AW-31 NA-62A NA-62B 22 23 24 20 21 DOW-108 19 SOW-107 DOW-3B DOW-110 SOW-3B SOW-109 PRCC-29B 25 PRCC-29A 27 26 28 30 NA-65A PRCC-29C SOW-8A NA-65B SP-23-NA PRCC-30 NA-63B PRCC-31
34 35

SP-6-R

R-17 R-21 R-22

T. 41 N.

R-3 R-3P

R-23
18

Campbell County Converse County
29

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.
8

SOW-6A
36 31 32

SOW-7A
4 3 2 1

SOW-5A
3 2 1

T. 41 N.
5

te An
9 10 11

pe lo

ad
6 5 4

T. 40 N.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
Water Supply Well Monitoring Well Completion Aquifer Alluvium Overburden Coal
0 5000 10000 20000

Underburden Backfill Scoria

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-22. Locations of Currently Active Groundwater Monitoring and Water Supply Wells at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-89

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences lenses ranging from about 1.0 to 10.0 feet thick (Reheis and Coates 1987, Moore and Coates 1978, Coates 1977). No aquifer tests have been conducted in the alluvial deposits that occur within the BLM study area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract due to the minimal saturated thickness and low transmissivity of the deposits. Based on the comparison of soil texture and type with permeability values presented in the literature (Cedergren 1977), the average hydraulic conductivity for the valley fill stream laid deposits and colluvium is estimated to range from 0.2 to 20 feet per day (ft/day). Hydraulic conductivity values compiled from all alluvial aquifer tests conducted by the Black Thunder, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope mines range from 0.035 ft/day to 136.5 ft/day, with the median value of 3.8 ft/day, which is comparable to that of silty sand (Ogle and Calle 2006). Available water quality data from the Black Thunder Mine’s alluvial monitoring wells (Figure 3-20) indicate that groundwater from the valley fill deposits of North Prong Little Thunder Creek and Mills Draw is generally of poor quality and does not meet all of the WDEQ Water Quality Division (WQD) standards (WDEQ/WQD 2009) for domestic and agricultural uses and is marginal for livestock and wildlife use (TBCC 2007). Within the BLM study area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, alluvial deposits are associated with only Little Thunder Creek, an ephemeral tributary of Black Thunder Creek. These unconsolidated stream laid deposits have been mapped by the USGS as stream-channel and overbank deposits, and they consist of intermixed silt and sand locally interbedded with thin clay or gravel lenses and range from about 1.0 to 10.0 feet thick (Reheis and Coates 1987, Moore and Coates 1978, Coates 1977, Coates 1978a). No aquifer tests have been conducted in the valley fill deposits that occur within the BLM study area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract due to the minimal saturated thickness and low transmissivity of the deposits. Available water quality data indicate that groundwater from the valley fill deposits of Little Thunder Creek and North Prong Little Thunder Creek does not meet the WDEQ/WQD standards for domestic and agricultural uses and is marginal or fails to meet the standards for livestock and wildlife use , depending on the location (TBCC 2007). Within the BLM study area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, alluvial deposits are primarily associated with Little Thunder Creek. These unconsolidated stream laid deposits have been mapped by the USGS as stream-channel and overbank deposits, and they consist of intermixed silt and sand locally interbedded with thin clay or gravel lenses and range from about 1.0 to 10.0 feet thick (Reheis and Coates 1987, Moore and Coates 1978, Coates 1978a). Lesser quantities of alluvial, colluvial, sheetwash, and playa deposits are also associated with tributaries to Little Thunder Creek (e.g., Black Butte Draw and Briggs Draw), Dry Fork Little Thunder Creek, and numerous internally-drained playas (e.g., Rochelle Lake) that occur in the area. No aquifer tests have been conducted in the alluvial deposits that occur within the BLM study area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract due to the minimal saturated thickness and low transmissivity of the deposits. Likewise, alluvial groundwater quality data are not available for this area, although a general 3-90 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences description of Little Thunder Creek’s alluvial groundwater quality is given above. Within the BLM study area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, the recent alluvium exhibiting any potential of yielding groundwater is limited to those unconsolidated stream laid deposits associated with the larger streams (all of which are ephemeral) that drain this area. Surficial geology mapping by JRCC (1994) and the USGS (Reheis and Coates 1987, Coates 1978a and 1978b) shows that the only alluvial deposits within the LBA tract’s general analysis area occur along the channels of Dry Fork Little Thunder Creek and its tributary, Brater Draw. These alluvial deposits consist of intermixed silt and sand locally interbedded with thin clay or gravel lenses and range from about 1.0 to 10.0 feet thick. Groundwater occurrence in the alluvium is generally unknown in this area, but some limited occurrence may be expected as bank storage from ephemeral stream flows. No aquifer tests have been conducted in the alluvial deposits that occur within the BLM study area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, but tests conducted by TBCC on North Prong Little Thunder Creek alluvial monitoring wells located downstream of the LBA tract revealed hydraulic conductivity values ranging from 0.52 to 6.42 ft/day (TBCC 2005). Water quality samples collected from North Prong Little Thunder Creek alluvial monitoring wells located in the existing Black Thunder Mine permit area exhibit an average TDS concentration of 1,600 mg/L, which is suitable for agricultural and livestock use. The BLM study area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract is drained by Porcupine Creek and its tributaries, all of which are ephemeral streams. The most significant alluvial aquifer in the general Wright analysis area is that associated with Porcupine Creek. The valley floor of Porcupine Creek contains appreciable amounts of alluvium both in width and depth, and the alluvial deposits contain more coarse material than the other smaller ephemeral streams that drain most of the general Wright analysis area. Downstream of the North Porcupine tract, where the stream has been disturbed by the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, the alluvium was up to 1,000 feet wide, up to 12 feet thick, and composed primarily of coarse-grained sand (BLM 1998). Mapping of the surficial geology within the LBA tract’s general analysis area shows that alluvial deposits occur along the channels of Porcupine Creek and its tributaries, Gray Creek and Rat Draw (Reheis and Coates 1987, PRC 2004). These materials are comprised of stream-channel and overbank deposits of sand and silt interbedded with gravel lenses. Isolated, thin deposits of sheetwash alluvium consisting of sands, silts, and clays also occur in areas of unchanneled flow on hillslopes and in depressions. Studies conducted by PRC on the alluvium of Porcupine and Corder creeks downstream of the North Porcupine tract indicate that the hydraulic conductivity of Porcupine Creek alluvium is variable, ranging from 1.1 to 13.0 ft/day (BLM 1998). The Porcupine Creek alluvial aquifer receives recharge from the infiltration of precipitation, from the lateral movement of groundwater that discharges from the adjacent Wasatch Formation overburden, and from the infiltration of surface flow within the stream channel. Lesser quantities of colluvial, Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-91

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences sheetwash, and playa deposits associated with other smaller drainages and internally-drained basins in the area also occur, but these materials are generally thin, fine grained, and not laterally extensive enough to store or yield groundwater. The quality of Porcupine Creek alluvial groundwater is generally suitable for livestock and wildlife use, but the concentration of sulfate typically exceeds the agricultural use standard. The TDS concentrations of water quality samples collected by the North Antelope Rochelle Mine downstream of the LBA tract range from about 1,000 mg/L to 37,000 mg/L with an average of approximately 5,350 mg/L (Ogle and Calle 2006). The South Porcupine LBA Tract’s general analysis area is drained by minor tributaries of Porcupine Creek, Horse Creek, and Antelope Creek. Mapping of the surficial geology within the tract’s general analysis area (Reheis and Coates 1987, PRC 2004) shows that some alluvial deposits occur only along Mike’s Draw, a north-flowing, third order ephemeral tributary of Porcupine Creek. These recent alluvial deposits are comprised of stream-channel and overbank deposits of sand and silt. Because the thickness and areal extent of these materials are very limited, and they infrequently receive recharge from the infiltration of precipitation and surface flow within the stream channel, they do not yield groundwater. 3.5.1.1.2 Wasatch Formation Within the PRB, the Wasatch Formation (the strata lying above the mineable coal, also called the overburden) consists of various non-marine, fluvial and eolian deposits of interbedded sands, silts, and clays with occasional discontinuous deposits of coal and carbonaceous material. The Wasatch strata range in cohesion from unconsolidated (i.e., loose sands and silts) to lithified (i.e., sandstones, siltstones, shales, and coal stringers). Any of the deposits may be water bearing, although the sands and sandstones possess a greater, but laterally limited, potential for groundwater yield. These sands are generally discontinuous and separated laterally and vertically by finer-grained silts and clays. Perched groundwater can occur locally within the surficial deposits of Wasatch residuum and Wasatch-derived eolian deposits that overlie an impermeable stratum. This basic description generally holds true for all of the general Wright analysis area. The discontinuous nature of the sediments produces considerable variability in the occurrence of groundwater in the overburden both laterally and vertically. The hydraulic connection between water-bearing units is tenuous due to intervening shale aquitards; thus, groundwater movement through the Wasatch Formation overburden is limited. Due to the discontinuous nature of the permeable overburden sediments, premine overburden groundwater movement generally follows the topography. Because the water-bearing units within the Wasatch Formation are not continuous, the Wasatch is not considered to be a regional aquifer. However, Wasatch sands and sandstones do provide limited amounts of groundwater for livestock and domestic uses on a local scale, provided the water quality is suitable. Channel-like deposits of 3-92 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences unconsolidated sand (paleochannel sands) with up to about 60 feet of saturation occasionally occur in the Wasatch overburden, and wells developed in these sands may individually yield up to 50 gallons per minute (gpm). Paleochannels are typically less than 500 feet wide and are isolated laterally and vertically by silt and clay deposits of very low permeabilities. Another geologic unit that may be considered a part of the Wasatch Formation is scoria, also called clinker or burn. It consists of sediments that were baked, fused, and melted in place when the underlying coal burned spontaneously. These burned sediments collapsed into the void left by the burned coal. Scoria deposits can be a very permeable aquifer and can extend laterally for miles in the eastern PRB. The occurrence of scoria is site specific, typically occurring in areas where coal seams crop out at the surface. The hydrologic function of scoria includes providing infiltration of precipitation and recharge to laterally contiguous overburden and coal beds. The West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is the only tract included in this analysis that contains scoria deposits; however, the outcrops in Sections 21 and 31 of T.44N., R.71W. are erosionally isolated, small in areal extent, and not documented as aquifers or a source of recharge. Recharge to the Wasatch Formation is from the infiltration of precipitation, infiltration of surface water stored in playas and in-channel reservoirs, and lateral movement of water from adjacent scoria bodies. Regionally, groundwater is discharged from the Wasatch Formation by evaporation and transpiration, by pumping wells, by drainage into mine excavations, and by seepage into the alluvium along stream courses. Overburden groundwater is not generally connected to the underlying Wyodak coal seam due to a lowpermeability stratum at the base of the overburden, which is fairly widespread in the general Wright analysis area. However, there is likely some leakage between the aquifers that provides vertical recharge to the coal aquifer. For the Wasatch Formation as a whole in the PRB, the discontinuous nature of the water bearing units results in low overall hydraulic conductivity and low groundwater flow rates. Groundwater encountered in the Wasatch overburden is usually unconfined or perched, and water levels generally vary from 10 to over 100 feet below the ground surface (Ogle and Calle 2006). The overburden’s hydraulic properties are variable due to the varied nature of the stratigraphic units, although the hydraulic conductivity is relatively low. Martin et al. (1988) reported that hydraulic conductivities within the Wasatch ranged from 10-4 ft/day to 102 ft/day, and the geometric mean hydraulic conductivity based on 203 tests conducted near the PRB coal mines was 0.2 ft/day. Fifty-nine overburden monitoring wells located in the permit areas of the mines in the general Wright analysis area have been aquifer tested and the hydraulic conductivity values ranged from 0.001 ft/day to 27.0 ft/day with a the median of 0.11 ft/day. The quality of groundwater in the Wasatch Formation is extremely variable and generally poor. In the general Wright analysis area, TDS concentrations range from 500 mg/L to 6,157 mg/L and the water type is typically a sodium-sulfate. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-93

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Based on the analyses of over 1,000 water quality samples collected by the southern PRB coal mines, including the three applicant mines, the median TDS concentration was 2,000 mg/L and the predominant constituents were sodium and sulfate (Ogle and Calle 2006). Overburden groundwater is considered to be unsuitable for domestic and irrigation uses, but is generally suitable for livestock and wildlife use although, at some locations, concentrations of individual constituents may exceed livestock standards. 3.5.1.1.3 Wyodak/Wyodak-Anderson Coal The Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation contains the mineable coal zone, which is often divided by partings that separate it into two or more units. Operators of the mines in the general Wright analysis area refer to the mineable coal zone as either the Wyodak (Upper Wyodak, Middle Wyodak and Lower Wyodak) or the Wyodak-Anderson. A general discussion of the coal seam aquifer is presented as follows. Due to its continuity, the Wyodak coal seam is considered a regional aquifer because it is water bearing and is laterally continuous throughout the area. Historically, the Fort Union coal seams have been a source of groundwater for domestic and livestock uses in the eastern PRB. However, due to the 1 to 3 degree west-northwest dip of the coal beds, the coal generally becomes too deep to be an economical source of water within a couple of miles west of the PRB surface coal mines. Hydraulic conductivity within the Wyodak coal seam is highly variable and reflective of the amount of fracturing the coal has undergone, as non-fractured coal is virtually impermeable. Field aquifer tests indicate that the coal has a low to moderate transmissivity with a range of roughly three orders of magnitude. The yield of groundwater to wells and mine pits is smallest where the permeability of the coal is derived primarily from localized unloading fractures. These fractures, which are the most common, are created by the expansion of the coal as the weight of overlying sediments is slowly removed by erosion. Localized zones of moderately high transmissivity occur due to increased fracturing, and the highest permeability is imparted to the coal by tectonic fractures. These are through-going fractures of areal importance created during deformation of the Powder River structural basin. The presence of these fractures can be recognized by their linear expression at the ground surface, controlling the orientation of stream drainages and topographic depressions. Due to their pronounced surface expression, these tectonic fractures are often referred to as “lineaments”. Coal permeability along lineaments can be increased by orders of magnitude over that in the coal fractured by unloading only. For example, aquifer testing conducted by PRC within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s permit area indicates that the coal possesses higher permeability in a northwest-southeast direction. Field aquifer tests conducted by the Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, North Rochelle, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope mines were examined by 3-94 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences WDEQ/LQD (Ogle and Calle 2006) and the hydraulic conductivities of the coal ranged from 0.005 ft/day to 1,167 ft/day; the variability most likely due to the fractured nature of the coal. The median hydraulic conductivity of the coal aquifer based on 101 aquifer tests is 1.8 ft/day, and the median storage coefficient is 5.8×10–4, indicative of a confined aquifer. Recharge to the coal occurs principally by infiltration of precipitation in the clinker outcrop areas along the flank of the eastern Powder River structural basin. Secondary vertical recharge from the overburden also occurs, but is highly variable. Prior to mining, the direction of groundwater flow within the areally continuous coal aquifer was generally from recharge areas at the coal seam’s outcrop westward into the PRB, following the dip of the coal. Groundwater conditions varied from unconfined to confined, depending on the coal elevation and proximity to the outcrop area. Water levels were generally above the top of the coal away from the outcrop. Site-specific water-level data collected from coal monitoring wells by mining companies and the BLM in the general Wright analysis area and presented in the Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization (GAGMO) 25-year report (Hydro-Engineering 2007) indicate that the groundwater flow directions in the Wyodak coal have been greatly influenced by surface mine dewatering and groundwater discharge associated with CBNG development. Groundwater levels observed near active mining areas prior to 1997 were likely due to mine dewatering alone and the groundwater flow direction within the coal aquifer was typically toward the mine pits. By year 2000, groundwater level decline rates had dramatically increased because drawdown caused by widespread CBNG development west of the mines was overlapping with drawdown caused by mining operations. A continuous cone of depression currently exists around the Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, North Antelope Rochelle and Antelope mines due to their proximity to each other and the cumulative drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges. The extent of drawdown west of the mines that is specifically attributable to mine dewatering can no longer be defined due to much greater and areally extensive drawdown caused by CBNG development. Roughly 30 years of surface mining and the more recent CBNG development have resulted in complete dewatering of the coal aquifer in localized areas, particularly near the mines’ pits and where the coal seams are structurally highest. Coal groundwater is typically only suitable for livestock and wildlife watering purposes because certain constituent concentrations commonly exceed many suitability criteria for domestic uses, and the water may have a high salinity and sodium hazard, which makes it unsuitable for agricultural uses. Within the general Wright analysis area, Wyodak coal groundwater quality is generally poor, but exhibits lower TDS concentrations than alluvial or overburden groundwater. The composition of groundwater in the coal is fairly uniform and there are no seasonal or long-term trends in composition. The composition of groundwater in the coal is generally characterized as a calcium/magnesium sulfate type near the scoria outcrop recharge areas and transitions to a Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-95

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences sodium-bicarbonate type as the groundwater moves downgradient. A median TDS concentration of 952 mg/L was calculated by the WDEQ/LQD for the coal aquifer, based on 832 samples collected from the southern group of PRB mines, including North Antelope Rochelle (Ogle and Calle 2006). 3.5.1.1.4 Subcoal Fort Union Formation The Fort Union Formation is divided into three members, which are, in descending order: the Tongue River Member, the Lebo Member, and the Tullock Member. The mineable coal seams occur within the Tongue River Member. The subcoal Fort Union Formation consists primarily of lithified sands and shales, and is divided into three hydrogeologic units: the upper Tongue River aquifer, the Lebo confining layer, and the Tullock aquifer (Law 1976). Of the three units, the Tullock is the most prolific in terms of groundwater yield. Mining does not directly disturb the hydrogeologic units below the mineable coal, but many PRB mines use them for industrial water supply wells. In a few cases there have been drawdowns in the subcoal aquifer due to leakage into mine pits, dewatering, and CBNG development (BLM 2001). The upper Tongue River aquifer consists of lenticular, fine-grained sandstone interbedded with mudstone. The Lebo confining layer is typically more fine-grained than the other two members and generally retards the movement of water (Lewis and Hotchkiss 1981). The Lebo confining layer typically separates the Tongue River and Tullock aquifers hydraulically. The Tullock aquifer consists of discontinuous lenses of sandstone separated by interbedded shale and siltstone. Transmissivity is equal to an aquifer’s hydraulic conductivity, or permeability, times the aquifer’s saturated thickness, and is commonly used when discussing the hydraulic properties of the subcoal Fort Union Formation where wells are completed by exposing many discrete sand lenses to the well bore. Transmissivities are generally higher in the deeper Tullock aquifer than in the shallower Tongue River aquifer, and many mines in the PRB have water-supply wells completed in this interval (Martin et al. 1988). The City of Gillette and the Town of Wright also utilize the Tullock aquifer to meet part of their municipal water requirements. The average transmissivity for the Tullock, as reported by OSM (1984), is 290 ft2/day. The three applicant mines located within the general Wright analysis area use a total of 15 wells completed in the subcoal Fort Union Formation for water supply, and they range in depth from approximately 250 feet to 3,200 feet. The water quality of the subcoal Fort Union Formation is generally good. TDS concentrations measured in various subcoal Fort Union Formation water supply wells in the eastern PRB range from 230 mg/L to 520 mg/L. Water from the subcoal Fort Union Formation is typically of the sodium-bicarbonate type. This water is generally suitable for livestock and wildlife watering and may be suitable for domestic use. Depending upon site-specific TDS 3-96 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences concentrations and SAR values, groundwater from Fort Union Formation supply wells may also be suitable for irrigation. 3.5.1.1.5 Lance Formation-Fox Hills Sandstone Underlying the Fort Union Formation is the Lance Formation of Cretaceous age. The Lance Formation is comprised of an upper confining layer and a lower aquifer. Individual sandstone beds of the lower aquifer sequence are up to about 100 feet thick, are fine-grained, and contain variable amounts of interbedded clay and silt. The Fox Hills Sandstone underlies the Lance Formation and is usually difficult to distinguish from the Lance. The Fox Hills is described as well-developed, fine- to medium-grained, marine sandstone that contains thin beds of sandy shale and probably averages around 250 feet thick beneath the general Wright analysis area. The lower Lance Formation and Fox Hills sandstone, which is called the LanceFox Hills aquifer in the eastern PRB, is used for an industrial water supply at the North Antelope Rochelle and Black Thunder mines. North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s two Lance-Fox Hills wells are approximately 5,400 feet deep and Black Thunder Mine’s well is 4,850 feet deep. The City of Gillette also utilizes the Lance-Fox Hills aquifer to meet part of its municipal water requirements, as do the Wyodak Power Plant and various other eastern PRB surface coal mines. The quality of groundwater from the Lance-Fox Hills aquifer is generally good enough to meet the standards for domestic use, depending upon the concentrations of TDS and various constituents such as fluoride. Sodium and bicarbonate are typically the predominant ionic constituents. 3.5.1.2 Environmental Consequences 3.5.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Surface coal mining impacts the quantity of the groundwater resource in two ways: 1) the coal aquifer and any water-bearing overburden strata on the mined land are removed and replaced with unconsolidated backfill, and 2) water levels in the coal and overburden aquifers adjacent to the mine pits are depressed as a result of seepage into and dewatering from the open excavations in the area of coal and overburden removal. If the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are leased under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3 and mined, the overall regional extent of coal removal and reclamation would increase, which would result in an increase in the area of impacts to groundwater quantity. As mining expands, additional water-bearing bedrock strata would be exposed and groundwater would drain by gravity into the active pits. The overburden and coal aquifers within the leased tracts would be completely dewatered and removed, and the area of drawdown caused by overburden and coal removal would be extended Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-97

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences further to the northwest, west and southwest of the active mine areas. While there would be variations in the affected aquifers’ hydraulic properties, the duration of time that the pits are open, the distance from mining and dewatering that has occurred as a result of previous mining and CBNG development, the area subject to lower groundwater levels would be extended roughly in proportion to the increase in areas affected by mining. The extent that drawdown would propagate away from the mine pits is a function of the affected aquifer’s hydraulic properties (i.e., hydraulic conductivity, storativity, and current saturated thickness). The amount and extent of additional drawdown may not be great however, as current drawdown associated with mining the existing leases combined with drawdown associated with CBNG development has nearly dewatered the coal aquifer within and immediately west of the general Wright analysis area. Currently approved mining will continue to remove the overburden, interburden (where present), and coal on the existing leases at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines and replace these separate units with backfill material composed of an unlayered mixture of the shale, siltstone, and sandstone that makes up the existing Wasatch Formation overburden and Fort Union Formation interburden (if present). The applicant mines’ existing leases currently include approximately 48,442 acres. Mining each of the LBA tracts as maintenance leases would extend the area of overburden and coal removal by about 21,887 acres under the Proposed Actions up to about 36,264 acres under BLM’s preferred tract configurations for Alternative 2. The 25-year GAGMO Report (Hydro-Engineering 2007) presents drawdowns that have developed in the last 25 years as a result of coal mining activity or other stresses to the groundwater system. The 25-year drawdown map for the general Wright analysis area is included within the 25-year GAGMO Report, and it shows a continuous cone of depression exists around the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope mines due to their proximity to each other and due to the large drawdowns caused to the west by CBNG development. Hydro-Engineering (2007) states that the extent of drawdown caused by mining alone to the west of the mines can no longer be defined due to the much larger drawdown caused by CBNG development. Drawdowns to the west of the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope mines are very large, mainly due to the discharge of groundwater from the Wyodak coal aquifer that is associated with the production of CBNG. Greater drawdowns exist west of these mines than near their present western boundaries. The present drawdown of the Wyodak coal potentiometric surface has made the comparison between the 25-year drawdowns and the modeled groundwater drawdown predictions using the conservative, worst-case scenario for each mine to be unrealistic. Drawdowns in all areas have greatly increased in the last few years due to water production from the coal aquifer by CBNG production. Potential overlapping impacts of the existing mining activities with other proposed activities are addressed further in Chapter 4 of this EIS. 3-98 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Due to the inconsistent lithologic makeup of the Wasatch Formation overburden (discontinuous sandstone and sand lenses in a matrix of siltstone and shale), drawdowns in the overburden are variable and do not extend great distances from the active mine pits. Due to the varied nature of the waterbearing units within the Wasatch Formation overburden, the extent of water level drawdowns are variable as well. Water level drawdowns propagate much farther and in a more consistent manner in the coal seam aquifers than in the overburden due to the regional continuity and higher transmissivity of the coal seam. Prior to CBNG development, drawdown in the coal aquifer was primarily a function of distance from the mine’s open pit, although geologic and hydrologic barriers and boundaries such as crop lines, fracture zones, and recharge sources can also influence drawdowns. As discussed below, each mine evaluated groundwater level drawdowns resulting from their existing operations based on site-specific characteristics such as hydraulic conductivity, mining sequence, and local geology. Mines usually model groundwater level drawdown using the conservative, worst-case scenario. Therefore, it is unlikely that the actual drawdown will extend as far from the mine pits as predicted. It is also difficult to predict the time for groundwater recovery since each mine uses different predictive modeling techniques and assumptions, and reports different recovery time periods. In general, and excluding the dewatering and drawdown effects associated with CBNG development, drawdown in groundwater levels in both the coal and overburden that are associated with mining alone are greatest adjacent to the mine pits and decrease with distance from the pits (Ogle and Calle 2006). The subcoal aquifers (i.e., Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance-Fox Hills aquifer) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so they are not directly impacted by coal mining activity. All three of the applicant mines located within the general Wright analysis area utilize water supply wells completed in aquifers stratigraphically below the Wyodak coal. If these six LBA tracts are leased and mined by the applicants, water would be produced from these wells for a longer period of time but the mines do not anticipate requiring additional sub-coal wells for industrial water supply to continue mining and reclaiming, including the LBA tracts. As noted above, the existing layers of sediment and rock in the area of coal removal would be replaced by generally homogeneous, unconsolidated backfill material, which would recover as a single hydrostratigraphic unit. The backfill unit created in the LBA tract areas would be in hydraulic communication with the undisturbed coal, overburden, and the existing backfill aquifer units. Mining would not disturb premining recharge areas. Surface infiltration recharge rates for the backfill materials should be equivalent to or somewhat greater than infiltration recharge through undisturbed overburden, due primarily to the swelling of the mined strata attendant with excavating the strata, and due to generally flatter postmining topography resulting in less surface runoff. Water levels in the affected aquifers would remain depressed below premining levels for a long period of time, since groundwater discharge rates from the affected aquifers into the proposed mine pits are expected to be Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-99

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences low. Groundwater would accumulate in the backfill and eventually discharge to hydrostratigraphic units contiguous to the backfilled pit, at which time, groundwater levels and flow patterns are expected to be similar to premining condition. Groundwater flow through the backfill and undisturbed bedrock near the pits would be interrupted until saturation levels in the backfilled pits have increased, and the rates of recharge to and discharge from the backfill have equilibrated. Postmining groundwater levels should approach steady state conditions some time after mine reclamation and impacts from CBNG development in the cumulative impact areas are completed. The rate at which the mine backfill resaturates and the postmining potentiometric surface reaches equilibrium is dependent upon the hydraulic conductivity of the backfill and on sources of recharge water. The hydraulic properties of the backfill aquifer based on the results of aquifer testing at mines in the PRB are quite variable, although generally equal to or greater than the undisturbed overburden and coal aquifers (Van Voast et al. 1978 and Rahn 1976). It is early in the process of full reclamation and to date, not all of the backfilled materials have reached an adequate saturated thickness to be aquifer tested at the three applicant mines in the general Wright analysis area. The composition of the backfilled overburden materials at these three adjacent mines is quite similar; therefore, the hydraulic characteristics of the backfill at these three mines are also expected to be similar. Hydraulic conductivity values measured in existing monitoring wells completed in the saturated backfill at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines range from 0.12 ft/day to 90.0 ft/day (TBCC 2005, JRC 2004, PRC 2004, and Ogle and Calle 2006), which is comparable to the reported hydraulic conductivity values determined for the Wasatch overburden and Wyodak coal seam. These data therefore provide an indication that the backfill would readily resaturate as postmining potentiometric elevations recover in the surrounding undisturbed aquifers, and that wells completed in the backfill (including in these six LBA tracts) would be capable of supplying sufficient yields to wells constructed for livestock watering uses. Mining and reclamation also impacts groundwater quality; the TDS concentration in the water resaturating the backfill is generally higher than the TDS concentration in groundwater from the overburden and coal seam aquifers prior to mining. This is due to the increased porosity and exposure of fresh mineral surfaces to groundwater that moves through the backfill and increased oxidation. Scientific tests in the laboratory and in the field show the predominant cause for high dissolved-solids contents in mine backfill is the availability of highly soluble salts in the overburden sediments. The soluble salts that are exposed to groundwater are readily mobilized; therefore, groundwater quality in recently backfilled mine pits is highly diverse due to the variable distribution of soluble salts and the variable permeability of the backfill. As the backfill is resaturated and groundwater flow patterns are reestablished, the soluble salts are leached by groundwater inflow. Groundwater quality in the backfill then depends on a balance between the introduction of new salts by groundwater that recharges the backfill and the 3-100 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences flushing of the newly exposed soluble salts by groundwater flow. Studies of backfill groundwater quality are not yet conclusive due to a relatively short period of monitoring available in the PRB. A general observation is that the content of TDS, calcium, magnesium, and sodium sulfates, when compared to the undisturbed aquifers, is roughly two to three times as high at present. However, these elevated levels should decline as flushing and leaching of soluble salts reaches equilibrium. Even at a two to three fold increase in TDS concentration, the water in the backfill will, in most cases, be suitable for its predominant premining use, stock watering (Straskraba 1986). Using data compiled from 10 surface coal mines in the eastern PRB, Martin et al. (1988) concluded that backfill groundwater quality improves markedly after the backfill is leached with one pore volume of water. Van Voast and Reiten (1988) reached the same conclusions after analyzing data from the Decker and Colstrip mines located in the northern PRB. Their research indicates that upon initial saturation, mine backfill is generally high in TDS concentration and contains soluble salts of calcium, magnesium and sodium sulfates. TDS concentrations tend to decrease with time, indicating that the long-term groundwater quality in mined and off-site lands would return to approximate pre-mine conditions (Van Voast and Reiten 1988). Clark (1995) conducted a study to determine if the decreases predicted by laboratory studies actually occurred onsite. In the area of the West Decker Mine near Decker, Montana, Clark’s study found that dissolved solids concentrations increased when water from an upgradient coal aquifer flowed into a backfill aquifer, and apparently decreased along an inferred flow path from a backfill aquifer to a downgradient coal aquifer. WDEQ/LQD calculated a median TDS concentration of 3,670 mg/L based on 869 samples collected from monitoring wells with at least 15 years of data that are completed in the backfill at the three applicant mines included in this analysis, and concluded that the recovered concentrations will be suitable for post-mining land use (Ogle and Calle 2006). Changes to the premining hydraulic characteristics of the alluvial aquifer and the quality of alluvial groundwater are expected to be minor after final reclamation, because the applicant mines would be required to maintain the essential hydrologic functions of the alluvial valley floors (AVFs) declared in the general Wright analysis area and their alluvial aquifer systems (as is currently required for the already-approved mining operations). See additional discussion in Sections 3.5.1.3 and 3.6. Direct and indirect impacts to the groundwater system resulting from mining the LBA tracts included in this analysis would add to the cumulative impacts that will occur due to mining existing leases. As discussed above, there have been drawdowns in the coal and overlying aquifers as a result of this existing approved mining and the existing CBNG development in the vicinity of the LBA tracts. The probable groundwater impacts from the leasing and subsequent mining of each of the LBA tracts under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 and 3 are described in the following paragraphs. Some or all of the impacts to the groundwater levels in the coal aquifer described below may occur prior to Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-101

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences the mining of the LBA tracts, if they are leased, as a result of currently approved surface coal mining adjacent to the LBA tracts and development of CBNG resources on and adjacent to the LBA tracts. 3.5.1.2.1.1 North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts The existing leases at the Black Thunder Mine currently include approximately 20,656 acres. Mining the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as a maintenance lease would extend the area of overburden and coal removal by about 2,613.5 acres under the Proposed Action up to about 7,139.4 acres under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration. Mining the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as a maintenance lease would extend the area of overburden and coal removal by about 1,976.7 acres under the Proposed Action up to about 2,922.4 acres under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration. Mining the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as a maintenance lease would extend the area of overburden and coal removal by about 2,370.5 acres under the Proposed Action up to about 7,191.3 acres under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration. Mining has affected alluvial groundwater level elevations only where the alluvial aquifer has been mined out. If the North, South, and West Hilight Field tracts were leased, mining would dewater (if saturated) and physically remove the shallow alluvial materials within the tracts. Black Thunder Mine is required to maintain the essential hydrologic functions of affected alluvial aquifer systems. Unless it is determined that the recent alluvial deposits provide essential hydrologic functions, it is unlikely that WDEQ/LQD would require BTCC to selectively remove and replace the alluvial deposits within these three tracts. Should WDEQ/LQD require alluvial aquifer reclamation, changes to the premining hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer and the quality of the alluvial groundwater are expected to be minor after final reclamation. See additional discussions in Sections 3.5.1.3 and 3.6. Overburden thickness in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract averages around 246 feet and the interburden thickness averages about 1 foot. Overburden thickness in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract averages around 292 feet and the interburden thickness averages about 94 feet. Overburden thickness in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract averages around 428 feet and the interburden thickness averages about 32 feet. Most of these materials are composed of massive silty and clayey shales of very low permeability, and the interbedded sandstone units are typically thin and discontinuous. Discontinuous, lenticular-shaped sand bodies also occur locally in the general Wright analysis area. Some of these isolated sandstone units and sand bodies in the overburden are saturated, but groundwater yields from them are generally low. Due to the discontinuous nature of the permeable overburden sediments, premining overburden groundwater movement generally followed the topography, and before mining, overburden groundwater flow in the vicinity of the Black Thunder Mine was generally toward, and discharged to Little Thunder and North Prong Little Thunder Creek valleys. Groundwater flow has 3-102 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences since been affected by the removal of overburden by mining in the area. Monitor well data indicate that overburden groundwater, where present, in the general Wright analysis area now flows toward the Black Thunder Mine and neighboring mines’ open pits. Mining has and will continue to depress water levels in the overburden, although the historical monitoring data do not indicate a direct correlation between water level drawdown in the overburden to distance and direction from the open pits. In general, overburden groundwater levels will begin to show steady decline in areas that are within about one-half mile of the mine pits as mining progresses. Future drawdown in the overburden is expected to be similar to that measured to date, and would be expected to continue to have a limited impact outside of the mined area. Water level drawdowns have propagated much farther and in a more consistent manner in the Wyodak coal seam aquifer than in the overburden. Groundwater level monitoring data collected by the Black Thunder Mine and the other mines located in the general Wright analysis area and presented in the GAGMO 25-year report (Hydro-Engineering 2007) indicate that the groundwater flow directions in the Wyodak coal have been greatly influenced by surface mine dewatering and groundwater discharge associated with CBNG development. Groundwater levels observed near active mining areas prior to 1997 were likely due to mine dewatering alone and the groundwater flow direction within the coal aquifer was typically toward the mine where it would drain by gravity into the open pits. By year 2000, groundwater level decline rates had dramatically increased because drawdown caused by widespread CBNG development west of the mines was overlapping with drawdown caused by mining operations. A continuous cone of depression currently exists around the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope mines due to their proximity to each other and the cumulative drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges. The extent of drawdown west of the mines that is specifically attributable to mine dewatering can no longer be defined due to much greater and regionally extensive drawdown caused by CBNG development. Wyodak coal groundwater level data for year 2005, presented in the 25-year GAGMO report, illustrate that approximately 160 feet of drawdown has occurred near the western edge of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, and approximately 40 feet of drawdown has occurred near the tract’s eastern edge. The 2005 data show that approximately 210 feet of drawdown has occurred near the western edge of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, and approximately 180 feet of drawdown has occurred near the tract’s eastern edge. The 2005 data show that approximately 350 feet of drawdown has occurred near the western edge of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for, and approximately 220 feet of drawdown has occurred near the tract’s eastern edge. The 2005 coal seam water level contours in the area of the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope mines depict the groundwater flow direction to be entirely to the west, away from the open pits (Hydro-Engineering 2007). Roughly 30 years of surface mining and CBNG development has resulted in Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-103

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences nearly complete dewatering of the coal seams in localized areas, particularly near the mines’ pits and where the coal seams are structurally highest. In 2006, the extent of water level drawdown in the coal aquifer attributable to mining the existing leases at the Black Thunder Mine was estimated using the analytical line slot (or sink) method. The results of the line sink analysis are reported in Addendum MP-3.3.5 of the WDEQ/LQD Black Thunder Mine Permit 233-T7 (TBCC 2005). For the purpose of this analysis, the extent of coal-mining related drawdown (5-foot contour) in the Wyodak seam over the life of the Black Thunder Mine if the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts are mined was extrapolated by extending TBCC’s predicted life of mine, line sink drawdown contour to the north, south and west by the dimensions of the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, each configured under BLM’s preferred tract configuration (Figure 3-23). The area subject to lower water levels would increase roughly in proportion to the increase in area mined. This extrapolation serves as a general approximation of the potential impacts, based on experience, but it does not take variations in hydrologic properties, the time the pits are open, and the distance from previous mining and CBNG development into account. The rate and extent of the actual drawdown in the coal is currently much greater than the predicted life-of-mine drawdown. This has occurred as drawdown caused by extensive CBNG development west of the current Black Thunder Mine permit area has overlapped with drawdown caused by mining operations. Continued drawdown effects from CBNG withdrawals will be likely; therefore, future drawdown to the Wyodak coal aquifer from mining the approved leases and the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts would be expected to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered in the general Wright analysis area. Groundwater elevation data collected by the Black Thunder Mine since 1973 have formed the basis for quantifying groundwater level drawdowns since mining began and provide a reasonable and reliable means to predict trends in groundwater elevations associated with dewatering due to future mining. These data will continue to be recorded according to the mine’s WDEQ-approved groundwater monitoring program and included in the annual progress report that the Black Thunder Mine submits to the WDEQ/LQD, as well as the GAGMO Annual Reports. If TBCC acquires the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, WDEQ/LQD would require that future drawdown impacts due to mining alone be predicted in order to amend the tracts into the Black Thunder Mine permit area (Section 3.5.1.3). The subcoal aquifers (i.e., Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance-Fox Hills aquifer) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so they are not directly impacted by coal mining activity. Figure 3-20 depicts the locations of Black Thunder Mine’s five water supply wells, all of which are completed in aquifers below the Wyodak coal. If the applicant leases the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, water would be produced from these wells for a 3-104 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 73 W. R. 72 W.
Breen Road

R. 71 W.
Lawver Road

R. 70 W. T. 45 N.

T. 45 N.
Ke e lin e

Hilight Road

Ro ad
Jacobs Road

T. 44 N.

State Highway 59

Clarkelen Road

WRIGHT

State Highway 450

T. 43 N.

e at St

wa gh

7 38

T. 43 N.
C ounty
Road

C os

ner

Matheson Road

Ed wa rd s Road

Reno Road

BNSF & UP RR

Antel ope R oad

T. 42 N.

Reno Road

T. 42 N.

Mackey

Road

Matheson
Road

T. 41 N. R. 73 W. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

T. 41 N.

LEGEND
Extent of Worst-Case Modeled and Extrapolated Life of Mine Drawdown (5 ft) with North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts Under Alternative 2 Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop Clinker Clinker and coal outcrop information modified from Plate 1 in Heffern and Coates (2000).
0 10000 20000 40000

Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Lease Boundaries North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for

North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2,
BLM's Preferred Alternative

West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for

West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2,
BLM's Preferred Alternative

South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2,
BLM's Preferred Alternative

Figure 3-23. Black Thunder Mine Life of Mine Drawdown, Resulting from Currently Approved Mining with the Addition of the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-105

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences longer period of time, but TBCC does not anticipate requiring additional subcoal wells to mine the LBA tracts. To date, 17 wells have been installed to monitor water levels and water quality in the backfill at Black Thunder Mine. Six of these wells were constructed between 1987 and 1991, eight wells were constructed in 1994, one was installed in 1995, and the remaining two were installed in 2008. Eight of these backfill wells were included in the mine’s current (2008) groundwater monitoring network, which is depicted in Figure 3-20. The groundwater level hydrographs recorded by these wells over the period of record indicate that the level of saturation in the backfill has fluctuated considerably and is largely dependant upon the well’s location with respect to the thickness of backfill, the physical characteristics of the backfill materials, and the source of groundwater recharge. At the present time, groundwater levels have increased by 1 to 23 feet at four well locations, remained stable at two locations, and declined 4 to 5 feet at the remaining well locations (Hydro-Engineering 2007). Aquifer tests performed to date on backfill well BTB-1 (Figure 3-20) at the Black Thunder Mine indicate the hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.12 ft/day to 0.86-ft/day. The values of hydraulic conductivity for well BTB-1 appear to be reasonable for a recently dumped backfill. The reported values should be considered the highest that will exist in the backfill at the well location. The hydraulic conductivity values will decrease as the backfill undergoes further compaction and densification. It is estimated that after saturation and re-densification, the final hydraulic conductivity of the backfill will be in the range of 0.00003 ft/day to 0.003 ft/day (TBCC 2005). These data therefore provide an indication that the backfill will readily resaturate as postmining potentiometric elevations recover in the surrounding undisturbed aquifers (including the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts). The exact configuration and hydraulic gradient of the postmining potentiometric surface may vary from premine conditions; however, postmining equilibrium groundwater movement should exhibit a hydraulic gradient similar to that which existed prior to mining (TBCC 2005). TDS concentrations observed in the Black Thunder Mine backfill monitoring wells to date are similar to those found in the undisturbed alluvial and overburden aquifers, but greater than those found in the Wyodak coal aquifer. Postmining groundwater quality is expected to improve after one pore volume of water moves through the backfill. In general, the mine’s backfill groundwater quality can be expected to be similar to the premining overburden aquifer and meet Wyoming Class III standards (livestock and wildlife use); however, there could be localized areas in the backfill that yield groundwater that does not meet Wyoming Class III standards. Groundwater quality within the backfill at the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts would be expected to be similar to groundwater quality measured in existing wells completed in the Black Thunder Mine backfill.

3-106

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.5.1.2.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract The existing leases at the Jacobs Ranch Mine currently include approximately 9,720 acres. Mining the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as a maintenance lease would extend the area of overburden and coal removal by about 5,944.4 acres under the Proposed Action up to about 8,076.2 acres under Alternative 2, BLM preferred tract configuration. Mining has affected alluvial groundwater level elevations only where the alluvial aquifer has been mined out. If the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract were leased, mining would dewater (if saturated) and physically remove the shallow alluvial materials within the tract. Jacobs Ranch Mine is required to maintain the essential hydrologic functions of affected alluvial aquifer systems. Unless it is determined that the recent alluvial deposits provide essential hydrologic functions, it is unlikely that WDEQ/LQD would require JRCC to selectively remove and replace the alluvial deposits within this tract. Should WDEQ/LQD require alluvial aquifer reclamation, changes to the premining hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer and the quality of the alluvial groundwater are expected to be minor after final reclamation. See additional discussions in Sections 3.5.1.3 and 3.6. Overburden thickness in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract averages around 475 feet and there is no interburden present. Most of the overburden is composed of massive silty and clayey shales of very low permeability, and the interbedded sandstone units are typically thin and discontinuous. Discontinuous, lenticular-shaped sand bodies also occur locally in the general Wright analysis area. Some of these isolated sandstone units and sand bodies in the overburden are saturated, but groundwater yields from them are generally low. Due to the discontinuous nature of the permeable overburden sediments, premining overburden groundwater movement generally followed the topography, and before mining, overburden groundwater flow in the vicinity of the Jacobs Ranch Mine was generally toward, and discharged to North Prong Little Thunder Creek. Groundwater flow has since been affected by the removal of overburden by mining in the area. Monitor well data indicate that overburden groundwater, where present, in the general Wright analysis area now flows toward the Jacobs Ranch Mine and neighboring mines’ open pits. Mining has and will continue to depress water levels in the overburden, although the historical monitoring data do not indicate a direct correlation between water level drawdown in the overburden to distance and direction from the open pits. In general, overburden groundwater levels will begin to show steady decline in areas that are within about one-half mile of the mine pits as mining progresses. Future drawdown in the overburden is expected to be similar to that measured to date, and would be expected to continue to have a limited impact outside of the mined area. Water level drawdowns have propagated much farther and in a more consistent manner in the Wyodak coal seam aquifer than in the overburden. Groundwater level monitoring data collected by the Jacobs Ranch Mine and the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-107

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences other mines located in the general Wright analysis area and presented in the GAGMO 25-year report (Hydro-Engineering 2007) indicate that the groundwater flow directions in the Wyodak coal have been greatly influenced by surface mine dewatering and groundwater discharge associated with CBNG development. Groundwater levels observed near active mining areas prior to 1997 were likely due to mine dewatering alone and the groundwater flow direction within the coal aquifer was typically toward the mine where it would drain by gravity into the open pits. By year 2000, groundwater level decline rates had dramatically increased because drawdown caused by widespread CBNG development west of the mines was overlapping with drawdown caused by mining operations. A continuous cone of depression currently exists around the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope mines due to their closeness to each other and the cumulative drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges. The extent of drawdown west of the mines that is specifically attributable to mine dewatering can no longer be defined due to much greater and areally extensive drawdown caused by CBNG development. Wyodak coal groundwater level data for year 2005, presented in the 25-year GAGMO report, illustrate that approximately 350 feet of drawdown has occurred near the western edge of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, and approximately 220 feet of drawdown has occurred near the tract’s eastern edge. The 2005 coal seam water level contours in the area of the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope mines depict the groundwater flow direction to be entirely to the west, away from the open pits (Hydro-Engineering 2007). Roughly 30 years of surface mining and CBNG development has resulted in nearly complete dewatering of the coal seams in localized areas, particularly near the mines’ pits and where the coal seams are structurally highest. In 2003, the extent of water level drawdown in the coal aquifer attributable to mining the existing leases at the Jacobs Ranch Mine was estimated using the analytical line slot (or sink) method. The results of the line sink analysis are reported in Addendum MP-E of the WDEQ/LQD Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit 271-T5 (JRCC 2004). For the purpose of this analysis, the extent of coalmining related drawdown (5-foot contour) in the Wyodak seam over the life of the Jacobs Ranch Mine if the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is mined was extrapolated by extending JRCC’s predicted life of mine, line sink drawdown contour to the north, south, and west by the dimensions of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under Alternative 2, BLM preferred tract configuration (Figure 3-24). The area subject to lower water levels would increase roughly in proportion to the increase in area mined. This extrapolation serves as a general approximation of the potential impacts, based on experience, but it does not take variations in hydrologic properties, the time the pits are open, and the distance from previous mining and CBNG development into account. The rate and extent of the actual drawdown in the coal is currently much greater than the predicted life-of-mine drawdown. This has occurred as drawdown caused by extensive CBNG development west of the current Jacobs 3-108 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 73 W. R. 72 W.
Breen Road

R. 71 W.
Road
Lawver Road

R. 70 W. T. 45 N.

T. 45 N.

Hilight

Ke e

lin e

Ro ad

Jacobs

T. 44 N.

Road

State Highway 59

Clarkelen Road

WRIGHT

T. 43 N.

e at St

y3 wa gh

State Highway 450

T. 43 N.
BNSF & UP RR
Reno Road
Antel ope R oad
Hilight Road

C os

ad C ounty Ro ner

Matheson Road

Ed wa rd s Road

T. 42 N.

Reno Road

T. 42 N.

Mackey

Road

Matheson Road

T. 41 N. R. 73 W. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

T. 41 N.

LEGEND
Extent of Worst-Case Modeled and Extrapolated Life of Mine Drawdown (5 ft) with West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2 Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop Clinker Clinker and coal outcrop information modified from Plate 1 in Heffern and Coates (2000).
0 10000 20000 40000

Existing Jacobs Ranch Mine Federal
Coal Lease Boundaries
West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for

West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-24. Jacobs Ranch Mine Life of Mine Drawdown, Resulting from Currently Approved Mining with the Addition of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-109

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Ranch Mine permit area has overlapped with drawdown caused by mining operations. Continued drawdown effects from CBNG withdrawals will be likely; therefore, future drawdown to the Wyodak coal aquifer from mining the approved leases and the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would be expected to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered in the general Wright analysis area. Groundwater elevation data collected by the Jacobs Ranch Mine since 1980 have formed the basis for quantifying groundwater level drawdowns since mining began and provide a reasonable and reliable means to predict trends in groundwater elevations associated with dewatering due to future mining. These data will continue to be recorded according to the mine’s WDEQ-approved groundwater monitoring program and included in the annual progress report that the Jacobs Ranch Mine submits to the WDEQ/LQD, as well as the GAGMO Annual Reports. If JRCC acquires the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, WDEQ/LQD would require that future drawdown impacts due to mining alone be predicted in order to amend the tract into the Jacobs Ranch Mine permit area (Section 3.5.1.3). The subcoal aquifers (i.e., Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance-Fox Hills aquifer) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so they are not directly impacted by coal mining activity. Figure 3-21 depicts the locations of Jacobs Ranch Mine’s five water supply wells, all of which are completed in aquifers below the Wyodak coal. If the applicant leases the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, water would be produced from these wells for a longer period of time, but JRCC does not anticipate requiring additional sub-coal wells to mine the LBA tract. To date, five wells have been installed to monitor water levels and water quality in the backfill at Jacobs Ranch Mine. Two of these wells were constructed in 1981 and 1984, one well was constructed in 1994, and the remaining two wells were constructed in 2001. All of these backfill wells were included in the mine’s current (2008) groundwater monitoring network, which is depicted in Figure 3-21. The groundwater level hydrographs recorded by these wells over the period of record indicate that the level of saturation in the backfill has either increased steadily or has remained unchanged. Jacobs Ranch Mine’s backfill monitoring wells are located near the eastern extent of mining, and the relatively rapid groundwater level recovery suggests that the backfill is receiving recharge from the undisturbed scoria areas located adjacent to the eastern and southern edges of the mine (JRCC 2008). To date, no aquifer tests have been conducted on the backfill monitoring wells at the Jacobs Ranch Mine. Therefore, no site-specific data are available for the hydraulic properties of the applicant mine’s backfill. The composition of backfill materials at the adjacent Black Thunder Mine is quite similar to that of the Jacobs Ranch Mine, and the hydraulic properties of the backfill at both mines, as well as the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, are also expected to be quite similar. Refer to Section 3.5.1.2.1.1 for a discussion on the hydraulic conductivity of the backfill measured at Black Thunder Mine. These data provide an indication that the Jacobs Ranch Mine backfill will readily 3-110 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences resaturate as postmining potentiometric elevations recover in the surrounding undisturbed aquifers, and that wells completed in the backfill (including in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract) would be capable of supplying sufficient yields to wells constructed for livestock watering uses. TDS concentrations observed in the Jacobs Ranch Mine backfill monitoring wells to date are similar to those found in the undisturbed alluvial and overburden aquifers, but greater than those found in the Wyodak coal aquifer. The TDS concentrations in all of the mine’s backfill wells have steadily increased from the first samples taken, likely due to an increase in water levels toward equilibrium conditions and a corresponding increased contact with the recently backfilled overburden materials (JRCC 2008). Postmining groundwater quality is expected to improve after one pore volume of water moves through the backfill. In general, the mine’s backfill groundwater quality can be expected to be similar to the premining overburden aquifer and meet Wyoming Class III standards (livestock and wildlife use); however, there could be localized areas in the backfill that yield groundwater that does not meet Wyoming Class III standards. Groundwater quality within the backfill at the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would be expected to be similar to groundwater quality measured in existing wells completed in the Jacobs Ranch Mine backfill. 3.5.1.2.1.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts The existing leases at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine currently include approximately 18,066 acres. Mining the North Porcupine LBA Tract as a maintenance lease would extend the area of overburden and coal removal by about 5,795.8 acres under the Proposed Action up to about 7,366.8 acres under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration. Mining the South Porcupine LBA Tract as a maintenance lease would extend the area of overburden and coal removal by about 3,186.0 acres under the Proposed Action up to about 3,568.0 acres under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration. Mining has affected alluvial groundwater level elevations only where the alluvial aquifer has been mined out. If the North Porcupine tract were leased, mining would dewater (if saturated) and physically remove the generally thin, finegrained shallow alluvial materials within the tract. No alluvial deposits occur within the South Porcupine tract. North Antelope Rochelle Mine is required to maintain the essential hydrologic functions of affected alluvial aquifer systems. Unless it is determined that the recent alluvial deposits present within the North Porcupine tract provide essential hydrologic functions, it is unlikely that WDEQ/LQD would require PRC to selectively remove and replace those alluvial deposits. Should WDEQ/LQD require alluvial aquifer reclamation, changes to the premining hydraulic characteristics of the alluvial materials and the quality of the alluvial groundwater are expected to be minor after final reclamation. See additional discussions in Sections 3.5.1.3 and 3.6. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-111

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Overburden thickness in the North Porcupine LBA Tract averages around 343 feet and there is no interburden present. Overburden thickness in the South Porcupine LBA Tract averages around 346 feet and the interburden thickness averages about 11 feet. Most of these materials are composed of massive silty and clayey shales of very low permeability, and the interbedded sandstone units are typically thin and discontinuous. Discontinuous, lenticular-shaped sand bodies also occur locally in the general Wright analysis area. Some of these isolated sandstone units and sand bodies in the overburden are saturated, but groundwater yields from them are generally low. Due to the discontinuous nature of the permeable overburden sediments, premining overburden groundwater movement generally followed the topography, and before mining, overburden groundwater flow in the vicinity of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine was generally toward, and discharged to Porcupine Creek valley. Groundwater flow has since been affected by the removal of overburden by mining in the area. Monitor well data indicate that overburden groundwater, where present, in the general Wright analysis area now flows toward the North Antelope Rochelle Mine and neighboring mines’ open pits. Mining has and will continue to depress water levels in the overburden, although the historical monitoring data do not indicate a direct correlation between water level drawdown in the overburden to distance and direction from the open pits. In general, overburden groundwater levels will begin to show steady decline in areas that are within about one-half mile of the mine pits as mining progresses. Future drawdown in the overburden is expected to be similar to that measured to date, and would be expected to continue to have a limited impact outside of the mined area. Water level drawdowns have propagated much farther and in a more consistent manner in the Wyodak coal seam aquifer than in the overburden. Groundwater level monitoring data collected by the North Antelope Rochelle Mine and other mines located in the general Wright analysis area and presented in the GAGMO 25-year report (Hydro-Engineering 2007) indicate that the groundwater flow directions in the Wyodak-Anderson coal have been greatly influenced by surface mine dewatering and groundwater discharge associated with CBNG development. Groundwater levels observed near active mining areas prior to 1997 were likely due to mine dewatering alone and the groundwater flow direction within the coal aquifer was typically toward the mine where it would drain by gravity into the open pits. By year 2000, groundwater level decline rates had dramatically increased because drawdown caused by widespread CBNG development west of the mines was overlapping with drawdown caused by mining operations. A continuous cone of depression currently exists around the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope mines due to their closeness to each other and the cumulative drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges. The extent of drawdown west of the mines that is specifically attributable to mine dewatering can no longer be defined due to much greater and areally extensive drawdown caused by CBNG development. Wyodak-Anderson coal 3-112 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences groundwater level data for year 2005, presented in the 25-year GAGMO report, illustrate that approximately 240 feet of drawdown has occurred near the western edge of the North Porcupine LBA Tract, and approximately 5 feet of drawdown has occurred near the tract’s eastern edge. The 2005 data show that approximately 100 feet of drawdown has occurred near the western edge of the South Porcupine LBA Tract, and approximately 160 feet of drawdown has occurred near the tract’s eastern edge. The 2005 coal seam water level contours in the area of the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope mines depict the groundwater flow direction to be entirely to the west, away from the open pits (Hydro-Engineering 2007). Roughly 30 years of surface mining and CBNG development has resulted in nearly complete dewatering of the coal seams in localized areas, particularly near the mines’ pits and where the coal seams are structurally highest. In 2006, the extent of water level drawdown in the coal aquifer attributable to mining the existing leases at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine was estimated using the analytical line slot (or sink) method. The results of the line sink analysis are reported in Addendum D6-G2 of the WDEQ/LQD North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit 569-T6 (PRC 2004). For the purpose of this analysis, the extent of coal-mining related drawdown (5-foot contour) in the WyodakAnderson seam over the life of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine if the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are mined was extrapolated by extending PRC’s predicted life of mine, line sink drawdown contour to the north, south, and west by the dimensions of the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration (Figure 3-25). The area subject to lower water levels would increase roughly in proportion to the increase in area mined. This extrapolation serves as a general approximation of the potential impacts, based on experience, but it does not take variations in hydrologic properties, the time the pits are open, and the distance from previous mining and CBNG development into account. The rate and extent of the actual drawdown in the coal is currently much greater than the predicted life-of-mine drawdown. This has occurred as drawdown caused by extensive CBNG development west of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit area has overlapped with drawdown caused by mining operations. Continued drawdown effects from CBNG withdrawals will be likely; therefore, future drawdown to the Wyodak-Anderson coal aquifer from mining the approved leases and the North and South Porcupine tracts would be expected to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered in the general Wright analysis area. Groundwater elevation data collected by the North Antelope Rochelle Mine since 1973 have formed the basis for quantifying groundwater level drawdowns since mining began and provide a reasonable and reliable means to predict trends in groundwater elevations associated with dewatering due to future mining. These data will continue to be recorded according to the mine’s WDEQ-approved groundwater monitoring program and included in the annual progress report that the North Antelope Rochelle Mine submits to the WDEQ/LQD, as well as the GAGMO Annual Reports. If PRC acquires the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-113

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 72 W.
WRIGHT

R. 71 W.

R. 70 W.

BNSF & UP RR

Matheson Road

Ed wa rd s Road

Reno Road
Antel opeR oad

ol ho Sc

Cre ek

Road

ad C ounty Ro ner C os

Hilight Road

T. 43 N.

e at St

y3 wa gh

87
State Highway 450

State Highway 59

T. 43 N.

T. 42 N.

Reno Road

T. 42 N.

T. 41 N.
Campbell County
Converse County

T. 41 N.

S ta te Hig y hw a

T. 40 N.

pe A ntelo

ad Ro

T. 40 N.

R. 72 W.

R. 71 W.

R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Extent of Worst-Case Modeled and Extrapolated Life of Mine Drawdown (5 ft) with North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts Under Alternative 2 Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop Clinker Clinker and coal outcrop information modified from Plate 1 in Heffern and Coates (2000).
0 10000 20000 40000

Existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine Federal Coal Lease Boundaries North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for

North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for

South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-25. North Antelope Rochelle Mine Life of Mine Drawdown, Resulting from Currently Approved Mining with the Addition of the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts.

3-114

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences WDEQ/LQD would require that future drawdown impacts due to mining alone be predicted in order to amend the tracts into the North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit area (Section 3.5.1.3). The subcoal aquifers (i.e., Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance-Fox Hills aquifer) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so they are not directly impacted by coal mining activity. Figure 3-22 depicts the locations of North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s seven water supply wells, all of which are completed in aquifers below the Wyodak coal. If the applicant leases the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, water would be produced from these wells for a longer period of time, but PRC does not anticipate requiring additional subcoal wells to mine the LBA tract. To date, 28 wells have been installed to monitor water levels and water quality in the backfill at North Antelope Rochelle Mine. As depicted in Figure 3-22, all 28 wells were included in the mine’s current (2008) groundwater monitoring network. The groundwater level hydrographs recorded by these wells over the period of record indicate that the level of saturation in the backfill is largely dependant upon the well’s location with respect to the thickness of backfill, the physical characteristics of the backfill materials, and the source of groundwater recharge. For example, those monitoring wells completed in reclaimed alluvial materials emplaced beneath the reclaimed Porcupine Creek stream channel recorded relatively rapid resaturation followed by seasonal water level fluctuations similar to the stream’s undisturbed alluvial aquifer. Most of the other wells completed in the mine’s backfill have recorded either steadily increasing or relatively constant water levels, while some have shown that the backfill remains essentially dry in some areas (PRC 2007). The hydraulic properties of the backfill aquifer at the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts would be expected to be similar to the hydraulic properties measured in existing wells completed in the backfill at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. The backfill aquifer has been tested at four wells, and the average hydraulic conductivity of 36 ft/day exceeds the median hydraulic conductivity (1.8 ft/day) reported by WDEQ/LQD (Ogle and Calle 2006) for the Wyodak-Anderson coal aquifer in the vicinity of the general Wright analysis area. This data therefore provide an indication that the backfill will readily resaturate as postmining potentiometric elevations recover in the surrounding undisturbed aquifers (including the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts). The exact configuration and hydraulic gradient of the postmining potentiometric surface may vary from premine conditions; however, postmining equilibrium groundwater movement should exhibit a hydraulic gradient similar to that which existed prior to mining (PRC 2004). TDS concentrations observed in the North Antelope Rochelle Mine backfill to date are similar to those found in the undisturbed alluvial and Wasatch Formation overburden aquifers, but greater than those found in the Wyodak coal aquifer. TDS concentrations in the most recent samples collected from 14 of the mine’s backfill monitoring wells that were reported in the GAGMO 25 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-115

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences year report (Hydro-Engineering 2007) ranged from 817 mg/L to 12,819 mg/L, with a geometric mean of 3,173 mg/L and an average of 4,455 mg/L. In general, the mine’s backfill groundwater quality can be expected to be similar to the premining overburden aquifer and meet Wyoming Class III standards; however, there could be localized areas in the backfill that yield groundwater that does not meet Wyoming Class III standards, particularly where the poorer quality alluvial materials happen to be concentrated. Groundwater quality within the backfill at the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts would be expected to be similar to groundwater quality measured in existing wells completed in the North Antelope Rochelle Mine backfill. 3.5.1.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and the associated impacts to groundwater resources would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Coal removal and associated impacts to groundwater resources related to existing approved mining (as well as CBNG development, as described above) would continue as currently permitted within the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit areas. Impacts to groundwater resources related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the currently approved mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.5.1.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring In order to obtain a surface coal mining permit, the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and state law require surface coal mine operators to evaluate regional and site-specific baseline hydrogeologic environments within and around their mines. Prior to the cumulative drawdown effects of CBNG development and mining on the Wyodak/Wyodak-Anderson coal seam aquifer, WDEQ required each mine to use a numerical groundwater flow model (i.e., MODFLOW) to predict the extent of water level drawdown that would occur as a result of mining its existing leases. Current mine permit requirements require that future drawdown impacts due to mining alone be addressed, although less rigorous methods such as historical groundwater level trend analyses and simple analytical models (i.e., line-sink analysis) can and are being used rather than complex numerical groundwater flow models. Results of these studies are included in the WDEQ/LQD mine permits for the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines (TBCC 2005, JRM 2004, and PRC 2004). These studies would be revised accordingly 3-116 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences and included in the mine permit amendment that would be required for each respective LBA tract that is leased. Permit revisions must be approved before mining could occur on each tract that is leased, regardless of who acquires the tract. As discussed in Section 3.5.3.3, SMCRA and Wyoming regulations require mine operators to provide the owner of a water right whose water source is interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by mining with water of equivalent quantity and quality. The surface coal mines are also required to monitor water levels and water quality in the overburden, coal, interburden, underburden, and backfill. Operational groundwater monitoring programs are dynamic and modified through time as wells are removed by mining, discontinued from monitoring to eliminate redundancy, or added to replace those removed by mining and to facilitate monitoring of future mine expansion areas as mining has progressed. Through the years, some of the monitoring wells have become gaseous and were removed from the monitoring plan for safety reasons. Additional wells have also been installed in the reclaimed backfill to monitor recovering, postmine groundwater conditions. Many groundwater monitoring wells installed by Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines within and around their current permit areas have been used to evaluate groundwater conditions in the general Wright analysis area since the early 1970s and continue to be monitored to reveal a long-term record of groundwater conditions. Wells for which monitoring has been discontinued are still in place and may be reincorporated into the monitoring network in the future. The data gathered from the actively monitored wells are included in the annual reports prepared by the mines and submitted to the WDEQ/LQD. The locations of the current groundwater monitoring networks at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines are depicted in Figures 3-20, 3-21, and 3-22, respectively. SMCRA and state regulations require surface coal mines to maintain the essential hydrologic functions of the streams and their alluvial groundwater systems that are disturbed by mining. In order to meet this requirement, the mines are typically required to salvage and stockpile the stream laid alluvial materials during mining and replace them upon final reclamation. 3.5.2 Surface Water 3.5.2.1 Affected Environment The Cheyenne River and its tributaries drain the general Wright analysis area. For the purpose of this analysis, the general Wright analysis area encompasses the three applicant mines, the BLM study areas for the six LBA tracts that are proposed for leasing, and the adjacent lands that would be disturbed by mining the BLM study areas. From north to south, the general Wright analysis area is drained by Black Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, Little Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-117

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Thunder Creek, Porcupine Creek, Horse Creek, and Antelope Creek (Figure 3 26). North Prong Little Thunder Creek is a tributary of Little Thunder Creek, which is a tributary of Black Thunder Creek. Porcupine Creek and Horse Creek are tributaries of the Antelope Creek. Black Thunder Creek and Antelope Creek are both major tributaries of the Cheyenne River. The general Wright analysis area lies within the southeastern part of the Powder River Structural Basin and within the Cheyenne River drainage basin (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 101201). The North Hilight Field general analysis area and the existing Black Thunder Mine permit area are located in the Little Thunder Creek watershed. Typical of this semi-arid area, Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries are all ephemeral streams. The Black Thunder Mine disturbs Little Thunder Creek and several of its tributaries, including North Prong Little Thunder Creek, and is currently permitted to disturb approximately 4 percent of the Little Thunder Creek watershed. The mine’s existing permit area is located entirely within the Little Thunder Creek drainage. The northeastern portion of the BLM study area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract (the tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2) is drained by Keeline Draw, a northerlyflowing ephemeral tributary of Black Thunder Creek. Mills Draw, a southerlyflowing ephemeral tributary of North Prong Little Thunder Creek, drains a small portion of the North Hilight Field general analysis area. Approximately 3,031 acres (or about 43 percent) of the 7,139-acre BLM study area for the North Hilight Field tract drain toward playas that are formed by natural topographic depressions; the largest of which are the Hansen Lakes; and Springen Draw, an internally drained closed basin, drains the entire western portion of the tract’s general analysis area. Figure 3-27 depicts the surface water features within and adjacent to the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. The South Hilight Field general analysis area and the existing Black Thunder Mine permit area are located in the Little Thunder Creek watershed. Little Thunder Creek flows easterly through and drains the northern portion of the BLM study area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract (the tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2). Approximately 1,364 acres (or about 47 percent) of the 2,922-acre BLM study area for the South Hilight Field tract drain toward playas that are formed by natural topographic depressions. The southwestern corner of the tract’s general analysis area is drained by Briggs Draw, an ephemeral tributary of Little Thunder Creek. Figure 3-28 depicts the surface water features within and adjacent to the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. The West Hilight Field general analysis area and the existing Black Thunder Mine permit area are located in the Little Thunder Creek watershed. Ephemeral tributaries of Dry Fork Little Thunder Creek (e.g., Brater Draw) drain a small northern portion of the BLM study area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract (the tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2). Approximately 1,708 acres (or about 24 percent) of the 9,189 3-118 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

T. 46 N.
R iv
59

R. 73 W. R. 72 W.
er

R. 71 W. T. 46 N.

R. 70 W.

R. 69 W.

R. 68 W.

R. 67 W.

R. 66 W.

R. 65 W.

R. 64 W.

lle Be

Campbell County Weston County

F
Cre

e r ch ou

T. 45 N.
116

NORTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT

Ha y

WEST JACOBS RANCH LBA TRACT
ac Bl k
Th un de r

T. 45 N.

T. 44 N.
Cre ek
th Nor

T. 44 N.

g on Pr
Lit tle

Jacobs
Ranch
Mine

T hu nde r
Cre ek

Little

WRIGHT

387

Th un de r

Creek

450

dg ep

T. 43 N.
Black Thunder Mine
Little
Thunder

T. 43 N.
ole

Creek

Bl ac k

S ch ool

Po r cu pin e
Cr e ek

Th un

Cre

de r

Conv erse County

Niobrara County

Figure 3-26. Surface Drainage in the General Wright Analysis Area.
SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT
Cre ek

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications
T. 42 N.
k ee Cr

g rin Sp

T. WEST 42 N. HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT
k Cree
H or se
C re ek

T. 41 N. Campbell County
An t el op e

NORTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT

North Antelope Rochelle Mine
Weston County Niobrara County

en ne

T. 41 N.
nne Cheye
R iver

Converse County

Riv er

Antelope

Creek

T. 40 N. SOUTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT

T. 40 N.
R iv er

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

T. 39 N. R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

e nn ye he C

SCALE: 1"=7 MILES

T. 39 N. R. 69 W. R. 68 W. R. 67 W. R. 66 W. R. 65 W. R. 64 W.

3-119

R. 73 W.

R. 72 W.

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
BNSF & UP RR
Road
20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
24 19

Breen Road

Lawver Road
30

Hilight

Bl a

Cot

Creek

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

33 32 33 34 35 36 31 32

Keeline Road

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

hu ck T er nd

tonw ood

k ee Cr

Fo rk

k ee Cr

Kee line

aw Dr
16 15 14

Sch
N orth

Sp r

ac k

en ing

Jacobs Road

ool

Th u nde r
21 22 23 24

Se ct ion
22

Creek
19

w Dra

Pro
Li ng e ttl

ills

Draw
r de un Th

Hansen Lakes
Draw
27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

T. 32 44 N. Dry Fork Little T. 43 N.

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

k Cre e

un de r

Cr e

Draw

State Highway 450
M
8

Stuart Reservoir
Dra w

g in rn

DIVERSION CHANNELS

C l oa

an or 9 Brater Dra w

ley

Sh ip

Draw

rth No

Rochelle Lake
17 16 15 14

L ittle

Thu nde r

LT-6
22

NP-1
18

L ittle
17

Thu nde r

g on Pr

Cre

NP-5
ek
15 14 13 18

Cree k

Little Thunder Reservoir

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
Li t tle

aw Dr

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative NP-1 Stream Channel (Pre-Mining) Pond or Reservoir Playa Existing Mine Flood Control Structure TBCC Surface Water Monitoring Site

5000

10000

20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-27. Surface Water Features Within and Adjacent to the North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

3-120

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
es t

Kee line

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
14 13 18 17

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
14 13 18 17 16 15

Sch

Sp r

en ing

Jacobs Road

e ct ool S

N orth

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

Draw

re ek
18 17

DIVERSION CHANNEL Rochelle Lake
15 14

rth

Sh ip

Th un de 12 r

ley

Dra w

Butte

Road

T. 43 Cr ip pl N. e
Cre ek

Bla

Dr aw

re y

T. 42 N.

Olso n

Hilight

Matheson Road

BNSF & UP RR

up in e

Antel ope R oad

Figure 3-28. Surface Water Features Within and Adjacent to the South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

State Highway 59
14

w Dra

ion

ills

g on Pr

Draw
e ttl

Hansen
Lakes

Draw
27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

re ek r C de un Th

Dry Fork Little

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.
aw Dr

un de r

Cr e

ing rn Bu

State Highway 450
Lit
14

Stuart Reservoir

DIVERSION CHANNELS

Co al
10

Nic
23

tle
0

an or 9 Brater Dra w

NP-1
18

L ittle

Thu nde r
17

g on Pr

Cre
16

NP-5
ek
15 14

w Dra

LT-6
19 20 22

son ho l
24 21

aw Dr
28

Little
Thunder
Reservoir

Br igg
34 27

FLOOD CONTROL RESERVOIRS
Little
19 20 21

Th un de r

Cre
26 25 30 29

27 28 26

Edwards Road

ra w sD
3

PRONGHORN LAKE (POSTMINE PERMANENT IMPOUNDMENT)
35 36 31 32 33 34

T. 4335 N. T. 422 N.

Trussler

Draw
2 1 6 5

C re e k

Reno Road

Cre

Reno Road

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2,
BLM's Preferred Alternative
NP-1 Stream Channel (Pre-Mining) Pond or Reservoir Playa Existing Mine Flood Control Structure TBCC Surface Water Monitoring Site

5000

10000

20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

3-121

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences acre BLM study area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract drain to playas that are formed by natural topographic depressions, the largest of which is called Rochelle Lake. Most of the internally-drained areas located within the West Hilight Field general analysis area occur north of Little Thunder Creek. Little Thunder Creek flows easterly through the central portion of the West Hilight Field general analysis area, and its ephemeral tributaries, Briggs Draw and Black Butte Draw, drain the southern portion of the general analysis area. Figure 3-29 depicts the surface water features within and adjacent to the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. The existing Jacobs Ranch Mine permit area and the West Jacobs Ranch general analysis area are located in the North Prong Little Thunder Creek watershed. North Prong Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries, Dry Fork Little Thunder Creek and School Section Draw, drain the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. North Prong Little Thunder Creek flows from the northwest to the southeast across the LBA tract. All of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is outside of the mine’s existing permit area. Springen Draw, an ephemeral tributary to an internally-drained playa, drains a small area in the northeastern corner of the West Jacobs Ranch general analysis area. Figure 3-30 depicts the surface water features within and adjacent to the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. The North Porcupine general analysis area and the majority of the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s permit area are located in the Porcupine Creek watershed. Porcupine Creek is an ephemeral stream in its upper reaches and an intermittent stream in its lower reaches. Porcupine Creek is a major tributary to Antelope Creek, which is an intermittent stream that, prior to mining, received a small degree of baseflow from subcropping coal seams. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine disturbs Porcupine Creek and several of its tributaries. Only the extreme southern and southwestern portions of the mine’s permit area drain directly to Antelope Creek and Horse Creek. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine is currently permitted to disturb approximately 25 percent of the Porcupine Creek watershed. The entire BLM study area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract (the tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2) is within the mine’s existing permit area. Approximately 6,221 acres, or about 84 percent of the 7,367-acre BLM study area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract, drain to Porcupine Creek. A short reach of Porcupine Creek, which is a meandering ephemeral stream in this area, flows southeastward across the western portion of the North Porcupine LBA Tract. Several ephemeral tributaries of Porcupine Creek (e.g., Corder Creek, Boss Draw, Rat Draw, Gray Creek, and Chipmunk Draw) also cross the North Porcupine general analysis area. The northeastern portion of the North Porcupine general analysis area is drained by Trussler and School creeks, ephemeral tributaries of Little Thunder Creek. There are also some areas in the eastern portion of the general analysis area that do not contribute runoff to any stream and playas have formed in the lowest portions of these non contributing drainage areas. Figure 3-31 depicts the surface water features within and adjacent to the North Porcupine LBA Tract. 3-122 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
14 13 18 17

es t

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
14 13 18 17 16 15

Sch

Sp r

en ing

Jacobs Road

ool

Se ct

N orth

T. 35 44 N. T. 43 2 N.
Li t tle
11

Draw

re ek
18 17

Sh ip

Th un de 12 r

ley

Dra w

Butte

re y

Road

35 43

Cr ip pl e

Dr aw

Bla

T. 42 2 N.

Olso n

Hilight

Matheson Road

BNSF & UP RR

up in e

Antel ope R oad

Figure 3-29. Surface Water Features Within and Adjacent to the West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

State Highway 59
26 14

w Dra

ion

ills

g on Pr

Draw

Hansen
Lakes

Draw
27 26 25 30 29 28 27 2

Li e ttl

Thu

r nde

Cre

Dry Fork

Little

un de r

T. 44 3 N. T. 43 2 N.
aw Dr

Cr e

ing rn Bu

State Highway 450

Stuart Reservoir

DIVERSION CHANNELS

Co al
10

an or 9 Brater Dra w

rth No

Rochelle Lake
16 15 14 13

NP-1
18

L ittle

Thu nde r
17

ng Pro

Cre
16

NP-5
ek
15 14

w Dra

L ittle

Nic

son ho l
24 19 20

Thu nde r

Creek
22

LT-6
FLOOD CONTROL RESERVOIRS
23 24 22 23

aw Dr
28

Little
Thunder
Reservoir

Br igg
34 27

Little

Th un de r

Cre
26 25 30 29

27 28 26

ra w sD

PRONGHORN LAKE (POSTMINE PERMANENT IMPOUNDMENT)
35 36 31 32 33 34

T. 35 43 N. T. 2 42 N.

Trussler

Draw
2 1 6 5

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

Cre ek
0

C re e

Edwards Road

Reno Road

Cre

Reno Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 3
5000 10000 20000

Stream Channel (Pre-Mining) Pond or Reservoir Playa Existing Mine Flood Control Structure NP-1 TBCC Surface Water Monitoring Site

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

3-123

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
T. 45 34 N. T. 44 3 N. We st F o H
ay C
10

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

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
36 31 32 33

Keeline Road

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Hilight Road

BNSF & UP RR

Cre

rk ree k

Coa l Creek

H ay

Fo rk

7 8

Kee line
Jacobs Road
Sp r
15 14 13 18 17

aw Dr
16

es t

Sch

en ing

ool

Se ct

N orth

w Dra

ion

Hay Creek

ills

g on Pr

State Highway 59

Draw

Li e ttl

Hansen
Lakes

29 28

r nde T hu

Draw

27 26

k Cre e

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

35 34

Dry Fo rk Little

un de rC re

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

re ek
18

Sh ip

Th un de r

State Highway 450 M an 8 or 9Brater Dra w

Dra w

ley

Draw

Stuart Reservoir

Li t

DIVERSION CHANNELS

tle
14 13 17 16

rth No

Rochelle Lake
15 14 13

L ittle

Thu nde r
17

Pro

Cre
16

w Dra

L ittle

Nic
22 23

son ho l
24 19 20

Thu nde r

Cre ek
Br igg
aw Dr

Little
Thunder
Reservoir

BNSF & UP RR
Hilight Road

Little

Th un de r

Butte

Cree
29

ra w sD

r Creek Trussle

Bla

UP RR

re y

Dr aw

LEGEND
Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Boundary West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
0 5000 10000 20000

oad

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Stream Channel (Pre-Mining) Pond or Reservoir Playa Existing Mine Flood Control Structure

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-30. Surface Water Features Within and Adjacent to the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternatives.

3-124

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
T. 43 N. T. 42
N.
Matheson Road
Hilight Road
32

Draw

Edwards

Road

Reno Road

Olso n

Antelope Road

10
11

Cr ee k

cu p ine

Cr ee k

Ho lmes

Po r

raw t D Ra
23

FLOOD CONTROL 16
RESERVOIRS

Reno Road

C re ek
7 18
18

Bla

ck tte Bu
29

Cr ee k

Draw

aw Dr

Co rd er C re ek

Matheson Road

GS-1

Draw
2
1
6
5

T. 41
N.

Pa yn e

Draw

T. 42
N.

Ch
32

m ip
33

k un

s os

Mackey Road

Ro ad
19
30
31 6 7 19
30

BNSF & UP RR

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R.70W.R.69W. T. 31 36
43 N. T. 42 l 6 oo 1
N. S ch

r sle

Mo e us
Dra w
34

k ee Cr

ol ho Sc

G ray
Creek

k ee Cr

Mackey Road

T. 42
N. T. 41
N.

Mike's

Po r ine cup
8

7656

9
10 11
12

H or s e

Roger's

Draw

Re d

Dra w

ta il
Draw
15

Cr ee k

ek re C

Ed-1

E agle Draw

RS-1

24 19
20
21

GS-5
RS-5

22
23
24

GS-7

Ch yr

Ho
C rse

Draw

Campbell County
28

ine up

ad Ro

Converse County

re ek

re ek
36
31

An te lo pe

Antelope

ee Cr

Cre ek pe lo te 35
An

North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-31. Surface Water Features Within and Adjacent to the North and South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
Stream Channel (Pre-Mining) Pond or Reservoir Playa Existing Mine Flood Control Structure RS-1
NARM Surface Water Monitoring Site

3-125

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Surface water drainage in the South Porcupine LBA Tract is divided, in that the northern and eastern portions of the tract drain north and east to Porcupine Creek via several ephemeral tributaries, the southern portion of the tract drains south to Antelope Creek via several ephemeral tributaries, and the western portion of the tract drains west to Horse Creek via several ephemeral tributaries. With the exception of about 60 acres, the entire BLM study area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract (the tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2) is within the existing mine permit area. Figure 3-31 depicts the surface water features within and adjacent to the South Porcupine LBA Tract. As mentioned above, streams in the general Wright analysis area are ephemeral, receiving flow contributions primarily from convective thunderstorm runoff and, to a lesser extent, from snowmelt runoff in the spring (Ogle and Calle 2006). Black Thunder Creek and Antelope Creek demonstrate characteristics of both ephemeral and intermittent streams. Streamflow monitoring stations have been operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the applicant mines on streams in the general Wright analysis area since the mid-1970s. Figures 3-27 through 3-31 show the locations of the three applicant mines’ current surface water monitoring stations. Currently, and for some indefinite time into the future, CBNG discharge water is adding flow to surface drainages in the Cheyenne River watershed. Streamflow is still very much a function of the amount and timing of precipitation and snowmelt runoff; however, since 1999, the PRB of northeastern Wyoming has experienced extreme drought conditions. Therefore, the mean annual streamflow rate and annual discharge volume has not significantly increased in these streams as a result of the discharge of CBNG-produced waters into surface drainages west of and generally upstream of the applicant mines, although extended periods of no flow are less common (Clark and Mason 2007). Water quality in each of these streams is highly dependent on flow. Dissolved solids concentrations and specific conductance generally have an inverse relationship with streamflow; thus, the highest concentrations occur during low flows and lowest concentrations occur during high flows. Total suspended solids (TSS) show a direct relationship with streamflow; TSS concentrations are typically high during high flow and low during low flows. Due to the sparse vegetative cover and the infrequent occurrence of surface water runoff in this semi-arid environment, high TSS concentrations can be expected, especially from floods caused by thunderstorms. Surface water monitoring programs required by WDEQ/LQD are included in the three applicant mines’ WDEQ/LQD permits and annual reports, which ensures that streamflows are measured and water quality samples are collected on a regular basis from Little Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, Porcupine Creek, and Antelope Creek at sites located upstream and downstream of the respective mine operation. As a result, comprehensive flow and water quality records are submitted to the WDEQ/LQD in the mines’ 3-126 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences existing permits and annual reports that are on file and available for public review at WDEQ’s offices in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. A study by the USGS within an area of CBNG development in the PRB was conducted from 2000 to 2005 to characterize the water quality of streams and assess change through time. That study concluded that annual runoff in all major drainage basins was less than average during 2001-2005 due to drought conditions, and that water-quality characteristics were highly variable generally because of streamflow variability, geologic controls, and potential land-use effects. No significant trends in water quality were determined for sites in the Cheyenne River drainage basin; however, drought conditions during the study period may not represent long-term water quality conditions for all sites studied (Clark and Mason 2007). In the Surface Water Classification List, the WDEQ/WQD has classified Little Thunder Creek upstream of its confluence with the North Prong Little Thunder Creek as Class 3B water (WDEQ/WQD 2009). The North Prong Little Thunder Creek is also listed as a Class 3B stream that is not known to support fish populations or drinking water supplies and where those uses are not attainable. As defined by WDEQ/WQD, Class 3B waters are intermittent or ephemeral streams with sufficient water present to normally support other aquatic life (i.e., invertebrates and amphibians) at some life stage and are protected for other aquatic life, recreation, wildlife, agriculture, and other uses. Downstream of the North Prong Little Thunder Creek confluence, Little Thunder Creek is listed as a 2ABww stream that is protected for drinking water, aquatic life (a “ww” notation indicates a warm water fishery), recreation, wildlife, agriculture, industry and scenic value. Class 2AB waters are those known to support game fish populations at least seasonally and unless shown otherwise, are presumed to have sufficient water quantity and quality to support drinking water supplies and are protected for that use. The WDEQ/WQD has classified Antelope Creek, Porcupine Creek, and Horse Creek as Class 3B waters. The Cheyenne River is listed in the WDEQ/WQD Surface Water Classification List as a Class 2ABww stream. All other ephemeral streams draining the general Wright analysis area are listed as Class 4 streams (where it has been determined that aquatic life uses are not attainable) (WDEQ/WQD 2009). Springs are uncommon and none have been identified within the general analysis areas of these six LBA tracts. A number of small in-channel reservoirs used for livestock water are located in the six LBA tracts’ general analysis areas. Most of these stock ponds are many decades old and have not been permitted with the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO). The SEO records have been searched for surface water rights within a three-mile radius of the six LBA tracts and listed in Section 3.5.3 and the supplementary information document for this EIS. Little Thunder Reservoir, a large in-channel reservoir on Little Thunder Creek that is located Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-127

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences within the BLM study area for the West Hilight Field tract, was constructed by the USFS for recreational uses (i.e., fishing) prior to development of the PRB surface coal mines. Little Thunder Reservoir is located within the Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) and currently accessible for public recreation uses. 3.5.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.5.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Changes in surface runoff characteristics and sediment discharges would occur during mining of each of the LBA tracts as a result of the destruction and reconstruction of drainage channels and the use of sediment control structures to manage discharges of surface water from the mine permit areas. Since the LBA tracts would be mined as extensions of the existing mines under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3, there would not be a large increase in the size of the area that is disturbed and not reclaimed at any given time as a result of leasing these tracts. Impacts would be similar for both the Proposed Actions and Alternatives 2 and 3 to the expected impacts for the currently permitted mining operations. Reclamation would be ongoing and concurrent with mining. Erosion rates could be high on the disturbed areas due to lack of vegetation. However, both state and federal regulations require treatment of surface runoff from mined lands to meet Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES) and/or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) effluent standards before it is released downstream. Generally, the surface runoff sediment is deposited in ponds or alternative sediment control measures (ASCMs) constructed inside the mine’s permit area before the surface runoff water is allowed to leave the permit area. While mining is in progress, surface water quality would continue to be protected by directing surface runoff from affected areas to various sediment control structures, including sediment ponds, traps, ditches, sumps, and/or mine pits. Surface runoff water from the mine permit area would be detained until testing has shown that effluent limitations would be met for water to be discharged. Discharge limitations are contained in the mine’s discharge permit. Under normal conditions, exceedances of effluent limitations are not expected in the future as mining extends into new drainages and additional sediment control facilities are added. The presence of disturbed areas creates a potential that sediment produced by large storms (i.e., greater than the 10-year, 24-hour storm) could potentially adversely impact areas downstream of the mining operations. This potential for adverse downstream impacts would be extended if the LBA tracts were leased and mined. The temporary diversion and impoundment of runoff water for sediment control may reduce stream flow volumes and peak flows downstream of the mined lands. Impounded water may be used on the mine site for dust control or lost due to infiltration and evaporation and therefore may not be release 3-128 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences downstream. However, in order to maintain adequate available storage volume in sedimentation ponds, the impounded water is discharged when it meets effluent limitations that are contained in the mine’s discharge permit. The WDEQ/LQD encourages the use of ASCMs to trap sediment and allow runoff to continue downstream (Ogle and Calle 2006). Immediately following reclamation, the loss of soil structure would act to increase runoff rates on the LBA tracts. However, the general decrease in average slope in reclaimed areas, as discussed in Section 3.2.2, and drainage densities common in reclamation would tend to outweigh the potential for an increase in runoff due to a loss of soil structure. Soil structure would gradually recover over time, and vegetation (after successful reclamation) would provide erosion protection from raindrop impact, retard surface flows, and control runoff at approximately premining levels. All surface drainage from reclaimed areas would be controlled using best management practices (BMPs), such as contour furrows, ponds or small depressions for sediment traps, and vegetation buffers, until the area is sufficiently stable that drainage control is no longer required. Sedimentation rates are expected to be similar to premining conditions. Surface water monitoring would continue to be conducted to evaluate and identify anomalous variations in surface water quantity and quality and ensure that runoff leaving the site meets specific water quality criteria. Once mining is completed the pits would be backfilled and drainage would be reestablished. Surface water drainages would be designed and reconstructed to approximate the premining drainage basin and channel characteristics. The reclaimed drainageways would be constructed to approximate the premine condition and blend with the existing drainage system above and below the area disturbed by the mining operation, providing a complete drainage system with hydrologic functions similar to premining conditions. After mining and reclamation are complete, surface water flow and quality would approximate premining conditions. The impacts described above would be similar to the expected impacts for currently permitted mining operations. The impacts described above would be similar for both the Proposed Actions and BLM’s preferred tract configurations under Alternative 2, and they are similar to the expected impacts for the currently permitted mining operations. Direct and indirect impacts to the surface water system resulting from mining the six LBA tracts would add to the cumulative impacts that would occur due to mining existing leases. These cumulative impacts are discussed in Chapter 4 of this EIS. Following is a description of surface water impacts from the leasing and subsequent mining of each of the LBA tracts under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative. 3.5.2.2.1.1 North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts Due to the North Hilight Field tract’s location at the headwater areas of two ephemeral tributaries to Black Thunder Creek and North Prong Little Thunder Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-129

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Creek (Keeline Draw and Mills Draw, respectively), and due to the fact that the balance of the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract drains to playas with no nexus (continuous surface connection) to tributaries of either Black Thunder Creek or North Prong Little Thunder Creek, runoff within the tract would not be expected to be significant. During mining, hydrologic control would most likely consist of allowing runoff to accrue to the open mine pits where it would be evacuated by pumping to sedimentation ponds, then used for dust abatement or treated and discharged outside the mine’s permit area if the water meets effluent limitations. A need for large flood control reservoirs is not anticipated for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. There may periodically be substantial streamflow in Little Thunder Creek within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Little Thunder Creek has been diverted around active pits within the existing Black Thunder Mine permit area. A large flood control reservoir is located on Little Thunder Creek upstream of the current mining activities, and overflow from the reservoir is then diverted north around the open pits to a blocking dike that diverts water into the diversion system constructed on North Prong Little Thunder Creek (Figure 3-28). Diverted flows from Little Thunder Creek, being native water and not treated, are routed through the diversion system and discharged outside and downstream of the mine’s permit area. During mining of the South Hilight Field tract, hydrologic control would most likely consist of building another flood control reservoir and diversion channel for the main stream around the open pit areas. These structures would be located west of the tract to provide adequate flood protection of the downstream mining activities. In addition to diverting Little Thunder Creek flows, hydrologic control during mining would most likely consist of allowing surface runoff to accrue to the mine pits where it would be evacuated by pumping to sedimentation ponds, then used for dust abatement or treated and discharged outside the mine’s permit area if the water meets effluent limitations. Nearly half of the BLM study area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract is internally drained and runoff has no nexus (or continuous surface connection) to Little Thunder Creek; therefore, it would not be necessary for additional flood control structures to be constructed. The West Hilight Field LBA Tract is located near the headwaters of Little Thunder Creek, and because much of the general analysis area for West Hilight Field tract is drained by Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries (e.g., Briggs Draw), which are all ephemeral streams, runoff within the tract would not be expected to be substantial. As discussed above, most of the surface of the LBA tract north of Little Thunder Creek is internally drained and runoff has no nexus to Little Thunder Creek. Playas, such as Rochelle Lake, occur in the lowest portions of these non-contributing drainages. Therefore, a need for large flood control reservoirs during mining is not anticipated for the LBA tract. Hydrologic control during mining would most likely consist of allowing runoff to accrue to the mine pits where it would evacuated by pumping to sedimentation ponds and then used for dust control or treated and discharged outside the mine’s permit area if the water meets effluent limitations. 3-130 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.5.2.2.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract North Prong Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries, Dry Fork Little Thunder Creek and School Section Draw, drain essentially all of the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. The balance of the general analysis area is drained by non-contributing, internal drainage basins containing playas (Figure 3-30). The West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is located near the headwaters of these ephemeral streams; therefore, runoff within the tract would not be expected to be substantial and a need for large flood control reservoirs is not anticipated for the LBA tract. Hydrologic control during mining would most likely consist of containing flows from these ephemeral streams in small flood control reservoirs, routing flows in small channel diversions around active pits, or allowing runoff to accrue to the mine pits where it would evacuated by pumping to sedimentation ponds and then used for dust control or treated and discharged outside the mine’s permit area if the water meets effluent limitations. The exact plan for hydrologic control would depend on the mining sequence. 3.5.2.2.1.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts There may periodically be substantial streamflow in Porcupine Creek in the vicinity of the North Porcupine LBA Tract. Flood control reservoirs are presently located on Porcupine Creek and its larger tributaries, Boss Draw and Corder Creek, upstream of the current mining activities (Figure 3-31). Overflow from these reservoirs is allowed to accrue to the open mine pits where it is evacuated by pumping to sedimentation ponds and then used for dust abatement or discharged outside the mine’s permit area if the water meets effluent limitations. During mining of the North Porcupine LBA Tract, hydrologic control would most likely consist of building another flood control reservoir on Porcupine Creek. The remainder of the general analysis area is located near the headwaters of ephemeral tributaries to Porcupine Creek and is also drained by non-contributing, internal drainage basins; therefore, runoff within the tract would not be expected to be substantial. Hydrologic control during mining would most likely consist of containing flows from these ephemeral tributary streams in small flood control reservoirs, routing flows in small channel diversions around active pits, and/or allowing runoff to accrue to the mine pits where it would be evacuated by pumping to sedimentation ponds and then used for dust control or treated and discharged outside the mine’s permit area if the water meets effluent limitations. The exact plan for hydrologic control would depend on the mining sequence. As discussed above, the entire South Porcupine LBA Tract is drained by ephemeral tributaries of Porcupine Creek, Horse Creek, and Antelope Creek (Figure 3-31). Due to its location at the headwaters of these drainages, runoff would not be expected to be significant. During mining, hydrologic control would most likely consist of allowing runoff to accrue to the mine pits where it would be evacuated by pumping to sedimentation ponds and then used for Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-131

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences dust control or treated and discharged outside the mine’s permit area if the water meets effluent limitations. 3.5.2.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternatives, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and the associated impacts to surface water resources would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Coal removal and the associated impacts to surface water resources related to currently approved mining (and CBNG development, described above) would continue as currently permitted within the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit areas. Impacts to surface water resources related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.5.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring In accordance with SMCRA and Wyoming State Statutes, major stream channels that are disturbed by surface coal mining operations on these six LBA tracts would be restored. Surface water flow, quality, and sediment discharge would approximate premining conditions. The drainages that are disturbed when the coal is recovered would be reclaimed to exhibit channel geometry characteristics similar to the premining characteristics. The major channels would be restored in approximately the same location as the natural channel and hydrologic functions would be restored. (See additional discussion in Section 3.5.1.3.) Other WDEQ/LQD permit requirements for the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines include constructing sediment control structures to manage discharges of surface water from the current mine permit areas; treatment of all surface runoff from mined lands as necessary to meet effluent standards; and restoration of stock ponds, playas, and in-channel impoundments disturbed during mining. These requirements would be extended to include the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts during the permitting process, if the tracts are leased. Monitoring requirements for each of the existing applicant mines include a program to assure that sediment ponds always have adequate space reserved for sediment accumulation and for collection of streamflow and water quality 3-132 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences data from North Prong Little Thunder Creek, Little Thunder Creek, and Porcupine Creek (Figures 3-27 through 3-31). These requirements would be extended accordingly and included in the mine permit amendment that would be required for each respective LBA tract that is leased. Mine permit revisions must be approved before mining could occur on each tract that is leased, regardless of who acquires the tract. 3.5.3 Water Rights 3.5.3.1 Affected Environment The Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO) administers water rights in Wyoming. Water rights are granted for both groundwater and surface water. Prior to development of water resources associated with energy development, water appropriations (either groundwater or surface water) in the PRB were typically for livestock use. Currently, mining companies and CBNG development companies hold the majority of the water rights in the general Wright analysis area. Records of the SEO were searched for groundwater rights within a 3-mile radius of the BLM study area for each of these six LBA tracts. This information is required by the WDEQ/LQD for surface coal mine permitting. Summaries of the most recent search for each tract are provided below. A more detailed listing of the non-coal mine related groundwater rights within a 3-mile radius of each LBA tract is presented in the supplementary information document for this EIS, which is available on request. For the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, SEO data indicate that, as of October 9, 2007, there were 609 permitted water wells within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the tract, of which, 191 wells are owned by coal mining companies. The other 418 non-coal mine related, permitted water wells, which include 314 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG development, are permitted for the following uses:
     

314 CBNG 61 livestock 16 domestic 14 monitoring 5 industrial 8 miscellaneous

For the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, SEO data indicate that, as of October 8, 2007, there were 694 permitted water wells within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the tract, of which, 211 wells are owned by coal mining companies. The other 483 non-coal mine related, permitted water wells, which include 425 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG development, are permitted for the following uses: Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-133

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
   

425 CBNG 39 livestock 2 domestic 17 monitoring

For the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, SEO data indicate that, as of October 8, 2007, there were 1,011 permitted water wells within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the tract, of which, 149 wells are owned by coal mining companies. The other 862 non-coal mine related, permitted water wells, which include 750 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG development, are permitted for the following uses:
     

750 CBNG 69 livestock 20 domestic 19 monitoring 1 miscellaneous 3 municipal

For the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, SEO data indicate that, as of September 30, 2007, there were 1,171 permitted water wells within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the tract, of which, 231 wells are owned by coal mining companies. The remaining 940 non-coal mine related, permitted water wells, which include 645 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG development, are permitted for the following uses:
                     

440 CBNG only 181 livestock and CBNG 117 monitoring only 76 livestock only 34 miscellaneous 17 domestic and livestock 14 domestic only 9 livestock, CBNG, and reservoir supply 8 livestock, CBNG, and miscellaneous 7 miscellaneous and CBNG 7 municipal only 6 industrial only 6 miscellaneous and reservoir supply 6 livestock, miscellaneous, dewatering, and reservoir supply 3 irrigation only 3 miscellaneous and municipal 1 dewatering 1 miscellaneous, industrial and temporary 1 livestock, industrial and miscellaneous 1 livestock, miscellaneous and monitoring 1 industrial and miscellaneous 1 testing Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-134

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences For the North Porcupine LBA Tract, SEO data indicate that, as of August 1, 2008, there were 982 permitted water wells within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the tract, of which, 354 wells are owned by coal mining companies. The other 628 non-coal mine related, permitted water wells, which include 547 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG development, are permitted for the following uses:
               

260 CBNG only 173 livestock and CBNG 84 CBNG and miscellaneous 48 livestock only 23 monitoring only 20 CBNG and reservoir supply 5 domestic and livestock 4 livestock, CBNG, and miscellaneous 3 dewatering and CBNG 2 industrial only 1 CBNG, reservoir supply and livestock 1 domestic only 1 miscellaneous 1 livestock, CBNG, and reservoir supply 1 livestock and miscellaneous 1 livestock, miscellaneous and CBNG

For the South Porcupine LBA Tract, SEO data indicate that, as of August 1, 2008, there were 779 permitted water wells within 3 miles of the tract, of which, 388 wells are owned by coal mining companies. The other 391 non-coal mine related, permitted water wells, which include 324 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG development, are permitted for the following uses:
           

173 CBNG only 70 CBNG and miscellaneous 57 livestock and CBNG 37 livestock only 20 CBNG and reservoir supply 18 monitoring 6 domestic and livestock 3 dewatering and CBNG 3 industrial only 2 miscellaneous 1 livestock and miscellaneous 1 livestock, miscellaneous and CBNG

SEO records have been searched for surface water rights within a 3-mile radius of the BLM study area for each of the six LBA tracts. Like the groundwater rights, this information is also required for WDEQ permitting. The results of the most recent searches are provided below for each tract. A more detailed listing of the non-coal mine related surface water rights is presented in the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-135

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences supplementary information document for this EIS, which is available on request. For the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, SEO records indicate that as of October 10, 2007, there were 104 permitted surface water rights within the search area, of which 46 are owned by coal mining companies. The other 58 non-coal mine related permitted surface water rights are permitted for the following uses:
  

3 livestock 1 irrigation and domestic 54 not designated

For the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, SEO records indicate that as of October 10, 2007, there were 143 permitted surface water rights within the search area, of which 70 are owned by coal mining companies. The other 73 non-coal mine related permitted surface water rights are permitted for the following uses:
  

21 livestock 2 irrigation 50 not designated

For the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, SEO records indicate that as of October 9, 2007, there were 141 permitted surface water rights within the search area, of which 36 are owned by coal mining companies. The other 105 non-coal mine related permitted surface water rights are permitted for the following uses:
  

19 livestock 3 irrigation 83 not designated

For the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, SEO records indicate that as of September 30, 2007, there were 150 permitted surface water rights within the search area, of which 33 are owned by coal mining companies. The remaining 117 surface water rights were permitted for the following uses:
     

73 livestock 3 livestock and irrigation 2 industrial and temporary 1 fish propagation 1 reservoir supply 37 not designated

For the North Porcupine LBA Tract, SEO records indicate that as of August 1, 2008, there were 345 non-coal mine related, permitted surface water rights within the search area. These surface water rights were permitted for the following uses: 3-136 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
            

260 livestock 33 irrigation 3 irrigation and domestic 16 livestock, irrigation and domestic 5 undefined 4 temporary, industrial and miscellaneous 3 fish propagation and recreation 3 recreation, livestock, and fish propagation 2 industrial and pollution control 2 livestock and irrigation 2 wetlands 1 industrial 1 industrial and temporary

For the South Porcupine LBA Tract, SEO records indicate that as of August 1, 2008, there were 223 non-coal mine related, permitted surface water rights within the search area. These surface water rights are permitted for the following uses:
          

157 livestock 37 irrigation 7 undefined 4 industrial and flood control 4 temporary and industrial 4 temporary, industrial and miscellaneous 3 irrigation and livestock 3 livestock and irrigation 2 industrial and pollution control 1 industrial 1 industrial and temporary

3.5.3.2 Environmental Consequences 3.5.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 As discussed above, there have already been significant drawdowns in the Wyodak coal and overlying aquifers (where present) as a result of the past and existing mining activities and CBNG development in the general Wright analysis area. As a result, private water supply wells that are completed in the Wyodak coal seam listed in Section 3.5.3.1 have already been impacted. Continued effects from groundwater withdrawals associated with CBNG development activities will be likely, and future drawdown to the Wyodak coal aquifer resulting from mining the approved coal leases by the three applicant mines is expected to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered in proximity to the mines. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be indirectly impacted by water level drawdown to a greater extent than current conditions; however, Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-137

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences private wells may be physically removed by activities associated with mining the proposed LBA tracts. Only a slight reduction in streamflow downstream of the applicant mines during mining is expected due to the containment of runoff from the disturbed areas by mine pits and other runoff control structures. Downstream surface water rights would be protected by minimizing detention of surface runoff for sediment control in North Prong Little Thunder Creek, Little Thunder Creek and Porcupine Creek. Changes to the overall flow and water quality of these streams and their receiving streams, Black Thunder Creek, Antelope Creek, and Cheyenne River) during mining are expected to be negligible. Any surface water rights listed in Section 3.5.3.1 that are located within the proposed mining disturbance areas would be interrupted until the disturbance area is reclaimed. 3.5.3.2.1.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract In October 2007, Wyoming SEO records indicated that a total of 609 permitted water wells were located within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. As discussed above, 191, or approximately 31 percent of these wells are owned by coal mining companies and are used for groundwater monitoring and water supply. Approximately 75 percent of the remaining 418 non-coal mine related wells are permitted for uses related to CBNG development; 15 percent are permitted for livestock use; 4 percent are permitted for domestic use; 3 percent are permitted for monitoring uses; 1 percent are permitted for industrial uses; and about 2 percent are permitted for miscellaneous uses. As discussed above, some of these privately permitted water wells have been or will likely be impacted (either directly by removal of the well or indirectly by water level drawdown) by approved mining at the Black Thunder and adjacent mines and CBNG development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be impacted by water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if the North Hilight LBA Field Tract is leased and mined. 3.5.3.2.1.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract In October 2007, Wyoming SEO records indicated that a total of 694 permitted water wells were located within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. As discussed above, 211, or approximately 30 percent of these wells are owned by coal mining companies and are used for groundwater monitoring and water supply. Approximately 88 percent of the remaining 483 non-coal mine related wells are permitted for uses related to CBNG development; 8 percent are permitted for livestock use; 0.5 percent are permitted for domestic use; and 3.5 percent are permitted for monitoring uses. 3-138 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences As discussed above, some of these privately permitted water wells have been or will likely be impacted (either directly by removal of the well or indirectly by water level drawdown) by approved mining at the Black Thunder and adjacent mines and CBNG development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be impacted by water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if the South Hilight Field LBA Tract is leased and mined. 3.5.3.2.1.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract In October 2007, Wyoming SEO records indicated that a total of 1,011 permitted water wells were located within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. As discussed above, 149, or approximately 15 percent of these wells are owned by coal mining companies and are used for groundwater monitoring and water supply. Approximately 87 percent of the remaining 862 non-coal mine related wells are permitted for uses related to CBNG development; 8 percent are permitted for livestock use; 2.3 percent are permitted for domestic use; 2.2 percent are permitted for monitoring; and about 0.5 percent are permitted for miscellaneous and municipal uses. As discussed above, some of these privately permitted water wells have been or will likely be impacted (either directly by removal of the well or indirectly by water level drawdown) by approved mining at the Black Thunder and adjacent mines and CBNG development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be impacted by water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if the West Hilight Field LBA Tract is leased and mined. 3.5.3.2.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract In September 2007, Wyoming SEO records indicated that a total of 1,171 permitted water wells were located within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. As discussed above, 231, or approximately 20 percent of these wells are owned by coal mining companies and are used for groundwater monitoring and water supply. Approximately 69 percent of the remaining 940 non-coal mine related wells are permitted for uses related to CBNG development; 11 percent are permitted either for livestock use only or for livestock and other uses; 12 percent are permitted for monitoring; 5 percent are permitted for miscellaneous uses; about 1.5 percent are permitted for domestic use; and about 1.5 percent are permitted for municipal, industrial, irrigation, dewatering and testing. As discussed above, some of these privately permitted water wells have been or will likely be impacted (either directly by removal of the well or indirectly by water level drawdown) by approved mining at the Jacobs Ranch and adjacent Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-139

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences mines and CBNG development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be impacted by water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is leased and mined. 3.5.3.2.1.5 North Porcupine LBA Tract In August 2008, Wyoming SEO records indicated that a total of 982 permitted water wells were located within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract. As discussed above, 354, or approximately 20 percent of these wells are owned by coal mining companies and are used for groundwater monitoring and water supply. Approximately 87 percent of the remaining 628 non-coal mine related wells are permitted for uses related to CBNG development; about 8 percent are permitted for livestock use only; about 4 percent are permitted for monitoring; and about 1 percent are permitted for domestic, livestock, industrial and miscellaneous uses. As discussed above, some of these privately permitted water wells have been or will likely be impacted (either directly by removal of the well or indirectly by water level drawdown) by approved mining at the North Antelope Rochelle and adjacent mines and CBNG development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be impacted by water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if the North Porcupine LBA Tract is leased and mined. 3.5.3.2.1.6 South Porcupine LBA Tract In August 2008, Wyoming SEO records indicated that a total of 779 permitted water wells were located within 3 miles of the BLM study area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract. As discussed above, 388, or approximately 50 percent of these wells are owned by coal mining companies and are used for groundwater monitoring and water supply. Approximately 83 percent of the remaining 391 non-coal mine related wells are permitted for uses related to CBNG development; about 9.5 percent are permitted for livestock use only; about 4.5 percent are permitted for monitoring; and about 3 percent are permitted for domestic, livestock, industrial and miscellaneous uses. As discussed above, some of these privately permitted water wells have been or will likely be impacted (either directly by removal of the well or indirectly by water level drawdown) by approved mining at the North Antelope Rochelle and adjacent mines and CBNG development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be impacted by water level drawdown to a greater 3-140 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences extent than they currently are if the South Porcupine LBA Tract is leased and mined. 3.5.3.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and associated disturbance and impacts to water rights would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Coal removal and the impacts to water rights associated with existing approved mining and CBNG development as described above would continue to occur. Impacts to water rights related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.5.3.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring In compliance with SMCRA and Wyoming regulations, mine operators are required to provide the owner of a water right whose water source is interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by mining with water of equivalent quantity and quality; this mitigation is thus part of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3. The most probable source of replacement water would be one of the aquifers underlying the mineable coal (Wyodak or WyodakAnderson). For example, the subcoal Fort Union Formation aquifers are not removed or disturbed by coal mining, and would therefore be a potential source of replacement water. If the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are leased, the mine operator would be required to update the list of potentially impacted private water supply wells and predict impacts to those wells within the 5-foot drawdown contour as part of the WDEQ/LQD mine permitting process. The operator would be required to commit to replacing those water supplies with water of equivalent quality and quantity if they are predicted to be affected by mining 3.5.4 Residual Impacts The area of coal and overburden removal and replacement of overburden and associated groundwater drawdowns would be increased under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 compared with the area of coal and overburden removal and overburden replacement and associated groundwater drawdowns Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-141

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences for each of the three existing applicant mines. The postmining backfill may take in excess of 100 years to fully resaturate and reach equilibrium water levels and water quality. Less time would be required near the mining boundaries. Monitoring data from wells completed in existing backfilled areas in the PRB suggest that there would be an adequate quantity of water in the backfill to replace current use, which is generally for livestock. Water quality in the backfill would generally be expected to meet the Wyoming Class III standards for livestock and wildlife use, which was the primary premining use of water from the coal seams. The hydraulic properties and water quality characteristics of the backfill may be somewhat different than that of the undisturbed overburden and Wyodak coal, although groundwater at comparable depth, yield, and quality would be available for the same premining uses within the general analysis areas of these six LBA tracts. 3.6 Alluvial Valley Floors 3.6.1 Affected Environment WDEQ regulations define alluvial valley floors (AVFs) as unconsolidated stream laid deposits where water availability is sufficient for subirrigation or flood irrigation agricultural activities. Guidelines established by OSM and WDEQ/LQD for the identification of AVFs require detailed studies of geomorphology, soils, hydrology, vegetation, and land use. These studies are used to identify 1) the presence of unconsolidated stream laid deposits, 2) the possibility for artificial flood irrigation, 3) past and/or present flood irrigation, and 4) apparent subirrigated areas and the possibility for natural flood irrigation. Following these studies, areas passing the limiting criteria that are identified as AVFs are evaluated for their significance to farming by WDEQ/LQD. SMCRA prohibits surface coal mining operations that would interrupt, discontinue, or preclude farming on AVFs or cause material damage to the quantity or quality of water systems that supply AVFs. However, if the premining land use of the affected AVF is undeveloped rangeland that is not significant to farming or if the affected AVF is of such small acreage that it would have a negligible impact on a farm’s agricultural production, these prohibitions would not apply and mining would be allowed. The prohibitions also apply if AVFs that are downstream of the area proposed for mining would be affected by disruptions in streamflow. Provided WDEQ determines that an AVF is not significant to agriculture, it can be disturbed by mining but must be restored as part of the reclamation process. For any designated AVF, regardless of its significance to agriculture, it must be demonstrated that the essential hydrologic functions of the AVF, both within and outside the mine area, will be protected. In a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action Number 69-1144 (1980) (known as the Flannery Decision), the court noted that an AVF must satisfy both geologic criteria (unconsolidated stream laid deposits) 3-142 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences and hydrologic criteria (water sufficient to sustain agriculture). Therefore, the court emphasized that the key to the existence of an AVF is the presence of both geologic and water availability characteristics, which together sustain agricultural activities. Investigations have been conducted by TBCC, JRCC, and PRC to determine the presence of AVFs within and surrounding the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines, respectively. AVF investigations conducted within and near the general Wright analysis area have identified AVFs that occur along Little Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, and Porcupine Creek; however, those lands are located at considerable distances downstream of the six LBA tracts included in this analysis. Refer to Figure 3 26 for the location of the major streams with respect to the applicant mines and LBA tracts in the general Wright analysis area. The investigations concluded, and WDEQ concurred, that an AVF that is significant to agriculture exists at the confluence of North Prong Little Thunder Creek and Little Thunder Creek. WDEQ/LQD declared 194 acres along the lower reach of North Prong Little Thunder Creek and 143 acres along Little Thunder Creek, and the declared AVF extends from near the eastern edge of the Black Thunder Mine permit boundary downstream (eastward) to the streams’ confluence. AVF investigations concluded, and WDEQ concurred, that an AVF exists along the lower reach of Porcupine Creek. WDEQ/LQD declared that a narrow area adjacent to the Porcupine Creek channel, totaling 39 acres, is an AVF not significant to agriculture. North Antelope Rochelle Mine was allowed to mine this area after WDEQ approved the mine’s plan to preserve the essential hydrologic functions of the AVF along Porcupine Creek. Sections of Porcupine Creek have been mined and reclaimed in this area since 1984. In addition, a 250-acre flood-irrigated hay meadow that exists near the confluence of Porcupine Creek and Antelope Creek has been determined by WDEQ/LQD to be an AVF significant to agriculture. This hay meadow, which is irrigated by surface water diverted from Antelope Creek and stored in a nearby reservoir (Porcupine Reservoir), is the only flood-irrigated land that has been identified in and near the general Wright analysis area. Special measures have been designated to ensure that the North Antelope Rochelle Mine will not interrupt or preclude farming on the flood-irrigated lands, and Porcupine Creek downstream from the mine’s facilities will not be affected by mining. No other AVFs identified in this area have been determined by WDEQ/LQD to be significant to agriculture. 3.6.1.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract Numerous ephemeral drainages occur within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, although the stream laid deposits associated with these drainages are very limited in areal extent and not capable of supporting subirrigation or flood irrigation agricultural activities. Surface Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-143

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences water quantity is insufficient to support natural or artificial flood irrigation practices, and historic flood irrigation attempts have not been identified along Mills Draw, Keeline Draw, or Springen Draw. Due to its limited areal extent, limited saturated thickness, and low hydraulic conductivity, alluvial deposits associated with these streams do not consistently produce enough water to be put to beneficial use. Furthermore, the alluvial groundwater is generally of such poor quality that it does not meet WDEQ/WQD standards for agricultural use (refer to Section 3.5.1.1.1). The soils that dominate the drainage bottoms within the general analysis area for the tract are classified by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as unsuitable for irrigation. If the North Hilight Field LBA Tract is leased and proposed for mining, an AVF assessment would be part of the mine permitting process, and formal declarations of the presence or absence of an AVF, its significance to agriculture, and the appropriate perimeter (areal extent) would be made by the WDEQ/LQD as part of the permitting process. Based on previous non-AVF declarations made on Mills Draw and Springen Draw within and adjacent to the existing Jacobs Ranch Mine permit area, which includes a portion of the BLM study area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, it is unlikely that WDEQ/LQD would declare that any AVFs exist in the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract. 3.6.1.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract As discussed in Section 3.5.1.1.1, within the BLM study area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, alluvial deposits are primarily associated with Little Thunder Creek. Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries within and extending a half mile beyond Black Thunder Mine’s existing permit boundary have been formally investigated for the presence of AVFs by TBCC. Therefore, the entire length of Little Thunder Creek within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract has been investigated, and the reports of these studies are contained in Black Thunder Mine’s WDEQ/LQD mine permit (TBCC 2005). These investigations concluded, and WDEQ has concurred, that no AVFs exist along Little Thunder Creek within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. The declared AVF at the North Prong Little Thunder Creek and Little Thunder Creek confluence is located several miles downstream from the LBA tract and would not be affected by mining and reclamation within the tract. Other drainages on the South Hilight Field tract are much smaller and AVF characteristics are negligible. Few stream laid deposits are present, the streams do not consistently produce enough runoff to be put to beneficial use, and the soils that dominate the drainage bottoms within the general analysis area are classified by the NRCS as unsuitable for irrigation. In addition, there are no present or historical records of agricultural use, other than undeveloped range land, of the stream channels and associated stream laid deposits within the general analysis area for the tract. If the South Hilight Field LBA Tract is leased and proposed for mining, an AVF assessment would be part of the mine permitting process. Based on previous non-AVF declarations made on Little 3-144 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Thunder Creek within and adjacent to the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, it is unlikely that the WDEQ/LQD would declare that an AVF is present within the general analysis area for the tract. 3.6.1.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alluvial deposits within the BLM study area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract are, like the adjacent South Hilight Field tract, primarily associated with Little Thunder Creek. As discussed above, Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries within and extending a half mile beyond Black Thunder Mine’s existing permit boundary have been investigated for the presence of AVFs by TBCC. Therefore, Little Thunder Creek has not been formally investigated for the presence of AVFs within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. Based on previous non-AVF declarations made on Little Thunder Creek downstream of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, it is unlikely that the stream would be declared an AVF in this area where the stream is smaller and AVF characteristics (i.e., extent of alluvial deposits, water availability, and water quality) are negligible. The declared AVF at the North Prong Little Thunder Creek and Little Thunder Creek confluence is located several miles downstream from the West Hilight Field LBA Tract and would not be affected by mining and reclamation within the tract. Other drainages on the West Hilight Field tract are tributaries of Little Thunder Creek and AVF characteristics are negligible. Few stream laid deposits are present, the streams do not consistently produce enough runoff to be put to beneficial use, and the soils that dominate the drainage bottoms within the general analysis area are classified by the NRCS as unsuitable for irrigation. In addition, there are no present or historical records of agricultural use, other than undeveloped range land, of the stream channels and associated stream laid deposits within the general analysis area for the tract. If the West Hilight Field LBA Tract is leased and proposed for mining, an AVF assessment would be part of the mine permitting process, although it is unlikely that the WDEQ/LQD would declare that an AVF is present. 3.6.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract As discussed in Section 3.5.1.1.1, in the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, alluvial deposits have been mapped only along Dry Fork Little Thunder Creek and one of its unnamed tributaries; no stream laid deposits have been mapped within any other drainage in the area. If the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is leased and proposed for mining, an AVF assessment would be part of the mine permitting process, and formal declarations of the presence or absence of an AVF, its significance to agriculture, and the appropriate perimeter (areal extent) would be made by the WDEQ/LQD as part of the permitting process. Based on previous non-AVF declarations made on North Prong Little Thunder Creek and Dry Fork Little Thunder Creek downstream within the existing Black Thunder Mine permit area, which includes a portion of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, it is Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-145

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences unlikely that WDEQ/LQD would declare that any AVF characteristics exist in the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch tract. The declared AVF at the North Prong Little Thunder Creek and Little Thunder Creek confluence is located several miles downstream from the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract and would not be affected by mining and reclamation within the tract. 3.6.1.5 North Porcupine LBA Tract As discussed in Section 3.5.1.1.1, alluvial deposits are primarily associated with Porcupine Creek within the BLM study area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract. The BLM study area for the North Porcupine tract is completely within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s existing mine permit area; therefore, the entire lengths of Porcupine Creek and its tributaries (e.g., Payne Draw, Corder Creek, Boss Draw, Rat Draw, Chipmunk Draw, and Gray Creek) that cross the North Porcupine LBA Tract have been formally investigated for the presence of AVFs, and the reports of these studies are contained in North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s WDEQ/LQD mine permit (PRC 2004). These investigations concluded, and WDEQ has concurred, that no AVFs exist along Porcupine Creek or its tributaries within the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract. The declared AVF areas on Porcupine Creek are located several miles downstream from the LBA tract and would not be affected by mining and reclamation within the tract. 3.6.1.6 South Porcupine LBA Tract As discussed in Section 3.5.1.1.1, no unconsolidated stream laid deposits have been mapped within the BLM study area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract. The South Porcupine tract is completely within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s existing mine permit area, although the streams draining the tract’s general analysis area have not all been formally evaluated for the presence of AVFs. If the South Porcupine LBA Tract is leased and proposed for mining, it is unlikely that WDEQ would require that an AVF assessment be part of the mine permitting process in consideration of the absence of any alluvial deposits on the tract. 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences 3.6.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 AVF investigations conducted within and near the general Wright analysis area have identified AVFs that occur along Little Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, and Porcupine Creek; however, those lands are located at considerable distances downstream of the six LBA tracts included in this analysis. As indicated above, the entire general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract has not yet been formally evaluated for the presence of AVFs. AVF investigations conducted within and adjacent to the existing Black Thunder 3-146 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences and Jacobs Ranch Mine permit areas have determined that the AVF characteristics of Mills Draw and Springen Draw are negligible and do not meet the regulatory definition of an AVF. The paucity of alluvial deposits, insufficient surface water runoff to support natural or artificial flood irrigation, insufficient or poor quality alluvial groundwater, and unsuitable soils for irrigation all indicate it is unlikely that mining the North Hilight Field tract as applied for or BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2 by the applicant as an extension of the existing Black Thunder Mine would directly or indirectly affect any AVFs in those areas. As indicated above, TBCC has investigated for the presence of AVFs on Little Thunder Creek within and a half mile outside of Black Thunder Mine’s existing permit area, which included the entire length of the stream within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Based on the non-AVF declarations that have been made on Little Thunder Creek within and adjacent to the LBA tract, and because there are essentially no other alluvial deposits in the tract’s general analysis area outside of Little Thunder Creek’s valley, it is unlikely that mining the South Hilight Field tract as applied for or BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2 by the applicant as an extension of the existing Black Thunder Mine would have any direct or indirect impacts on AVFs in those areas. Based on previous non-AVF declarations made on Little Thunder Creek downstream of and adjacent to the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, it is unlikely that this stream would receive an AVF declaration upstream on this LBA tract where the drainage is smaller and AVF characteristics are negligible. As indicated above, few stream laid deposits are present in the tract’s general analysis area outside the valley of Little Thunder Creek, the streams do not consistently produce enough runoff to be put to beneficial use, and the soils that dominate the drainage bottoms within the general analysis area are classified by the NRCS as unsuitable for irrigation. In addition, there are no present or historical records of agricultural use, other than undeveloped range land, of the stream channels and associated stream laid deposits within the general analysis area for the tract. It is therefore unlikely that mining the West Hilight Field tract as applied for or BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2 by the applicant as an extension of the existing Black Thunder Mine would have any direct or indirect impacts on AVFs in those areas. If the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is mined by the applicant as an extension of the existing Jacobs Ranch Mine operations under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration, the mining operations would remove stream laid deposits from an area totaling about 35 acres along Dry Fork Little Thunder Creek and one of its unnamed tributaries. Although the published geologic mapping of the remainder of the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract indicates that there are no other areas where stream laid deposits occur, detailed AVF investigations, including mapping of alluvial deposits, would be completed as part of the permitting process. Based on previous non-AVF declarations made on North Prong Little Thunder Creek Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-147

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences and Dry Fork Little Thunder Creek downstream within the existing Black Thunder Mine permit area, which includes a portion of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, it is unlikely that mining the West Jacobs Ranch tract as applied for or BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2 by the applicant as an extension of the existing Jacobs Ranch Mine would have any direct or indirect impacts on AVFs in those areas. Porcupine Creek and its tributaries within the existing North Antelope Mine permit area has been evaluated and declared non-AVF by WDEQ/LQD. The BLM study area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract is entirely within the mine’s existing permit area; therefore, no AVFs would be directly or indirectly impacted by mining the North Porcupine tract as applied for or BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2 by the applicant as an extension of the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine. No unconsolidated stream laid deposits are found within the South Porcupine LBA Tract. The entire general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract has not been formally evaluated for the presence of AVFs; however, it is unlikely an AVF declaration would be made. It is unlikely that mining the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for or BLM’s preferred tract configuration under Alternative 2 by the applicant as an extension of the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine would have any direct or indirect impacts on AVFs in those areas. It is reasonable to assume that if the WDEQ/LQD would determine that no AVFs are present within any of the LBA tracts that are leased. Should declarations be made within any LBA tracts that are leased, it is reasonable to assume that mining would be permitted because all of the proposed lease areas consist entirely of undeveloped rangeland. If the LBA tracts that are leased are mined as an extension of existing operations, the mining would generally extend upstream on streams already in active mine areas. No direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts are anticipated to off-site AVFs through mining of the six LBA tracts included in this analysis. Streamflows in Little Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, and Porcupine Creek and their tributaries would be diverted around the active mining areas in a temporary diversion ditches, captured in various flood control structures above the pits, or allowed to accrue to the mine pits. Therefore, during normal runoff events, a slight reduction in downstream flow rates would be expected. Following major runoff events, it would be necessary to evacuate the pit sumps and flood control structures to provide storage volume for the next runoff event. Runoff waters would then be discharged outside the mine permit area after sufficient time for settling of suspended solids has passed. Consequently, disruptions to streamflow that might supply downstream AVFs during mining are expected to be negligible. Groundwater and surface runoff intercepted by the mine pits would be routed through settling ponds to meet state and federal quality criteria, and the pond discharges would likely increase the frequency 3-148 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences and amount of flow in these streams, thereby increasing surface water supplies to downstream AVFs. 3.6.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and associated disturbance and impacts to AVFs would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Coal removal and associated impacts to AVFs would continue as currently permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit areas. Impacts to AVFs related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.6.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring As discussed above, AVFs must be identified because SMCRA restricts mining activities that would affect AVFs that are determined to be significant to agriculture. Impacts to lands that are declared an AVF are generally not permitted if the AVF is determined to be significant to agriculture. If the AVF is determined not to be significant to agriculture, or if the permit to affect the AVF was issued prior to the effective date of SMCRA, the AVF can be disturbed during mining but must be restored as part of the reclamation process. In the State of Wyoming, the determination of significance to agriculture is made by WDEQ/LQD, and it is based on specific calculations related to the production of crops or forage on the AVF and the size of the existing agricultural operations on the land of which the AVF is a part. For any designated AVF, regardless of its significance to agriculture, it must be demonstrated that the essential hydrologic functions of the stream valley will be protected. Mines are required to restore the essential hydrologic functions of any affected AVF and preserve the hydrologic functions of AVFs on adjacent lands. Downstream AVFs must also be protected during mining. The effects of mining on downstream AVFs are required by regulation by monitoring discharges of surface water from the current mine permit areas for quantity and quality during mining. These requirements would be extended to include the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts during the permitting process, if the tracts are leased. These requirements would be extended accordingly and included in the mine permit amendment that would be required for each Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-149

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences respective LBA tract that is leased. Mine permit revisions must be approved before mining could occur on each tract that is leased, regardless of who acquires the tract. 3.6.4 Residual Impacts No residual impacts to AVFs would occur following mining. 3.7 Wetlands 3.7.1 Affected Environment Wetlands are aquatic features defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR 328.3[a][7][b]). The prolonged presence of water creates conditions that favor the growth of specially adapted plants and promote the development of characteristic wetland (hydric) soils (EPA 2007c). Vegetation in wetland environments is highly productive and diverse and provides habitat for many wildlife species. These systems as a whole play important roles in controlling floodwaters, recharging groundwater, and filtering pollutants (Niering 1985). Wetlands must contain three components: hydric soils, a dominance of hydrophytic plants, and wetland hydrology. When the upper part of the soil is saturated with water at growing season temperatures, soil organisms consume the oxygen in the soil and cause conditions unsuitable for most plants. Such conditions also cause the development of soil characteristics (such as color and texture) of so-called “hydric soils.” The plants that can grow in such conditions, such as marsh grasses, are called “hydrophytes.” Together, hydric soils and hydrophytes give clues that a wetlands area is present. The presence of water by ponding, flooding, or soil saturation is not always a good indicator of wetlands. Except for wetlands flooded by ocean tides, the amount of water present in wetlands fluctuates as a result of rainfall patterns, snow melt, dry seasons and longer droughts (EPA 2007c, Niering 1985, COE 1987). Waters of the U.S. (WoUS) is a collective term for those water bodies subject to regulation pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) administers a regulatory program under Section 404 of the CWA, which requires a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into WoUS, including jurisdictional wetlands. This regulatory program requires that an inventory of WoUS, including wetlands, be performed, permits be acquired prior to dredging or filling jurisdictional wetlands, and that impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. (OWUS) be adequately mitigated. WDEQ/LQD regulations require that wetlands and other high value wildlife habitat that is to be disturbed by proposed mining activities be reclaimed following mining operations. 3-150 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences WoUS include all areas subject to regulation by the COE pursuant to the CWA, to include special aquatic sites, of which wetlands is a subset. The definition of WoUS has been broadly interpreted to include most major water bodies, streams, intermittent drainages, mud flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, and natural ponds. Special aquatic sites are defined as “geographic areas, large or small, possessing special ecological characteristics and productivity, habitat, wildlife protection, or other important and easily disrupted ecological values” (40 CFR 230.3[q-1]). Special aquatic sites include “sanctuaries and refuges, wetlands, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle and pool complexes” (40 CFR 230, Subpart E). Wetlands subject to CWA jurisdiction are known as “jurisdictional wetlands”, while those wetlands not subject to CWA jurisdiction are known as “non jurisdictional” wetlands. Compliance with Section 404 and its implementing regulations requires a sequence of avoidance, minimization of impact, and mitigation of wetlands. Precise definitions of WoUS or navigability are ultimately dependent on judicial interpretation and cannot be made conclusively by administrative agencies (33 CFR 329). Rules, regulations, policies, and procedures used in determining the extent of jurisdiction have changed and evolved with time. Many ephemeral channels and playas in the PRB have, in the past, been classified as WoUS. However, several changes have occurred to the COE regulatory program over the past several years that will have a bearing on the current status of numerous areas historically classified as jurisdictional. For example, in 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that isolated waters and playas are not WoUS. A U.S. Supreme Court decision (Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States, collectively referred to as the “Rapanos” decision) in 2006 attempted to address federal jurisdiction over waters of the U.S. under the CWA (EPA 2007d). According to the Court’s decision, the EPA and COE must ensure that jurisdictional determinations, permitting actions, and other relevant actions are consistent with the Rapanos decision. The decision addressed where the federal government can apply the CWA, specifically by determining whether a wetland or tributary is a “Water of the U.S.”, being “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” connected to traditional navigable waters, and to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection (nexus) to” such relatively permanent waters. As a result of that decision, the COE has placed a moratorium on the issuance of approved jurisdictional determinations that will be in place until the COE headquarters, the EPA, and the Department of Justice determines how to proceed and issues appropriate legal guidance. Federal regulations limit jurisdiction to the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) (33 CFR 328.4). Previous delineations used the very general criteria that stated “drainages must have an active channel that exhibits relatively stable fluviogeomorphic character (i.e., the channel has a well-defined bed and grade) to be classified as WoUS.” Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05 now provides a specific list of the physical characteristics that are to be evaluated to identify the presence or location of an OHWM. Evaluation of these specific physical Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-151

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences characteristics may now lead to a determination that many of the ephemeral drainages in the PRB are not jurisdictional. Briefly, the agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
  



Traditional navigable waters;
Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters;
Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are
relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months); and Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries.

The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a factspecific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water:
  

Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and Wetlands adjacent to, but do not directly abut, a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary.

The agencies will generally not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
 

Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); and Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.

In describing wetlands, three very different types, from a permitting perspective, may be identified, those being jurisdictional, non-jurisdictional, and functional. Functional wetlands are areas that may contain only one or two of the three wetland criteria (presence of hydric soils, a dominance of hydrophytic plants, and wetland hydrology). The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) uses this third categorization in producing National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, which are based on aerial photo interpretation with limited or no field verification. Wetlands can occur in a variety of forms and are somewhat limited in size within the general Wright analysis area; however, the vegetation in these environments is relatively productive and diverse, and provides habitat for a number of wildlife species. Riverine wetlands, typically defined by their close association with stream channels, occur sporadically along drainages. In this area, these wetlands are generally supported by periodic flooding events. Common vegetation species in these riverine settings can include willows (Salix spp.), scouring rush (Equisetum spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and rushes (Juncus spp.). Palustrine wetlands, defined by their close association with emergent 3-152 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences herbaceous marshes, swales, and wet meadows, support a variety of lush plant life and occur sporadically along major drainages and where topographic depression areas (playas) are naturally subirrigated and/or sporadically flooded. These wetlands are the most common and abundant in the general Wright analysis area. Common vegetation species in these palustrine settings can include sedges, rushes, cordgrass (Spartina spp.), mint (Mentha spp.), and buttercup (Ranunculus spp.). Naturally occurring depressions (playas) that flooded more frequently and/or hold deeper water may support lacustrine wetlands. Manmade structures such as stock ponds may also support lacustrine wetlands. The most common species in these lacustrine settings include cattails (Typha spp.) and bulrush (Scirpus spp.), although lady’s thumb (Polygonum spp.), verbena (Verbena spp.), and milkweed (Asclepias spp.) may also occur (USFS 1987). In addition to wetlands, the general Wright analysis area may include Other Waters of the U.S. (OWUS), as defined by 33 CFR 328.3. These OWUS are primarily ephemeral stream channels, open water, and other stream channels that carry water but do not meet the criteria for classification as wetlands. 3.7.1.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract A preliminary wetland inventory of the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, based on USFWS NWI mapping (1980), review of color infrared aerial photographs (WGCS 2002), and a field survey reconnaissance, was conducted in 2007. Some wetland areas previously mapped by the USFWS NWI have been recently altered due to CBNG-related water production within and upstream of the general analysis area. The NWI maps were consulted prior to the initiation of the preliminary wetland field survey; however, the boundaries of the existing potential wetlands vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries shown on the NWI maps. Due to the ephemeral nature of CBNG dewatering activities, the boundaries, and therefore wetland areas, are likewise ephemeral. A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation survey for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the mine permitting process, if the LBA tract is leased. Within the entire general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract (8,476.4 acres), the preliminary wetland inventory identified a total of 177.5 acres of wetlands and OWUS. These wetlands and OWUS were found within five general land categories: ephemeral streams, playas, ponds/reservoirs, isolated depressions, and excavated upland areas. These 177.5 acres are vegetated wetlands that consist of approximately 172.0 acres of palustrine emergent herbaceous wet meadow or marsh and approximately 5.5 acres of palustrine aquatic beds located along ephemeral stream channels and around ponds, playas and depressions. No areas of open water (pond or channel OWUS) were observed during this preliminary wetland inventory.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-153

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences At this time, a distinction has not been made between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional acreages of wetlands and OWUS since only the COE has the authorization to make such determination following the submittal and review of a formal wetland delineation as part of the permitting process. 3.7.1.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract A preliminary wetland inventory of the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, based on USFWS NWI mapping (1980), review of color infrared aerial photographs (WGCS 2002), and a field survey reconnaissance, was conducted in 2007. Some wetland areas previously mapped by the USFWS NWI have been recently altered due to CBNG-related water production within and upstream of the general analysis area. The NWI maps were consulted prior to the initiation of the preliminary wetland field survey; however, the boundaries of the existing potential wetlands vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries shown on the NWI maps. Due to the ephemeral nature of CBNG dewatering activities, the boundaries, and therefore wetland areas, are likewise ephemeral. A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation survey for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract would be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the mine permitting process, if the LBA tract is leased. Within the entire general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract (3,367.9 acres), the preliminary wetland inventory identified a total of 55.1 acres of wetlands and OWUS. These wetlands and OWUS were found within five general land categories: ephemeral streams, playas, ponds/reservoirs, isolated depressions, and excavated upland areas. Of these 55.1 acres, approximately 52.3 acres are vegetated wetlands that consist of approximately 51.2 acres of palustrine emergent herbaceous wet meadow or marsh and approximately 1.1 acres of palustrine aquatic beds located along ephemeral stream channels and around ponds, playas and depressions. The remaining 2.8 acres are channel OWUS (open water in Little Thunder Creek). Little Thunder Creek was initially classified as a palustrine wetland by NWI, but currently meets the classification of a riverine, streambed system and is heavily influenced by CBNG discharge water. At this time, a distinction has not been made between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional acreages of wetlands and OWUS since only the COE has the authorization to make such determination following the submittal and review of a formal wetland delineation as part of the permitting process. 3.7.1.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract A preliminary wetland inventory of the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, based on USFWS NWI mapping (1980), review of color infrared aerial photographs (WGCS 2002), and a field survey reconnaissance, was conducted in 2007. Some wetland areas previously mapped by the USFWS NWI have been recently altered due to CBNG-related water production 3-154 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences within and upstream of the general analysis area. The NWI maps were consulted prior to the initiation of the preliminary wetland field survey; however, the boundaries of the existing potential wetlands vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries shown on the NWI maps. Due to the ephemeral nature of CBNG dewatering activities, the boundaries, and therefore wetland areas, are likewise ephemeral. A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation survey for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the mine permitting process, if the LBA tract is leased. Within the entire general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract (9,188.6 acres), the preliminary wetland inventory identified a total of 262.7 acres of wetlands and OWUS. These wetlands and OWUS were found within five general land categories: ephemeral streams, playas, ponds/reservoirs, isolated depressions, and excavated upland areas. Of these 262.7 acres, approximately 252.8 acres are vegetated wetlands that consist of approximately 240.6 acres of palustrine emergent herbaceous wet meadow or marsh and approximately 12.2 acres of palustrine aquatic beds located along ephemeral stream channels and around ponds, playas and depressions. The remaining 9.9 acres are channel and pond OWUS (open water in Little Thunder Creek and Little Thunder Reservoir). Little Thunder Creek was initially classified as a palustrine wetland by NWI, but currently meets the classification of a riverine, streambed system and is heavily influenced by CBNG discharge water. At this time, a distinction has not been made between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional acreages of wetlands and OWUS since only the COE has the authorization to make such determination following the submittal and review of a formal wetland delineation as part of the permitting process. 3.7.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract A preliminary wetland inventory of the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, based on USFWS NWI mapping (1980) and a field survey reconnaissance, was conducted in 2007 and 2008. Information was also obtained from previous formal wetland inventories completed on the eastern portion of the general analysis area by TBCC (TBCC 2005). Some wetland areas previously mapped by the USFWS NWI and other inventories have been recently altered due to CBNG-related water production within and upstream of the general analysis area. The NWI maps were consulted prior to the initiation of the preliminary wetland field survey; however, the boundaries of the existing potential wetlands vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries shown on the NWI maps. Due to the ephemeral nature of CBNG dewatering activities, the boundaries, and therefore wetland areas, are likewise ephemeral. A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation survey for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the mine permitting process, if the LBA tract is leased.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-155

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Within the entire general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract (9,370.4 acres), the preliminary wetland inventory identified a total of 68.4 acres of wetlands and OWUS. These wetlands and OWUS were found within four general land categories: ponds, ephemeral streams, playas, and depressions. Of this 68.4 acres, approximately 16.7 acres are vegetated wetlands, which include 4.7 acres around ponds, 7.8 acres along ephemeral streams, 1.7 acres on playas, and 2.5 acres in other depressions. The remaining 50.7 acres are pond or channel other waters (i.e., open water in reservoirs/stockponds, along ephemeral streams, and in playas). The vegetated wetlands are located primarily along the stream channels associated with Dry Fork and North Prong Little Thunder Creek. All of these wetlands and OWUS are classified as palustrine. At this time, a distinction has not been made between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional acreages of wetlands and OWUS since only the COE has the authorization to make such determination following the submittal and review of a formal wetland delineation as part of the permitting process. 3.7.1.5 North Porcupine LBA Tract Formal jurisdictional wetland delineation surveys covering North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current permit area and some additional adjacent lands were completed by PRC and submitted to the COE for verification in 1996, 1997, 2000 and 2004. These wetland delineations and the COE’s respective letters of verification summarizing the acreage figures of approved jurisdictional determinations are included in Appendix D-10 of the mine’s permit (PRC 2004). According to the COE’s latest (October 12, 2004) jurisdictional determination, there is a total of 219.71 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and OWUS within the mine’s current permit area. Of those 219.71 acres, there are 77.84 acres of riverine wetlands, 26.99 acres of stockpond wetlands, 11.42 acres of riverine open water OWUS, 44.62 acres of stockpond open water OWUS, and 58.84 acres of ephemeral stream channel OWUS. There are also 20.92 wetland acres and 1.33 open water acres of non-jurisdictional playa/depressional features. The general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract lies completely within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current mine permit area. Therefore, these previous wetland delineation surveys provide an estimate of the acreages of wetlands and OWUS that exist within the LBA tract’s general analysis area, with the caveat that some wetland areas previously mapped may have been altered by CBNG-related water production within and upstream of the general analysis area. In addition to the effects from CBNG-related water discharges, the PRB has experienced a moderate to severe drought cycle that has persisted since 2000, which may have also altered previously-mapped wetland and OWUS areas. The boundaries of some wetlands and OWUS could, therefore, vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries that existed at the time that the formal wetland delineation surveys were conducted.

3-156

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Within the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract (9,021.4 acres), there are an estimated 25.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and OWUS. Of those 25.8 acres, there are approximately 9.3 acres of riverine wetlands, approximately 0.9 acres of stockpond wetlands, approximately 0.9 acres of stockpond open water OWUS, and approximately 8.6 acres of ephemeral stream channel OWUS. There are also approximately 4.9 wetland acres and 1.2 open water acres of non-jurisdictional playa/depressional features. The vegetated wetland areas consist primarily of palustrine emergent herbaceous wet meadow or marsh and palustrine aquatic beds located along ephemeral stream channels and around ponds, playas and depressions, whereas the OWUS consist of dry ephemeral drainages and open water. 3.7.1.6 South Porcupine LBA Tract The general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract lies completely within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current mine permit area. Therefore, the mine’s wetland delineation surveys described above provide an estimate of the acreages of wetlands and OWUS that exist within the LBA tract’s general analysis area, with the caveat that some wetland areas previously mapped may have been altered by CBNG-related water production within and upstream of the general analysis area. In addition to the effects from CBNG-related water discharges, the PRB has experienced a moderate to severe drought cycle that has persisted since 2000, which may have also altered previously-mapped wetland and OWUS areas. The boundaries of some wetlands and OWUS could, therefore, vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries that existed at the time that the formal wetland delineation surveys were conducted. Within the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract (4,020.5 acres), there are an estimated 12.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and OWUS. Of those 12.5 acres, there are approximately 6.8 acres of riverine wetlands, approximately 0.4 acres of stockpond wetlands, approximately 0.2 acres of stockpond open water OWUS, and approximately 4.9 acres of ephemeral stream channel OWUS. There are also approximately 0.2 wetland acres of nonjurisdictional playa/depressional features. The vegetated wetland areas consist primarily of palustrine emergent herbaceous wet meadow or marsh along ephemeral stream channels and around ponds, playas and depressions, whereas the OWUS consist of dry ephemeral drainages and open water. 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences 3.7.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Formal wetland delineations have been confirmed by the COE for wetlands and OWUS included in the proposed LBA tracts that lie within the three applicant mines’ existing permit areas. Based on those previous wetland delineation surveys and the preliminary wetland inventories conducted in 2007 and 2008 of the general analysis areas for the six LBA tracts included in this EIS, a maximum of approximately 602 acres of wetlands and OWUS would be Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-157

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences disturbed if each of the six LBA tracts is leased and subsequently mined under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each of the six tracts. Formal wetland inventories covering the remainder of the general analysis areas for the LBA tracts that are leased would be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the process of obtaining a surface coal mining permit. In Wyoming, once the delineation has been verified, it is made a part of the mine permit document. The reclamation plan is then revised to incorporate the replacement of at least equal types and number of jurisdictional wetland acreages. Disturbed non-jurisdictional wetlands would be restored as required by the authorized federal or state agency or private surface land owner as specified in the mine permit, which would have to be approved by WDEQ/LQD before mining operations could be conducted on the LBA tracts that are leased. During the period of time after mining and before replacement of wetlands, all wetland functions would be lost. The replaced wetlands may not duplicate the exact function and landscape features of the premine wetlands, but replacement plans would be evaluated by the COE and replacement would be in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the CWA as determined by the COE. 3.7.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and associated disturbance and impacts to wetlands and OWUS would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Coal removal and associated impacts to wetlands and OWUS would continue as currently permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit areas. Impacts to AVFs and OWUS related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.7.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring A formal wetland delineation survey must be conducted prior to mining according to approved procedures (COE 1987) and submitted to the COE for verification as to the amounts and types of jurisdictional wetlands and other waters present. Once the delineation has been verified, it is made part of the mine and reclamation permit. 3-158 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The presence of jurisdictional wetlands and OWUS on a mine property does not preclude mining. There are special required permitting procedures to assure that after mining there will be no net loss of wetlands. The COE requires replacement of all impacted jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with Section 404 of the CWA, and all wetland replacement plans have to be approved by the COE. As such, a formal jurisdictional wetland delineation survey would be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the mining and reclamation permit process for each of these six LBA tracts that are leased and proposed for mining. Section 404 of the CWA does not cover non-jurisdictional or functional wetlands; however, Executive Order (EO) No. 11990 – Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977) – requires that all federal agencies protect all wetlands. Mitigation for impacts to non-jurisdictional wetlands located on these six LBA tracts will be specified during the permitting process as required by the authorized state or federal agency (which may include the WDEQ, OSM, or the federal surface managing agency, if any federal surface is included in the tract) or the private surface owner. Surface land ownership on the general analysis areas for the Wright area LBA tracts is private and federal (see Section 3.11). The federal surface is administered by the USFS. WDEQ/LQD allows and sometimes requires mitigation of non-jurisdictional wetlands affected by mining, depending on the values associated with the wetland features. WDEQ/LQD may also require replacement of sites with hydrologic significance. If any playas with hydrologic significance are located on the tract that is leased, WDEQ/LQD would also require their replacement. Finally, the surface mining regulatory authorities (WDEQ/LQD and OSM) typically require replacement of non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands as a measure to protect and enhance wildlife. Reclaimed wetlands are monitored using the same procedures used to identify pre-mining jurisdictional wetlands. 3.7.4 Residual Impacts Replaced wetlands (jurisdictional or functional) may not duplicate the exact function and landscape features of the premining wetland, but all wetland replacement plans would be approved by the COE, which has special required permitting procedures to assure that there will be no net loss of wetlands after reclamation. 3.8 Soils 3.8.1 Affected Environment Numerous baseline soil surveys associated with surface mining operations and oil and gas field development have been conducted in the eastern PRB. Soil surveys of Campbell County, Wyoming, including the general analysis areas for Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-159

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, have also recently been conducted by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (Prink et al. 2004). Soils vary depending upon where and how they were formed. Major factors involved in the formation of soils include whether or not the material was transported and how the material was weathered during transportation. Four primary soil formation processes causing different soil types were noted in the general Wright analysis area: 1) soils developing predominantly in thin residuum from sandstone or shale on upland ridges, 2) soils developing predominantly in slopewash, colluvium, or alluvial fan deposits from mixed sources on gently sloping uplands, 3) soils developing predominantly in coarsetextured alluvium or sandy eolian deposits on rolling uplands, and 4) drainage soils developing in mixed stream laid alluvium on terraces and channels, and in fine-textured playa deposits in depressions and closed basins. The soil depths and types on the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts are similar to soils currently being salvaged and utilized for reclamation at the adjacent Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines and other mines in the eastern PRB. Additional detailed information about the soil types on these six LBA tracts is included in the supplemental information document, which is available on request. The site-specific soil surveys have located hydric soils and/or inclusions of hydric soils, which are one component used in identifying wetlands. Areas with soils that are not suitable to support plant growth include sites with high alkalinity, salinity, or clay content. As described in Section 3.0, the general analysis area for each tract is defined as the BLM study area (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2) plus the ¼-mile disturbance buffer. Baseline soil surveys cover the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts. All soil surveys were completed to the Order 1-2 or Order 3 level of intensity in accordance with criteria contained in WDEQ/LQD Guideline No. 1, Soils and Overburden (WDEQ 1996), which outlines the required soils information necessary for a coal mining operation. The WDEQ Order 1-2 inventories included soils field sampling, profile descriptions and observations at the requisite number of individual sites, and laboratory analysis of representative collected samples. Soils within the tracts’ general analysis areas were identified by series, which consist of soils that have similar horizons in their profile. Horizons are soil layers having similar color, texture, structure, reaction, consistency, mineral and chemical composition, and arrangement in the profile. 3.8.1.1 North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts The general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract (8,476.4 total acres) has been covered by baseline soil surveys completed to an Order 1-2 resolution 3-160 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences for the adjacent Jacobs Ranch Mine and the Little Thunder Amendment Area of the Black Thunder Mine, both of which are included in the approved WDEQ/LQD mine permits. In addition, the entire general analysis area has been covered by the NRCS Order 3 survey of southern Campbell County (Prink et al. 2004). A portion of the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract (3,367.9 total acres) has been covered by baseline soil surveys completed to an Order 1 2 resolution for the Little Thunder and West Black Thunder Amendment Areas of the Black Thunder Mine, and for the West Roundup Amendment of the North Rochelle Mine. All three of these soils surveys of permit amendment areas are included in the approved WDEQ/LQD mine permits. In addition, the entire general analysis area has been covered by the NRCS Order 3 survey of southern Campbell County (Prink et al. 2004). A portion of the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract (9,188.6 total acres) has been covered by a baseline soil survey completed to an Order 1 2 resolution for the Little Thunder Amendment Area of the Black Thunder Mine, which is included in the approved WDEQ/LQD mine permit. In addition, the entire general analysis area has been covered by the NRCS Order 3 survey of southern Campbell County (Prink et al. 2004). 3.8.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract A portion of the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch tract (9,370.4 total acres) has been covered by a baseline soil survey completed to an Order 1 2 resolution for the Little Thunder Amendment Area of the Black Thunder Mine, which is included in the approved WDEQ/LQD mine permit. In addition, the entire general analysis area has been covered by the NRCS Order 3 survey of southern Campbell County (Prink et al. 2004). The baseline soils survey of the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch tract was completed in 2007 by Intermountain Resources of Laramie, Wyoming to an Order 2 resolution. The inventory included a listing of all soil types within the general analysis area along with a brief description of those types. 3.8.1.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts The general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract (9,021.4 total acres) has been covered by three separate baseline soil surveys completed to an Order 1-2 resolution; two of which are for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine and are included in the approved WDEQ/LQD mine permit. The third Order 1-2 survey is included in the School Creek Baseline Soils Assessment (BKS 2005) that was submitted as part of the adjacent proposed School Creek Mine permit application, currently under review by the WDEQ/LQD. The entire general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract has also been covered by the NRCS Order 3 survey of southern Campbell County (Prink et al. 2004).

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-161

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract (4,020.5 total acres) has been subjected to three separate Order 1-2 soil surveys completed for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, which are part of its approved WDEQ/LQD mine permit. In addition, the entire general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract has been covered by the NRCS Order 3 survey of southern Campbell County (Prink et al. 2004). 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 3.8.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Salvage and redistribution of soils during mining and reclamation would cause changes in the soil resources. In reclaimed areas, soil chemistry and soil nutrient distribution would generally be more uniform and average topsoil quality would be improved because soil material that is not suitable to support plant growth would not be salvaged for use in reclamation. This would result in more uniform vegetative productivity on the reclaimed land. The baseline soils analyses for these six LBA tracts indicate that the amount of suitable topsoil that would be available for redistribution on all disturbed acres within the six general analysis areas during reclamation would vary from an average depth of 2.0 feet to an average depth of 3.0 feet. The replaced topsoil should support a stable and productive vegetation community adequate in quality and quantity to support the planned postmining land uses of rangeland and wildlife habitat. There would most likely be an increase in the near-surface bulk density of the reclaimed soil resources on the reclaimed areas due to loss of soil aggregates. As a result, the average soil infiltration rates would generally decrease, which would increase the potential for runoff and soil erosion. Roughening the regraded backfill surface prior to soil redistribution, and soil preparation by disking or plowing prior to seeding would mitigate surface compaction. Topographic moderation following reclamation would potentially decrease runoff, which would tend to offset the effects of decreased soil infiltration capacity. The change in soil infiltration rates would not be permanent because revegetation and natural weathering action would form a new soil structure in the reclaimed soils, and infiltration rates would gradually return to premining levels. The reclaimed landscape would contain stable landforms and drainage systems that would support the postmining land uses. Ephemeral stream channels and floodplains would be designed and reclaimed to be erosionally stable, thereby conserving the soil resource. Direct biological impacts to soil resources would include short-term to longterm reduction in soil organic matter, microbial populations, seeds, bulbs, rhizomes, and live plant parts for soil resources that are stockpiled before placement. The sections that follow describe the potential impacts to soil 3-162 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences resources on each LBA tract following reclamation under the Action Alternatives. 3.8.2.1.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract Potential impacts to soil resources on the LBA tract after final reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 are quantified as follows. Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, approximately 26,812.0 acres of soil resources will be disturbed in order to mine the coal in the existing leases at the Black Thunder Mine (Table 3-1). If the North Hilight Field LBA Tract is leased, TBCC estimates disturbance related to coal mining would directly affect from approximately 5,053.0 to 12,908.8 additional acres of soil resources on and adjacent to the LBA tract under the Proposed Action or under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, respectively (Table 3-1). There are approximately 3,304.7 additional acres of soil resources within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for plus a ¼-mile disturbance buffer and approximately 8,476.4 additional acres of soil resources within the BLM study area (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2) plus the ¼-mile disturbance buffer. Preliminary estimates indicate the average redistributed soil thickness would be about 33 inches (2.7 feet) across the entire reclaimed surface; however, soil redistribution depths would vary to mimic the premine conditions. The types of soils and the quantities of the soil resource included in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for and in Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration, are similar to the soils on the existing leases at the adjacent Jacobs Ranch and Black Thunder mines. As discussed in Section 3.0, the estimates of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in Table 3-1 assume that Shroyer Road is not moved. 3.8.2.1.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract Potential impacts to soil resources on the LBA tract after final reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 are quantified as follows. Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, approximately 26,812.0 acres of soil resources will be disturbed in order to mine the coal in the existing leases at the Black Thunder Mine (Table 3-2). If the South Hilight Field LBA Tract is leased, TBCC estimates disturbance related to coal mining would directly affect from approximately 1,126.0 to 2,731.4 additional acres of soil resources on and adjacent to the LBA tract under the Proposed Action or under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, respectively (Table 3-2). There are approximately 2,332.4 additional acres of soil resources within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for plus a ¼-mile disturbance buffer and approximately 3,367.9 additional acres of soil resources within the BLM study area (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2) plus the ¼-mile disturbance buffer. Preliminary estimates indicate the average redistributed soil thickness would be about 35 inches (2.9 feet) across the entire reclaimed surface; however, soil redistribution depths would vary to mimic the premine conditions. The types of soils and the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-163

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences quantities of the soil resource included in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for and in Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration, are similar to the soils on the existing leases at the adjacent Black Thunder Mine. As discussed in Section 3.0, the estimates of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in Table 3-2 assume that Reno Road is not moved. 3.8.2.1.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Potential impacts to soil resources on the LBA tract after final reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 are quantified as follows. Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, approximately 26,812.0 acres of soil resources will be disturbed in order to mine the coal in the existing leases at the Black Thunder Mine (Table 3-3). If the West Hilight Field LBA Tract is leased, TBCC estimates disturbance related to coal mining would directly affect from approximately 6,351.4 to 10,250.8 additional acres of soil resources on and adjacent to the LBA tract under the Proposed Action or under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, respectively (Table 3-3). There are approximately 3,843.5 additional acres of soil resources within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for plus a ¼-mile disturbance buffer and approximately 9,188.6 additional acres of soil resources within the BLM study area (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2) plus the ¼-mile disturbance buffer. Preliminary estimates indicate the average redistributed soil thickness would be about 28 inches (2.3 feet) across the entire reclaimed surface; however, soil redistribution depths would vary to mimic the premine conditions. The types of soils and the quantities of the soil resource included in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for and in Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration, are similar to the soils on the existing leases at the adjacent Black Thunder Mine. As discussed in Section 3.0, the estimates of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in Table 3-3 assume that State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are not moved. 3.8.2.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Potential impacts to soil resources on the LBA tract after final reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 are quantified as follows. Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, approximately 14,853.0 acres of soil resources will be disturbed in order to mine the coal in the existing leases at the Jacobs Ranch Mine (Table 3-4). If the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is leased, JRCC estimates disturbance related to coal mining would directly affect from approximately 7,023.0 to 9,370.0 additional acres of soil resources on and adjacent to the LBA tract under the Proposed Action or under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, respectively (Table 3-4). Preliminary estimates indicate the redistributed soil thickness would average between about 26 inches (2.2 feet) and 36 inches (3.0 feet) across the entire reclaimed surface; varying redistribution depths to mimic the premine conditions. The types of soils and the quantities of the soil resource included in the West 3-164 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for and in Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration, are similar to the soils on the existing leases at the adjacent Jacobs Ranch and Black Thunder mines. As discussed in Section 3.0, the estimates of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in Table 3-4 assume that State Highway 450 and Hilight Road are not moved. 3.8.2.1.5 North Porcupine LBA Tract Potential impacts to soil resources on the LBA tract after final reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 are quantified as follows. Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, approximately 27,443.0 acres of soil resources will be disturbed in order to mine the coal in the existing leases at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine (Table 3-5). If the North Porcupine LBA Tract is leased, PRC estimates disturbance related to coal mining would directly affect from approximately 9,864.0 to 11,444.0 additional acres of soil resources on and adjacent to the LBA tract under the Proposed Action or under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, respectively (Table 3-5). There are approximately 7,602.6 additional acres of soil resources within the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for plus a ¼-mile disturbance buffer and approximately 9,021.4 additional acres of soil resources within the BLM study area (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2) plus the ¼-mile disturbance buffer. Preliminary estimates indicate the average redistributed soil thickness would be about 35 inches (2.9 feet) across the entire reclaimed surface; however, soil redistribution depths would vary to mimic the premine conditions. The types of soils and the quantities of the soil resource included in the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for and in Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration, are similar to the soils on the existing leases at the adjacent North Antelope Rochelle Mine. As discussed in Section 3.0, the estimates of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in Table 3-5 assume that Mackey Road is not moved. 3.8.2.1.6 South Porcupine LBA Tract Potential impacts to soil resources on the LBA tract after final reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 are quantified as follows. Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, approximately 27,443.0 acres of soil resources will be disturbed in order to mine the coal in the existing leases at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine (Table 3-6). If the South Porcupine LBA Tract is leased, PRC estimates disturbance related to coal mining would directly affect from approximately 3,366.0 to 4,068.0 additional acres of soil resources on and adjacent to the LBA tract under the Proposed Action or under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, respectively (Table 3-6). There are approximately 3,598.3 additional acres of soil resources within the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for plus a ¼-mile disturbance buffer and approximately 4,020.5 additional acres of soil resources within the BLM study area (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-165

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Alternative 2) plus the ¼-mile disturbance buffer. Preliminary estimates indicate the average redistributed soil thickness would be about 24 inches (2.0 feet) across the entire reclaimed surface; however, soil redistribution depths would vary to mimic the premine conditions. The types of soils and the quantities of the soil resource included in the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for and in Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration, are similar to the soils on the existing leases at the adjacent North Antelope Rochelle Mine. As discussed in Section 3.0, the estimates of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and mine life shown in Table 3-6 assume that the remaining 2.25 mile section of Antelope Road is not moved. 3.8.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and the associated disturbance and impacts to soils would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Coal removal and associated soil removal and replacement would continue as currently permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases. Impacts to soils related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.8.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Soils suitable to support plant growth would be salvaged for use in reclamation. Soil stockpiles would be protected from disturbance and erosional influences. Soil material that is not suitable to support plant growth would not be salvaged. Soil or overburden materials containing potentially harmful chemical constituents (such as selenium) would be specially handled. Unsuitable materials would be buried under adequate fill (at least 4 feet of suitable overburden) prior to soil redistribution to meet guidelines for vegetation root zones. After topsoil is redistributed on reclaimed surfaces, revegetation would reduce wind erosion. Sediment control structures would be constructed as needed to detain sediments. Regraded overburden would be sampled to verify suitability as subsoil for compliance with root zone criteria. Redistributed soil would be sampled to document redistribution depths. Vegetation growth would be monitored on reclaimed areas to confirm vegetation establishment and acceptability for bond 3-166 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences release. Appropriate normal husbandry practices may be implemented to achieve specific reclamation goals. These measures are required by regulation and are therefore considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. 3.8.4 Residual Impacts Existing soils would be mixed and redistributed, and soil-forming processes would be disturbed by mining. This would result in long-term alteration of soil characteristics. 3.9 Vegetation 3.9.1 Affected Environment The vegetation analysis area for each of the six LBA tracts included in this analysis is the respective tract’s general analysis area. As described in Section 3.0, the general analysis area is defined as the LBA tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2 (BLM’s study area) plus the ¼ mile buffer that would be disturbed in order to recover the coal in the BLM study area. The ¼-mile buffer includes only those lands that are not already approved for disturbance under currently approved coal leases and mine plans. These vegetation analysis areas are either partially located within, contiguous to, or completely within current applicant mines’ permit boundaries. Consequently, portions or all of these vegetation analysis areas were previously mapped and sampled in accordance with the current WDEQ/LQD mine permitting requirements. The balance of the vegetation assessments were completed in 2007. The vegetation communities in these areas were appraised and mapped to provide a preliminary baseline assessment. The vegetation within the six vegetation analysis areas consists of species common to eastern Wyoming and consistent with vegetation that occurs within the adjacent mine permit areas. Water and disturbed areas were also mapped. The following vegetation types were identified in the combined vegetation analysis areas:
        

Crested Wheatgrass/Agricultural Pastureland Pasture/Hayland Undeveloped Pastureland Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland Big Sage Shrubland Bottomland/Streamside Grassland/Meadow Disturbed Lands Reclaimed Lands Playa/Playa Grassland 3-167

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
  

Rough Breaks/Breaks Grassland Reservoir/Water Salt Grassland/Saline Bottomland/Alkali Bottomland

Table 3-14 presents the acreage and percent of the combined vegetation analysis areas encompassed by each vegetation type. Additional information about the vegetation types within each of these six LBA tracts is included in the supplementary information document, which is available on request. Vegetation Types Identified Vegetation Analysis Areas. Vegetation Type Big Sage Shrubland Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland Crested Wheatgrass/Agricultural Pastureland Salt Grassland/Saline Rough Breaks/Breaks Grassland Disturbed Lands Bottomland/Streamside Playa/Playa Grassland Pasture/Hayland Reclaimed Lands Undeveloped Pastureland Reservoir/Water Total Table 3-14. and Mapped Within the Combined Acres 18,329.1 12,079.5 6,657.8 1,730.1 1,533.8 940.5 699.1 613.6 317.5 223.0 192.6 105.6 43,422.2 Percent of Area 42.2 27.8 15.3 4.0 3.5 2.2 1.6 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 100.0

In terms of total acres of occurrence within the combined vegetation analysis areas, the predominant vegetation types are the Big Sage Shrubland (42.2 percent), Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland (27.8 percent), and Crested Wheatgrass/Agricultural Pastureland (15.3 percent). The most common plant species on these types include Wyoming big sagebrush, western wheatgrass, needleandthread, blue grama, crested wheatgrass, red threeawn, Sandberg bluegrass, prairie junegrass, cheatgrass brome, sixweeksgrass, and upland sedges. Wyoming big sagebrush is the dominant shrub in the Big Sage Shrubland and Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland vegetation communities. Annual grasses and forbs, lichens, and manyspine plains pricklypear cactus are frequently large components of the vegetation cover. The predominant vegetation type on approximately 15 percent of the combined vegetation analysis area is the crested wheatgrass pastureland. This vegetation type occurs on relatively flat areas to rolling plains with moderately deep to deep soils that have been converted (at least originally and intentionally) from native vegetation to crested wheatgrass that is being used for haying or grazing purposes. Through time, those areas that have not been actively managed are likely to experience invasion by native plant species from adjacent areas. This vegetation type therefore ranges from areas that are generally a crested wheatgrass monoculture to areas with a greater component of graminoid, 3-168 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences shrub and subshrub species. Blue grama, purple and red threeawn, Junegrass, cheatgrass brome, and needleandthread are among the more commonly invading grasses. The various categories of disturbance (topsoil stockpiles, reclaimed areas, disturbed areas, pre-mining disturbance, and developed areas) account for approximately 2.7 percent of the combined vegetation analysis area. Areas mapped as disturbed are mostly associated with advancing excavation associated with the backslopes of mine pits, disturbance associated with CBNG development activity (roads to drill pads, wellpads, and pipeline and powerline construction), areas recently excavated and contoured as part of the construction of a flood control structure, and rights-of-way for public roads. In addition to these major vegetation types identified in the combined vegetation analysis area, trees are found primarily in a few shelterbelts/windbreaks planted adjacent to ranching facilities. Very few other small trees are present due to the lack of water and suitable habitats. Prior to mining disturbance, detailed tree inventories would be conducted as required by state and federal agencies. There are few occurrences of noxious weeds within the three applicant mine areas; however, there are native areas (primarily drainage bottoms) adjacent to mine permit areas that are infested with noxious weeds, primarily Canada thistle. 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences 3.9.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plans, approximately 69,108.0 acres of vegetation will be disturbed in order to mine the coal in the existing leases at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. Surface disturbance would occur on the six LBA tracts under all of the alternatives. Under the Proposed Actions, mining of the six LBA tracts would progressively remove the existing vegetation on approximately 32,783 additional acres on and near the LBA tracts. Under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract, mining of the six LBA tracts would progressively remove the existing vegetation on up to 50,773 additional acres. Vegetation removal at each LBA tract under the Action Alternatives is presented as the additional mine disturbance areas in Tables 3-1 through 3-6. Under Alternative 2, the combined vegetation analysis area of 43,422.2 acres (Table 3-13) would be disturbed, and potentially 7,350.8 additional acres, which would be included in additional baseline vegetation inventories as part of the mine permitting processes if the LBA tracts are leased and proposed for mining. Short-term impacts associated with the removal of vegetation from the LBA tracts would include increased erosion, interrupted livestock grazing, and Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-169

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences habitat loss for wildlife. Potential long-term impacts include habitat modification or reduction of habitat carrying capacity for some wildlife species as a result of reduced plant species diversity or reduced plant density for some species, particularly big sagebrush, on reclaimed lands. However, grasslanddependent wildlife species and livestock would benefit from the increased grass cover and production. Grazing restrictions prior to mining and during reclamation would remove up to 100 percent of the areas proposed for mining from livestock grazing. This reduction in vegetative production would not seriously affect livestock production in the region, and long-term productivity on the reclaimed land would return to premining levels within several years following seeding with the approved final seed mixture. The applicant mines’ historical wildlife monitoring indicates that there would not be a substantial restriction of wildlife use of the area throughout the operations (refer to Section 3.10). Reclamation, including revegetation of these lands, would occur contemporaneously with mining on adjacent lands, i.e., reclamation would begin once an area is mined. Estimates of the time elapsed from soil salvage through reseeding of any given area range from 2 to 4 years, longer for areas occupied by stockpiles, haulroads, sediment-control structures, and other mine facilities. No new life-of-mine facilities would be located on the LBA tracts under the Proposed Action or Alternatives 2 or 3 because the LBA tracts would be mined as an extension of an existing mine using existing facilities. Some roads and facilities would not be reclaimed until the end of mining. Reclamation of the final pits, certain roads, sediment control structures, and life-of-mine facilities would extend beyond the completion of coal removal. By the time mining ceases, over 75 percent of the disturbed lands would have been reseeded. The remaining 25 percent would be reseeded during the following 2 to 3 years as the life-of-mine facilities areas are reclaimed. In an effort to approximate premining conditions, the applicants would plan to reestablish vegetation types to reflect premine types and land uses during the reclamation operation. Reestablished vegetation would be dominated by species mandated in the reclamation seed mixtures (to be approved by WDEQ). The majority of the approved species are native to the area. Initially, the reclaimed lands would be primarily a mixture of prairie grasslands with graminoid/forb-dominated areas. An overall reduction in species diversity, especially for the shrub component, would occur. At least 20 percent of the native vegetation area would be reclaimed to native shrubs at a density of one per square meter as required by current regulations. Estimates for the time it would take to restore shrubs, including sagebrush, to premining density levels range from 20 to 100 years. As indicated previously, sagebrush is a component of the Big Sagebrush Shrubland and Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland vegetation communities, which together occupy about 70 percent of the combined vegetation analysis area (Table 3-13). The reduction in sagebrush would result in a long term reduction of habitat for some species and may delay use of the reclaimed area by shrub-dependent species, such as 3-170 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences the sage-grouse. An indirect impact of the vegetation change could be decreased big game habitat carrying capacity. Following completion of reclamation (seeding with the final seed mixture) and before release of the reclamation bond (a minimum of 10 years), a diverse, productive, and permanent vegetative cover would be established on the LBA tracts. Following reclamation bond release, management of the privately owned surface areas would revert back to the private surface owners, who would have the right to manipulate the reclaimed vegetation. The reclamation plans for the existing mines include steps to control invasion by weedy (invasive nonnative) plant species because WDEQ/LQD rules and regulations require surface coal mine operators to control and minimize the introduction of noxious weeds until bond release, in accordance with federal and state regulatory requirements. Section 3.9.4 includes a discussion of the steps the mines use to control noxious weeds. As a result, there are few occurrences of noxious weeds in the mine areas. The reclamation plan for each LBA tract would also include steps to control invasion from such species. Wyoming, including the PRB, has experienced drought conditions since around 2000. The climatic record of the western U.S. suggests that droughts could occur periodically during the life of the applicant mines. Such droughts would severely hamper revegetation efforts, since lack of sufficient moisture would reduce germination and could damage newly established plants. In such instances, reseeding may be necessary. Same-aged vegetation would be more susceptible to disease than would plants of various ages. Droughts could also result in stands of vegetation in which less gregarious plants like warm season grasses are better established. Severe thunderstorms could also adversely affect newly seeded areas. However, these events would have similar impacts as would occur on native vegetation once a stable vegetative cover is established. Changes expected in the surface water network on each LBA tract as a result of mining and reclamation would affect the reestablishment of vegetation patterns on the reclaimed areas to some extent. The postmining maximum overland slope would be 20 percent, in accordance with WDEQ policy. The average reclaimed overland slope on each LBA tract would not be known until WDEQ’s technical review of each mine permit revision application is complete. No significant changes in the average overland slope are predicted. There would be no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands. They would be restored under the jurisdiction of the COE (Section 3.7). Non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands would be restored in accordance with the requirements of the surface landowner or as required by WDEQ/LQD. The decrease in plant diversity would not seriously affect the potential productivity of the reclaimed areas, regardless of the alternative selected. The proposed postmining land use (wildlife habitat and rangeland) would generally be achieved even with the changes in vegetative species composition and Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-171

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences diversity, although there would be some long term reduction in habitat for some species. Native vegetation from surrounding areas would gradually invade and eventually become established on the reclaimed land. 3.9.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and the associated disturbance and impacts to vegetation would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Coal removal and the associated vegetation removal and replacement would continue as currently permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases. Impacts to vegetation related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.9.3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species, and BLM and USFS Sensitive Plant Species Refer to Appendices G and H. 3.9.4 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Reclaimed areas would be revegetated as specified in the approved mine plans using reclamation seed mixtures that would be approved by WDEQ. The majority of the species would be native to the LBA tracts. At least 20 percent of the native vegetation area would be reclaimed to native shrubs at a density of one per square meter or as required by current regulations. Shrubs would be selectively planted in riparian areas and trees would be replaced in a one-to one ratio. WDEQ/LQD Rules and Regulations require that:




Permit applications for surface coal mines include a description of any weeds or other plants listed by the local Weed and Pest Control District as harmful (Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(vi)(C)(2)); and Surface coal mine operators control and minimize the introduction of noxious weeds in accordance with federal or state requirements (Chapter 4, Section 2(d)(xiv)).

3-172

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences In accordance with these requirements, the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines work with the Campbell County Weed and Pest Department and conduct active noxious weed control programs on their existing coal leases and mine permit areas. If these LBA tracts are leased and proposed for mining, the mines would be required to continue to utilize those practices on their new lease areas as part of the mine permitting processes. The COE would ensure no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands and their associated vegetation occurs within the total disturbance area. Detailed wetland mitigation plans would be developed and approved by the COE during the permitting stage. Non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands would be reestablished in accordance with the requirements of the surface landowner or as required by WDEQ/LQD (Section 3.7). Revegetation growth and diversity would be monitored until the final reclamation bond is released (a minimum of 10 years following seeding with the approved seed mixture). Erosion would be monitored to determine if there is a need for corrective action during establishment of vegetation. Controlled grazing would be used following revegetation to manage the vegetation and determine the suitability and effectiveness of the reclaimed land for the postmining land uses. 3.9.5 Residual Impacts Reclaimed vegetative communities surrounding native plant community. 3.10 Wildlife 3.10.1 General Setting This section discusses the affected environment and potential environmental consequences to wildlife in general. The subsequent sections address the potential impacts to specific groups of wildlife species. 3.10.1.1 Affected Environment Background information on wildlife in the general Wright analysis area was drawn from several sources, including Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) records, the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD), recent PRB federal coal lease application EIS documents (available for public review on Wyoming BLM’s website at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en.html), and personal contacts with WGFD and USFWS biologists. Site-specific data for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts were obtained from several sources, including baseline information contained in WDEQ/LQD mine permit applications and annual wildlife monitoring reports for the applicant mines and nearby coal mines. In Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-173 may never completely match the

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences accordance with the current WDEQ/LQD mine permitting requirements, wildlife baseline surveys and annual monitoring surveys extend 1 to 2 miles beyond the mine permit area, depending on the mine and the species. The general analysis area for each of the six LBA tracts included in this analysis is defined as the respective tracts’ BLM study area plus surrounding lands within a ¼-mile perimeter that could be disturbed by mining the coal within the BLM study area. The wildlife survey area typically overlaps significant portions of the general analysis area for all of the LBA tracts, providing long-term wildlife data for those areas. The wildlife survey areas for this analysis includes the general analysis areas plus a surrounding perimeter that varies in extent depending on the species. The general Wright analysis area represents the entire area covered by all of the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts. Due to the proximity of the proposed lease areas to the adjacent applicant mine permit areas, the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts have received some level of coverage annually since the early 1980s. Increasing percentages of the general analysis areas were included in annual monitoring efforts as survey areas for the adjacent mines have been expanding due to previous coal lease acquisitions and subsequent permit area amendments. In addition, TBCC conducted baseline investigations during 2006 and early 2007 specifically for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract with additional surveys targeting the North and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts in 2007 and 2008; JRCC conducted baseline investigations in 2007 and 2008 expressly for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract; and PRC conducted baseline investigations during 2007 and early 2008 specifically for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. These surveys covered the respective general analysis areas, and surveys for selected wildlife information such as raptor nest and greater sagegrouse lek locations included in a 2-mile perimeter surrounding the general analysis areas. Site-specific surveys for each lease area and appropriate perimeters would be part of the mine permitting process if the tracts are leased. The topography within the general Wright analysis area (discussed in Section 3.2) is mainly of gently rolling upland terrain broken by minor drainages and internally-drained playa areas. Most of the land surface (between 75 and 90 percent, depending on the particular LBA tract) seldom exceeds a 5 percent slope. The steepest slopes typically occur near the highest elevations along the ridge lines and drainage divides, at the breaks or the broken land dissected by small ravines and gullies, or at the transitions between uplands and bottom lands. Surface mine lands, both active and reclaimed, dominate the landscape generally east and south of the LBA tracts. Elevations range from approximately 4,690 to 5,170 feet above sea level. In an undisturbed condition, the major vegetation types in the general Wright analysis area (discussed in Section 3.9) provide high quality habitats for many species. Vegetation types tend to occur in a mosaic across the landscape; 3-174 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences therefore, many wildlife species can be expected to utilize more than one habitat type. Predominant wildlife habitat types classified on the LBA tracts and adjacent areas generally correspond with the major vegetation communities defined during the vegetation baseline surveys; they consist primarily of Big Sage Shrubland, Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland, and Crested Wheatgrass/Agricultural Pastureland. The predominant wildlife habitat type within the general Wright analysis area is shrubland (approximately 42 percent), which consists mostly of Wyoming big sagebrush. The native upland/mixed prairie grasslands is the next largest habitat type (approximately 28 percent) and it consists mostly of western wheatgrass, needleandthread, prairie junegrass, blue grama, Sandberg bluegrass, and cheatgrass brome. The seeded grassland/agricultural pastureland (approximately 15 percent) is dominated by crested wheatgrass, but older seedings have a mixture of less dominant native plant species including, needleandthread, prairie junegrass, red threeawn, sixweeksgrass, big sagebrush, and upland sedges. No designated critical, crucial, or unique habitats are present. Mesic (requiring a moderate amount of moisture) habitats are limited to narrow corridors along primary drainages (Porcupine Creek, Little Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, and some of the larger tributaries of these streams). Several playas dominated by western wheatgrass are scattered throughout the general Wright analysis area. Very few trees are present, the majority of which were planted in shelterbelts/windbreaks around ranch buildings. A few other isolated trees exist along some drainages. An occasional rough breaks habitat occurs and is distinguished by the irregularity of vegetation, slopes, and soils. Vegetation on the rough breaks is typically sparse, although the diversity of vascular plant species is greater than in the Big Sage Shrubland and Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland communities. As a result of oil and gas development, there are networks of road and well-pad disturbance areas overlaying much of the areas, as well as tank batteries and miles of pipeline disturbance with varying degrees of recovering vegetative cover. From north to south, the general Wright analysis area is drained by Black Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, Little Thunder Creek, Porcupine Creek, Horse Creek, and Antelope Creek (discussed in Section 3.5). Under natural conditions, all water courses in the general Wright analysis area are ephemeral, receiving flow contributions primarily from convective thunderstorm runoff and, to a lesser extent, from snowmelt runoff in the spring (Ogle and Calle 2006). Limited portions of the streams may receive recharge from bank storage, making them locally intermittent. Historically, water was often present in the main stream channels only as small, shallow, isolated pools. Currently, and for an indefinite time into the future, some of the water courses and internally-drained playas are receiving discharge water from CBNG development; however, streamflow is still very much a function of the amount and timing of precipitation and snowmelt runoff. Therefore, the mean annual Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-175

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences streamflow rates and discharge volumes have not significantly increased, although extended periods of no flow are less common (Clark and Mason 2007). Despite the recent influx of water into the general Wright analysis area, many channels are still reduced to isolated, shallow pools in the summer. Seventeen stock reservoirs (over 1 acre in size) and 41 playa areas exist within the six wildlife general analysis areas. Those water bodies provide short-term habitat for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and other aquatic species during spring, but are less reliable, and often dry, during other seasons. 3.10.1.2 Environmental Consequences 3.10.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 If the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3, the areal extent of coal mining operations would increase. Estimated disturbance areas for each of these six LBA tracts under the respective Proposed Action and Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative configuration for each tract, are presented in Tables 3-1 through 3 6. At the Black Thunder Mine, mining operations would be extended by up to about 4.8 additional years for the North Hilight Field tract, 2.3 additional years for the South Hilight Field tract, and 7.1 additional years for the West Hilight Field tract under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, for each LBA tract. At the Jacobs Ranch Mine, mining operations would be extended by up to about 22.8 additional years under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. At the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, mining operations would be extended by up to about 7.8 additional years for the North Porcupine tract and 3.6 additional years for the South Porcupine tract under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each LBA tract. Wildlife habitat outside of tracts’ general analysis areas may be removed by adjacent mining activities unrelated to the LBA tracts. Impacts to wildlife that would be caused by mining the LBA tracts would be addressed as part of the review of the mine permit applications by the WGFD, USFWS, and the WDEQ/LQD when the mining and reclamation permits are amended to include the LBA tracts. Mining directly and indirectly impacts local wildlife populations. These impacts are both short-term (until successful reclamation is achieved) and long-term (persisting beyond successful completion of reclamation). The direct impacts of surface coal mining on wildlife occur during mining and are therefore shortterm. They include injury and mortalities caused by collisions with minerelated traffic or mortalities due to loss of habitat (especially for species with limited mobility such as fish and some herptiles); restrictions on wildlife movement created by fences, spoil piles, and mine pits; and displacement of wildlife from active mining areas. Displaced animals may find suitable habitat that is not occupied by other animals, occupy suitable habitat that is already being used by other individuals, or occupy poorer quality habitat than that from which they were displaced. In the latter two situations, the animals may 3-176 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences suffer from increased competition with other animals and are less likely to survive and reproduce. If the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts were leased and mined, the direct impacts related to mine traffic and mine operations would be extended within the general Wright analysis area by up to as many as 22.8 years (for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under Alternative 2). The indirect impacts are longer term than the direct impacts. Results from long-term surveys conducted in both native and reclaimed habitats at the three applicant mines, and from those completed at other surface mines in the region, demonstrated that some reclaimed habitat types can support levels of species diversity and abundance equal to or greater than their native counterparts. However, wildlife species composition can be quite different between pre- and post-mining habitats, depending on the structure and composition of native habitats prior to disturbance. After the LBA tracts are leased, mined, and reclaimed, alterations in the topography and vegetative communities would likely result in such changes in species composition from pre-mine conditions. Some vegetative communities currently present in the tracts, such as low-growth species (e.g., blue grama, and birdsfoot sagebrush) and big sagebrush, are often difficult to reestablish through artificial plantings. Wildlife species associated with pre-mining vegetative communities would be replaced by species that are typically associated with the taller and/or denser vegetation that is often present in reclaimed areas, especially until reclamation matures to its target mix. Topographic changes would be permanent, and microhabitats may be reduced on reclaimed land due to flatter topography, less diverse vegetative cover, and reduction in sagebrush density. Changes in the composition between pre- and post-mining vegetation and wildlife species may be reduced if special efforts are made to reestablish low-growth and shrub habitat types. 3.10.1.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and the impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat associated with coal removal as described above would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Mining operations and the associated impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat would continue as currently permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases, but would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. Impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat associated with CBNG development Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-177

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences would continue where those activities overlap with the six LBA tracts included in this analysis. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.10.2 Big Game 3.10.2.1 Affected Environment The two big game species that are common in suitable habitat throughout the general Wright analysis area are pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Elk (Cervus elaphus) are frequent winter residents in the area, but spend most of the year in the Rochelle Hills east of the general Wright analysis area. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are seldom observed within the general Wright analysis area due to their preference for riparian woodlands and irrigated agricultural lands. No crucial big game habitat or migration corridors are recognized by the WGFD in this area. Pronghorn are by far the most common big game species in the general Wright analysis area. Pronghorn were observed using all habitat types, although this species is most abundant in the shrubland and native upland/mixed prairie grassland habitats. Reclaimed grassland constitutes only a small portion of the available habitat around the PRB mines, although pronghorn are observed during all seasonal surveys in these areas. Home range for pronghorn can vary between 400 acres to 5,600 acres, according to several factors including season, habitat quality, population characteristics, and local livestock occurrence. Typically, daily movements do not exceed 6 miles. Pronghorn may make seasonal migrations between summer and winter habitats, but migrations are often triggered by availability of preferred forage availability and not local weather conditions (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). The WGFD has classified the general Wright analysis area as primarily yearlong pronghorn range (a population or substantial portion of a population of animals makes general use of this habitat on a year-round basis, but may leave the area under severe conditions on occasion) and winter/yearlong pronghorn range (a population or a portion of a population of animals makes general use of this habitat on a year-round basis, with a significant influx of additional animals onto this habitat from other seasonal ranges in the winter). The general Wright analysis area spans two pronghorn WGFD herd units: the Hilight Herd Unit (antelope Hunt Area 24) north of State Highway 450 and the Cheyenne River Herd Unit (antelope Hunt Area 27) south of the State Highway 450. In post-season 2007, the WGFD estimated the Hilight Herd Unit population to be 12,397 animals, with an objective of 11,000; the Cheyenne River Herd Unit estimate was 55,287, which is 45 percent above the objective of 38,000 animals (WGFD 2007a).

3-178

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Mule deer use nearly all habitats, but prefer sagebrush grassland, rough breaks, and riparian bottomland. Browse is an important component of the mule deer’s diet throughout the year, comprising as much as 60 percent of total intake during autumn, while forbs and grasses typically make up the rest of their diet (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Mule deer are frequently observed in native habitats and on mine reclaimed lands within existing mine permit areas. In certain areas of the state this species tends to be more migratory than whitetailed deer, traveling from higher elevations in the summer to winter ranges that provide more food and cover. However, monitoring has indicated that mule deer are not very migratory in the vicinity of the general Wright analysis area. The WGFD has classified a majority of the general Wright analysis area as being out of the normal mule deer use range, although areas that roughly follow the predominant stream channels are classified as being yearlong range, which means that a population or substantial portion of a population of animals makes general use of this habitat on a year-round basis, but may leave the area under severe conditions on occasion. The entire general Wright analysis area is located within the WGFD Thunder Basin Mule Deer Herd Unit (mule deer Hunt Areas 10 and 21). No crucial or critical mule deer ranges or migration corridors occur on or within several miles of the general Wright analysis area. Crucial range is defined as any particular seasonal range or habitat component that has been documented as the determining factor in a population’s ability to maintain and reproduce itself at a certain level. The WGFD estimated the 2007 post-season mule deer population in this herd unit at 20,980, which is about 5 percent above the current objective of 20,000 deer (WGFD 2007a). White-tailed deer are not managed separately by the WGFD, but are managed and hunted in conjunction with mule deer. White-tailed deer prefer riparian habitats and are therefore seldom observed in the general Wright analysis area due to the lack of that particular habitat. The WGFD classifies the entire general Wright analysis area, with the exception of a narrow corridor along Antelope Creek, as out of the normal white-tailed deer use range. The Antelope Creek corridor is classified as yearlong range. The entire general Wright analysis area is located within the WGFD Central White-tailed Deer Herd Unit (white-tailed deer Hunt Areas 10 and 21). The WGFD does not have population estimates for this herd unit due to the challenges of obtaining adequate classifications in many hunt areas within the herd unit given the preponderance of private land and the poor visibility of deer in riparian areas. Another factor preventing reasonable population estimates is that these whitetailed deer are highly mobile and their movements in central and northeastern Wyoming are not well understood (WGFD 2007a). A resident elk herd resides in the Rochelle Hills east of the general Wright analysis area. Elk do wander from the protection of the Rochelle Hills to forage in native and reclaimed grasslands in the vicinity of the general Wright analysis area. None of the general Wright analysis area is classified by the WGFD as within normal elk use range. As more lands are reclaimed from mining, elk are shifting their winter use to these areas. The WGFD has designated an Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-179

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences approximately 5 square mile area on reclaimed lands within the Jacobs Ranch Mine permit area as crucial winter habitat for the Rochelle Hills elk herd (Oedekoven 1994). Rio Tinto Energy America (RTEA) (owner of the Jacobs Ranch Mine) and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) finalized a formal agreement that created the Rochelle Hills Conservation Easement. The easement contains nearly 1,000 acres, with 75 percent of that total comprised of reclaimed mine lands within the Jacobs Ranch Mine permit area. The easement acreage was donated to RMEF by RTEA to ensure that the reclaimed land continues to be used as grazing land and wildlife habitat for the extended future (RMEF 2007). Elk have occasionally been observed within the general Wright analysis area in recent years, but they are typically restricted to the pine breaks of the Rochelle Hills, which are located immediately east of the three applicant mines. The WGFD estimated the 2007 post-season elk population for the Rochelle Hills Herd Unit at 600, which is 50 percent above the current objective of 400 animals (WGFD 2007a). 3.10.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.10.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Under the respective Proposed Action and Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative configuration for each LBA tract, big game would be displaced from portions of the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts to adjacent ranges during mining. Pronghorn would be most affected due to their greater abundance in the area; however, no areas classified as crucial pronghorn habitat occur on or within 2 miles of these LBA tracts. Mule deer would not be substantially impacted, given their infrequent use of these lands and the availability of suitable habitat in adjacent areas. White-tailed deer are not usually found in the area but are occasionally observed to the south along Antelope Creek. None of the land within the general Wright analysis area is considered by WGFD to be an elk use area, although the Rochelle Hills Elk Herd are shifting their winter use to reclaimed lands within the general Wright analysis area. Big game displacement would be incremental, occurring over several years and allowing for gradual changes in distribution patterns. Big game residing in the adjacent areas could be impacted by increased competition with displaced animals. Noise, dust, and associated human presence would cause some localized avoidance of foraging areas adjacent to mining activities. On the existing coal leases, however, big game have continued to occupy areas adjacent to and within active mining operations, suggesting that some animals may become habituated to such disturbances. Big game animals are highly mobile and can move to undisturbed areas. However, there would be more restrictions on big game movement on or through these six LBA tracts due to the construction of additional fences, spoil piles, and open pits related to mining. During winter storms, pronghorn may not be able to negotiate these barriers. WDEQ guidelines require fencing to be 3-180 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences designed to permit passage pronghorn and other big game species, to the extent possible. Following reclamation, topographic moderation and changes in vegetation may result in a long-term reduction in big game carrying capacity, with effects varying by species. Eventual restoration of important shrub habitats would allow for the return of some animals to reclaimed mine lands over time. 3.10.2.2.2 No Action Alternative The impacts to big game under the No Action Alternative would be similar to the impacts described in Section 3.10.1.2.2. 3.10.3 Other Mammals 3.10.3.1 Affected Environment A variety of small and medium-sized mammal species occur in the vicinity of the general Wright analysis area, although not all have been observed on the LBA tracts themselves. These include predators and furbearers, such as the coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), bobcat (Lynx rufus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), badger (Taxidea taxus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and beaver (Castor canadensis). Prey species include rodents [such as mice, rats, voles, gophers, ground squirrels, black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus), muskrats, and chipmunks] and lagomorphs (jackrabbits and cottontails). These prey species are cyclically common and widespread throughout the region. Porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum) and bats (such as hoary [Lasiurus cinereus] and big brown [Eptesicus fuscus]) also have habitat in the vicinity, primarily in forested habitats of the Rochelle Hills east of the general Wright analysis area. The prey species are important for raptors and other predators. The black-tailed prairie dog was added to the list of candidates for federal listing as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act on February 4, 2000. The USFWS then removed the black-tailed prairie dog from the list of candidate species on August 12, 2004. On December 2, 2008, the USFWS announced a 90-day finding on a petition seeking federal protection of the black-tailed prairie dog under the ESA. The USFWS subsequently announced that it will conduct a 12-month finding, which will end February 2, 2009, to determine if listing of the species is warranted (USFWS 2009). The USFWS continues to encourage the protection of prairie dog colonies for their value to the prairie ecosystem and the myriad of species that rely on them (USFWS 2004a). The black-tailed prairie dog is a BLM Sensitive Species and a USFS Sensitive Species (see Appendix H). The black-tailed prairie dog is a highly social, diurnally active, burrowing mammal. Aggregations of individual burrows, known as colonies, form the basic unit of prairie dog populations. Found throughout the Great Plains in Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-181

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences short-grass and mixed-grass prairie areas (Fitzgerald et al. 1994), the blacktailed prairie dog has declined in population numbers and extent of colonies in recent years. The three major impacts that have influenced black-tailed prairie dog populations are the initial conversion of prairie grasslands to cropland in the eastern portion of its range from approximately the 1880s through the 1920s; large-scale control efforts conducted from approximately 1918 through 1972, when an Executive Order was issued banning the use of Compound 1080 (a predacide and rodenticide); and the introduction of sylvatic plague into North American ecosystems in 1908 (USFWS 2000 and 2009). Currently, this species is primarily found in isolated populations in the eastern half of Wyoming (Clark and Stromberg 1987). Prairie dogs are considered a common resident in eastern Wyoming, utilizing short-grass and mid-grass habitats (Cerovski et al. 2004). Prairie dogs construct extensive burrow systems in fine- to medium-textured upland soil types. The USFWS’s most recent estimate of occupied black-tailed prairie dog habitat in Wyoming, which was made in 2004, is approximately 125,000 acres (USFWS 2004b). Many other wildlife species, such as the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), swift fox (Vulpes velox), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) may be dependent on the black-tailed prairie dog for some portion of their life cycle (USFWS 2000 and 2009). According to USFS observations on the Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG), which overlaps portions of the general Wright analysis area, the largest concentrations of prairie dog colonies in the vicinity of the eastern PRB surface coal mines are found east of the coal burnline, which is outside and east of the area of surface coal mining (Byer 2003). The large prairie dog complexes in this area east of the coal burnline have been drastically impacted by outbreaks of plague at irregular intervals over the years. The colonies west of the burnline, including those within the general Wright analysis area, are generally smaller and less densely concentrated. These colonies have not been affected by plague to the same degree as those located east of the burnline, likely due to their reduced size and density. Qualified wildlife biologists with Intermountain Resources (of Laramie, Wyoming) and Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes (of Gillette, Wyoming) have mapped the current acreage of prairie dog colonies on and within 2 miles of the general analysis areas for each of these six LBA tracts. Biologists walked the perimeters of colonies and delineated them using hand-held global positioning system receivers and/or visually mapped them on topographic maps. Figures 3-32 through 3-37 depict the location and extent of prairie dog colonies that are completely and partially within the 2-mile perimeter that encompasses the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tract, respectively. There are overlaps between the six prairie dog survey area boundaries, and as such, there are overlaps in the depiction of colonies on these figures and in the individual tract discussions that follow below. A total 3-182 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
29 28 27 26

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
29 28 27 26 25 30

Cre

T.
45 N. T. 44 N.

Keeline Road

T. 45
N. T. 44 N.

Bl a

Fo r k

BNSF & UP RR

Wes t

Hilight Road

FH
8 9

FH
11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

FH
17 16

FH
14

FH
Jacobs R oad

FH
15 13

Th un de r

Ke elin e

GE GE
20 21

SH SH
22

SH/RTH/FH Shroyer Road
23

Ro 13 ad
Cree
24

BO BO

FH FH FH FH

FH
21

k
19

Butch Lek

Hansen Lakes Lek

Nor th

FH FH
26

SH
29

FH/SH
25 30

S mall R oad

SH FH FH

FH FH FH

ng Pro

FH FH FH
33 34 35

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

SH
32 33 34

SH/GHO
35

SH/FH SH SH SH SH
6

FH 32 FH

BO BO BO BO
3 2 1 6

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

e ttl Li

FH
5 4 3 2

SH/FH

State

Highway 450
Th un de r
12

Stuart II
Lek

ee Cr k
13

Li t

Sta

tle

High

way

450
30

Thu
30

nde r

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative General Analysis Area 2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary
0 5000 10000 20000

Creek

R. 70 W. R. 69 W. Occupied Sage-Grouse Lek (Active at Least Once Within the Last 10 Years) and 3-Mile Radius Undetermined Sage-Grouse Lek (No Documented Activity for Last 10 Years but Insufficient Information to Designate Unoccupied) and 3-Mile Radius Unoccupied (Abandoned) Sage-Grouse Lek (No Activity for 10 Consecutive Years) Prairie Dog Colony

LEGEND

Existing Raptor Nest Former Raptor Nest Existing Platform Nest
GE FH RTH SH GHO BO

Golden Eagle Ferruginous Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Swainson's Hawk Great Horned Owl Burrowing Owl

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-32. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the North Hilight Field LBA Tract.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-183

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
25 30 29 28 27

S mall R oad
26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
25 30 29 28 27 26

rth No

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

ng Pro

Lit

tle
Th un de r
2

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

C ek re

State Highway 450

Stuart I Lek
13 18

Stuart II Lek

FH FH 10 FH FH FH

FH FH FH FH

FH/RTH

FH/RTH FH
24 19 20 21 22 23

FH
19

FH FH
25 30 29 28 27

GE GE

FH FH

GE SH/GE GE
25

Li t

FH FH FH FH Black
Thunder
Lek
FH
30

tle

Thu
29

nde r

Creek

Hili ght R oad

T. 43 36 N. T. 42 N.

FH FH FH
3

FH FH FH FH FH FH
1

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Matheson Road

FH Edwards Road

R eno Road

SH/FH SH SH/FH
8 9 10 11

Po rcu
13

SH/FH SH/FH 12 FH/SH 7 FH FH FH
13 18

B NS F & UP RR

pin e
18 17 16

FH FH
15 17 16 15 14

Cre
24 19 20

ek
21 22

Antel ope

R oad

Reno Road

Mackey

Payne Lek
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

Road

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative General Analysis Area 2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary
0 5000 10000 20000

Existing Raptor Nest Former Raptor Nest Existing Platform Nest
GE FH RTH SH

Golden Eagle Ferruginous Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Swainson's Hawk

Occupied Sage-Grouse Lek (Active at Least Once Within the Last 10 Years) and 3-Mile Radius Undetermined Sage-Grouse Lek (No Documented Activity for Last 10 Years but Insufficient Information to Designate Unoccupied) and 3-Mile Radius Unoccupied (Destroyed) Sage-Grouse Lek (Destroyed and No Longer Suitable for Breeding) Prairie Dog Colony

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-33. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the South Hilight Field LBA Tract.

3-184

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

B NS F & UP RR

Hilight Road

FH FH FH
15

FH FH
14

GE
S tate Highway 59
23 26 11

GE GE
21

SH/RTH/FH SH SH
22 23

GE
23 24 19 20

BO BO

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary

No rth
Pr on g

SH
28 27

Small R oad
26

FH/SH
25 30

West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 3 General Analysis Area 2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary Existing Raptor Nest

L it tle

SH SH/GHO
34 35 36

Thu

T. 44 35 N. T. 43 2 N.
FH FH
1

GE
36 31

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

r nde

FH FH FH

FH 2 Cre ek

SH/FH

State Highway 450

FH FH

BO
12 7

FH FH
8

9 FH

FH FH

FH
10 11

Stuart I
Lek

14 13

Stuart II Lek

Former Raptor Nest Existing Platform Nest
GE

e ttl Li

r de un Th

Golden Eagle Ferruginous Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Swainson's Hawk Great Horned Owl Burrowing Owl

Cr 18 ee k

FH FH/RTH
20 23

FH/RTH

FH RTH SH

FH GE
25 30 29 28

FH
27 26

GE GE GE GE SH/GE

FH FH

GHO BO

Undetermined Sage-Grouse Lek (No Documented Activity for Last 10 Years but Insufficient Information to Designate Unoccupied) and 3-Mile Radius Unoccupied (Destroyed) Sage-Grouse Lek (Destroyed and No Longer Suitable for Breeding) Prairie Dog Colony

FH FH
2 1 6 5 4

Hili ght R oad

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Black Thunder Lek
36

FH FH FH

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

FH
3

FH FH FH R eno Road
1

Edwards Road SH/FH SH SH/FH
12 7

Matheson Road

Po rcu
14 13

pin e
18

FH FH
17 16 15 14 13 18

B NS F & UP RR

Cre
23 24 19 20

ek
21 22

Antel ope R oad

0 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

5000

10000

20000

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-34. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the West Hilight Field LBA Tract.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-185

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
28 27 26 25 30 29 28

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
25 30

Cre e k

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Keeline Road

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Cre e k

C oal

FH FH FH

FH
W

Fo rk

FH FH
8 9

Hilight Road

y Ha

B NS F & UP RR

FH
11 12 7 8 9

FH FH FH
15

FH FH
Jacobs Road
13 18 17 16

es t

FH FH

SH/RTH/FH
Shroyer

GE FH
21 22 23 24 19

GE GE
20

SH
21

Road
23

BO BO

Butch Lek

FH FH FH FH FH

FH FH SH
30 29

ay 387 hw Hig te S ta
34

FH FH GE GE
31

S mall R oad
26

SH/FH
25 30

T. 44 33 N. T. 43 4 N.

SH SH/GHO
35

FH FH
3 2 1

GE FH FH FH FH FH
6 5 4 3 2

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

SH/FH

rth

FH FH

BO
12 7

FH Stuart I Lek
State Hig hway 59
16 15 14 13

State Highway 450 FH 8 9 FH FH FH

FH FH

FH
11

Pr on g
12

Li e ttl

Stuart II Lek
Th un de
18 17 16 15 14

FH FH

r de un Th

Li t tle
19

Creek

C os n e
28

Hili ght R oad

ty Road r Coun
27 26 25 30 29 28 27

B NS F & UP RR

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Undetermined Sage-Grouse Lek (No Documented Activity for Last 10 Years but Insufficient Information to Designate Unoccupied) and 3-Mile Radius Unoccupied (Abandoned) Sage-Grouse Lek (No Activity for 10 Consecutive Years) Prairie Dog Colony Existing Raptor Nest Former Raptor Nest
GE FH RTH SH GHO
0 5000 10000 20000

Golden Eagle Ferruginous Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Swainson's Hawk

Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Boundary West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative General Analysis Area 2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary

Great Horned Owl BO Burrowing Owl

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-35. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract.

3-186

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
Tr
Hili ght R oad
5 4 3 4 3 1 6 2 1 6 2 5 4 5

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
us

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
k ee Cr
ool S ch
Ro
7 8

er sl

Edwards Road SH/FH

R eno Road

SH/FH
8 11 9 10

SH SH/FH SH/FH BO
7 8

S ch o ol Cr eek

Matheson Road

Cre

FH
17 13 18 17 16 15 14

FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH
16 13 18

Road

Po 12 rc up ine

FH FH/SH
k ee Cr

FH FH FH

9 10

Antelope

SH/RTH/FH FH
20 21 22 23 24 19 20 23 24 21 22

FH SH/FH/RTH SH H BO 15 14 SH Reno Road H FH BO FH FH GE/RTH FH Payne Lek FH FH FH SEO BO
25 30

FH FH GE FH RTH RTH FH
28 27 26

SH SH SH/FH FH GE SH SH
29

Mackey Road

FH
29 28 27

SH BO SH FH BO FH
34 35 33 26

SH SH/FH FH SH FH FH/GHO/RTH
32 33 30

FH FH
32

FH Mackey Road Wilson Lek
36

FH FH SH/GHO/RTH FH FH SH
1 6 4 34 35

T. 42 35 N.
RTH/GHO FH FH FH FH FH
36 31

BO BO Kort I Lek Kort II Lek BO
2

FH SH/FH SH/FH
4 3

FH FH FH FH FH FH FH

T. 42 N.

S ta te
5

H ig hw

T. 41 2 N.
BO GE
8 10 8 11 7

SH/GHO/FH FH FH FH 2 FH FH
12

ay 59

Figure 3-36. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the North Porcupine LBA Tract.
Po 5 rc up ine

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications
FH B 3 FH GE FH B FH FH RTH/FH FH
1 6 5 4

T. 41 N.
Rochelle Lek

GE/RTH Ho 9 rse FH FH GE/B/RTH FH FH

k ee Cr

14 17 15 16 14

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

ek re C

R. 70 W. R. 69 W. Existing Raptor Nest Former Raptor Nest
GE

LEGEND
Occupied Sage-Grouse Lek
(Active at Least Once Within the Last 10 Years)
and 3-Mile Radius

North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

General Analysis Area

Unoccupied (Abandoned) Sage-Grouse Lek
(No Activity for 10 Consecutive Years)
Unoccupied (Destroyed) Sage-Grouse Lek
(Destroyed and No Longer Suitable for Breeding)
Prairie Dog Colony

2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary
20000

5000

10000

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3-187

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Existing Platform Nest Golden Eagle FH Ferruginous Hawk RTH Red-tailed Hawk SH Swainson's Hawk GHO Great Horned Owl BO Burrowing Owl H Northern Harrier SEO Short-eared Owl B Buteo Species

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Edwards Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
Antel ope R oad
10 11 12 7

Reno Road
Tr
8 9 10 11 12 7

Matheson Road

s us

r le

k ee Cr

Reno Road

RTH
Matheson Road
29 28 27

FH BO
26

RTH
25

SH/FH 30 FH
BO
31

Payne Lek

Mackey Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

32 33 34

Wilson Lek
32 33 34 35 36

SH/GHO/RTH SH/FH SH/GHO/FH SH/FH FH FH FH 4 3 2 BO GE/RTH FH FH
9 10

FH FH

RTH/GHO SH

FH FH FH
1

FH FH
6

Kort I Lek

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Po r

FH FH
12

cu 5 pi ne

Kort II Lek

GE SH

FH
11

FH SH

FH GE FH GE 8 GE RTH/GHO
k ee Cr

Rochelle Lek
9

GHO

or 15 se
ek re C

GE/B/RTH
14

FH RTH FH RTH/GE
13

BO BO BO 17 BO BO BO BO

GHO GHO
16

GHO

RTH/GHO

SH/RTH
20 21 22

SH/FH
23

FH FH FH
24

FH RTH FH SH
19 20 21 22 23 24 19

SH SH

RTH
30 29 28 27 26

FH RTH GHO RTH
35 26

RTH/GHO FH
25

Campbell County
25 30

FH RTH/GHO
32

Converse County

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.

RTH/GHO RTH
36 31 32 33 34

e op tel An
5

Cre

A
Ro ad
3

ope ntel

Cre

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.

pe elo nt A

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Occupied Sage-Grouse Lek (Active at Least Once Within the Last 10 Years) and 3-Mile Radius Unoccupied (Abandoned) Sage-Grouse Lek (No Activity for 10 Consecutive Years) Unoccupied (Destroyed) Sage-Grouse Lek (Destroyed and No Longer Suitable for Breeding) Prairie Dog Colony
0 5000 10000 20000

Existing Raptor Nest Former Raptor Nest Existing Platform Nest
GE FH RTH SH GHO

Golden Eagle Ferruginous Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Swainson's Hawk

North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative General Analysis Area 2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary

Great Horned Owl BO Burrowing Owl
B

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Buteo Species

Figure 3-37. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the South Porcupine LBA Tract.

3-188

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of 33 occupied prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 1,490.2 noncontiguous acres were present on and within 2 miles of the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts in 2007. A total of six prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 148.6 acres are located entirely within the six combined general analysis areas. The black-tailed prairie dog is recognized as a USFS and BLM Sensitive Species and is further discussed in the Sensitive Species Evaluation (Appendix H) of this EIS. 3.10.3.1.1 North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts Four prairie dog colonies (approximately 53.8 total acres) were found within 2 miles of the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract (Figure 3-32). Two colonies of which are within the general analysis area for the tract (the area likely to be affected under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative) and are approximately 3.4 to 19.5 acres in size. The two other colonies are approximately 3.7 and 27.2 acres in size. Seven prairie dog colonies (approximately 177.2 total acres) were found within 2 miles of the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract (Figure 3 33). Only one colony (approximately 0.1 acre in size) is within the general analysis area for the tract (the area likely to be affected under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative). The other six colonies are approximately 2.0, 2.6, 7.7, 21.8, 53.9, and 89.1 acres in size. Eight prairie dog colonies (approximately 159.0 total acres) were found within 2 miles of the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract (Figure 3-34). One colony (approximately 89.1 acres in size) is within the general analysis area for the tract (the area likely to be affected under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative). The other seven colonies are approximately 0.1, 2.6, 3.4, 7.7, 17.9, 19.5, and 27.2 acres in size. 3.10.3.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Six prairie dog colonies (approximately 78.3 total acres) were found within 2 miles of the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch tract (Figure 3 35). Only one colony (approximately 17.9 acre in size) of which is within the general analysis area for the tract (the area likely to be affected under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative). The other five colonies are approximately 2.6, 3.4, 7.7, 19.5, and 27.2 acres in size. 3.10.3.1.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts Seventeen prairie dog colonies (approximately 1,317.0 total acres) were found within or overlapped the 2-mile perimeter around the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract (Figure 3-36). Only one colony (approximately 18.6 acres in size) of which is within the general analysis area for the tract (the area Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-189

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences likely to be affected under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative). The other 16 colonies range in size from approximately 1 to 345 acres; the largest of which occurs within both the North and South Porcupine wildlife survey areas. Ten prairie dog colonies (approximately 476.3 total acres) were found within or overlapped the 2-mile perimeter around the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract (Figure 3-37). No colonies are within the general analysis area for the tract (the area likely to be affected under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative). The largest colony was approximately 345 acres; this colony is within both the North and South Porcupine wildlife survey areas. The remaining nine colonies were all less than 40 acres, with an average size of about 15 acres. 3.10.3.2 Environmental Consequences 3.10.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Medium-sized mammals (such as lagomorphs, coyotes, and foxes) would be temporarily displaced to other habitats by mining, potentially resulting in increased competition and mortality. However, these animals would rebound as forage is developed or small mammal prey species recolonize the reclaimed areas. Direct losses of small mammals would be higher than for other wildlife, since the mobility of small mammals is limited and many will retreat into burrows when disturbed. Therefore, populations of such prey animals as voles, ground squirrels and mice would decline during mining. However, these animals have a high reproductive potential and tend to re-occupy and adapt to reclaimed areas quickly. Research projects on habitat reclamation on mined lands within the PRB for small mammals and birds concluded that objectives to encourage recolonization of reclamation by small mammal communities are being achieved (Shelley 1992). That study evaluated sites at five separate mines. Black–tailed prairie dogs have recolonized reclaimed lands on the Jacobs Ranch Mine and are expanding their colonies east of that mine’s current permit area (IR 2007). Six prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 148.6 non-contiguous acres in the combined general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field tract (two colonies totaling about 22.9 acres), South Hilight Field tract (one colony of roughly 0.1 acre), West Hilight Field tract (one colony of approximately 89.1 acres), West Jacobs Ranch tract (one colony of about 17.9 acres), and North Porcupine tract (one colony of roughly 18.6 acres) would be affected by leasing and mining these six LBA tracts, each under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration. This represents approximately 10 percent of the total colony acreage (approximately 1,490.2 acres) that currently exists within the combined prairie dog survey areas. The other 90 percent (27 additional colonies) within the combined prairie dog survey areas may be affected by adjacent mining activities unrelated to the LBA tracts. Refer to the Biological Assessments (Appendix G) for each tract for further discussion of impacts to prairie dog colonies in the general analysis areas. 3-190 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.10.3.2.2 No Action Alternative Impacts to small mammals under the No Action Alternative would be similar to the impacts described in Section 3.10.1.2.2. 3.10.4 Raptors 3.10.4.1 Affected Environment The raptor species known or expected to occur in suitable habitats in the general Wright analysis area include the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), burrowing owl, and short-eared owl (Asio flammeus). Some of these species are USFS and/or BLM Sensitive Species (see Appendix H). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a migrant and common winter resident of the Wyoming PRB region. On July 9, 2007, the USFWS published a Federal Register notice (72 FR 37346) announcing that the bald eagle would be removed from the list of threatened and endangered (T&E) species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); delisting was effective as of August 8, 2007. However, the protections provided to the bald eagle under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 U.S.C. 668, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703, will remain in place. The bald eagle is now recognized as a USFS Sensitive Species and BLM Sensitive Species and is further discussed in Appendix H of this EIS. Those species that commonly nest in the general Wright analysis area are the golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and great horned owl. American kestrels, northern harriers, and shorteared owls intermittently nest in the area, as occasional sightings of recently fledged young indicate that such activities do occur within the general Wright analysis area for one or more of those species. Habitat is limited for those species that nest exclusively in trees or on cliffs, but several species have adapted to nesting on the ground, creek banks, buttes, mine highwalls, or rock outcrops. Rough-legged hawks are winter residents in northeast Wyoming, and breed in the arctic regions. The raptor monitoring areas for the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines include their respective permit areas and a surrounding 1- or 2-mile perimeter. Due to the proximity of the LBA tracts to those adjacent applicant mines, all or portions of the general analysis area and respective 2-mile perimeter for each of these six LBA tracts have been included in the mines’ annual raptor monitoring surveys since the early 1980s. Specific details regarding those surveys are available in the mines’ annual wildlife monitoring reports, which are on file with the WDEQ/LQD. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-191

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Figures 3-32 through 3-37 show the locations of raptor nests identified within the 2-mile perimeter that encompasses the general analysis area for each of the six WAC LBA tracts (North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tract, respectively), in 2007 and 2008. There are overlaps between the six raptor survey area boundaries, and as such, there are overlaps in the depiction of raptor nests on these figures and in the individual tract discussions that follow below. Over time, raptors have built new nests, natural forces have destroyed many nests, and others have been relocated for mitigation or removed by mining activities. In some cases, nests have been created to mitigate other nest sites impacted by mining operations. A total of 143 intact raptor nests were documented on and within 2 miles of the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts in 2007 and 2008. A total of 44 of these 143 nests are located within the six general analysis areas (the areas likely to be affected under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract). 3.10.4.1.1 North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts During surveys completed in 2007 by Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes (J&S), a total of 34 intact raptor nests (one golden eagle nest, 23 ferruginous hawk nests, four Swainson’s hawk nests, two burrowing owl nest sites, one platform nest erected for ferruginous hawks, and three nests that have been used by multiple raptor species) were present within 2 miles of the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract (Figure 3-32). Eight intact nests were within the general analysis area for the tract (the area likely to be affected under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative): four intact nests (two burrowing owl and two ferruginous hawk) were present within the tract as applied for, one intact nest (used by multiple species) was present on the additional lands evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2, and three more intact nests (all ferruginous hawk) were present on the ¼-mile disturbance buffer. Only one of the eight intact nests within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract was active (eggs laid) during 2007. The remaining 26 intact nests were within 2 miles of the tract’s general analysis area. Surveys completed in 2007 by J&S identified a total of 18 intact raptor nests (12 ferruginous hawk nests, two platform nests erected for ferruginous/Swainson’s hawks, and one platform nest erected for golden eagles, and three nests that have been used by multiple raptor species) within 2 miles of the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract (Figure 3-33). Two intact nests were within the general analysis area for the tract (the area likely to be affected under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative): no intact nests were present within the tract as applied for, and two intact ferruginous hawk nests were present on the additional lands evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2. Both of those nests were in the same territory. No intact nests within the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract were active during 2007. The remaining 16 intact nests were within 2 miles of the tract’s general analysis area. 3-192 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences During surveys completed in 2007 by J&S, a total of 42 intact raptor nests (26 ferruginous hawk nests, three Swainson’s hawk nests, three burrowing owl nest sites, two platform nests erected for ferruginous/red-tailed hawks, one platform nest erected for golden eagles, and four nests that have been used by multiple raptor species) were present within 2 miles of the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract (Figure 3-34). Eight intact nests were within the general analysis area for the tract (the area likely to be affected under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative): no intact nests were present within the tract as applied for, two intact nests (ferruginous hawk) were present on the additional lands evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2, and six more intact nests (four ferruginous hawk, one burrowing owl, and one golden eagle) were present within the ¼-mile disturbance buffer. Three of the eight intact nests within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract were active (eggs laid) during 2007. The remaining 34 intact nests were within 2 miles of the tract’s general analysis area. 3.10.4.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract During raptor nest surveys completed in 2007 and 2008 by Intermountain Resources (IR), a total of 44 intact raptor nests (33 ferruginous hawks nests, three Swainson’s hawk nests, three burrowing owl nest sites, two golden eagle nests, and three nests that have been used by multiple raptor species) were present within 2 miles of the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract (Figure 3-35). Nine intact nests were within the general analysis area for the tract (the area likely to be affected under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative): one intact nest (Swainson’s hawk) was present within the tract as applied for, two intact nests (one golden eagle and one Swainson’s hawk) were present on the additional lands evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2, and six more intact nests (five ferruginous hawk and one golden eagle) were present within the ¼-mile disturbance buffer. Three of the nine intact nests (one golden eagle, one Swainson’s hawk, and one ferruginous hawk) within the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch tract were active during 2007 and 2008. The remaining 35 intact nests were within 2 miles of the tract’s general analysis area. 3.10.4.1.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts During raptor nest surveys completed in 2007 by J&S, a total of 56 intact raptor nests (31 ferruginous hawk nests, five burrowing owl nest sites, five Swainson’s hawk nests, two golden eagle nests, one red-tailed hawk nest, 12 nests that have been used by multiple raptor species, which includes four platform nests erected for ferruginous hawks, one platform nest erected for golden eagles, and one platform nest erected for ferruginous/Swainson’s hawks) were present within 2 miles of the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract (Figure 3-36). Eleven intact nests were within the general analysis area for the tract (the area likely to be affected under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative): seven intact nests (one burrowing owl, three ferruginous hawk, two golden eagle, and one red-tailed hawk) were present Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-193

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences within the tract as applied for, three intact ferruginous nests were present on the additional lands evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2, and one additional intact ferruginous hawk nest was present on the ¼-mile disturbance buffer. Nineteen of the 56 intact nests were active (eggs laid) during 2007, and five of the 11 nests within the general analysis area were active that year. Surveys completed in 2007 by J&S identified a total of 32 intact raptor nests (12 ferruginous hawk nests, four Swainson’s hawk nests, two red-tailed hawk nests, four burrowing owl nest sites, two great horned owl nests, and eight nests that have been used by multiple raptor species, including one platform nest erected for ferruginous/Swainson’s hawks, one platform nest erected for ferruginous hawks, and one platform nest erected for Swainson’s hawks) present within 2 miles of the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract (Figure 3-37). Six intact nests were within the general analysis area for the tract (the area likely to be affected under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative), all six of which (three ferruginous hawk, one Swainson’s hawk, and two multiple species nests) were present within the LBA tract as applied for. No additional intact nests were present on the additional lands evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2 or the ¼-mile disturbance buffer. Thirteen of the 32 intact nests were active during 2007, three of which were within the general analysis area. 3.10.4.2 Environmental Consequences 3.10.4.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Mining the LBA tracts would not impact overall regional raptor populations; however, individual birds or pairs may be impacted. Mining activity could cause raptors to abandon nests proximate to disturbance, particularly if mining encroaches on active nests during a given breeding season. USFWS recommends a 1-mile buffer around all active ferruginous hawk nests. Active nests (incubating/brooding adults, eggs, or young present) of most other raptor species are typically buffered by a ½-mile radius. Monitoring data collected since the early 1980s within the general Wright analysis area indicate that several of the raptor pairs that breed within this area have alternate nesting sites elsewhere within their territories that are beyond the boundaries of the 2 mile perimeter that encompasses the general analysis areas for the West Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. USFWS, WGFD, WDEQ/LQD, and/or USFS approval would be required before mining could occur within standard buffer zones for active raptor nests. The Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines annually monitor territorial occupancy and nest productivity on and around their existing leases. Several raptor pairs representing multiple species have successfully nested in close proximity to mining operations at surface coal mines in the PRB, including golden eagles (approximately 600 feet), Swainson’s hawks (approximately 400 feet), red-tailed hawks (approximately 200 feet), and 3-194 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences great horned owls (on active coal processing facilities, such as crushers and silos). Those same raptor species have been documented within the general Wright analysis area. Those nesting efforts have succeeded due to a combination of raptors becoming acclimated to the gradual encroachment of mine operations and successfully implemented progressive mitigation techniques to maintain viable raptor territories and protect nest productivity. Details documenting raptor nesting efforts and success near mine operations are available in the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines’ Annual Wildlife Reports, as well as those for other regional PRB coal mines, on file with the WDEQ/LQD. Mining within or near raptor territories would impact availability of foraging habitat for nesting birds. However, increased acreage of reclamation within the permit areas would offset new habitat loss as mining progresses. Equipment enclosures associated with mining provide additional habitat for prey species such as cottontail rabbits, and several raptor pairs have voluntarily nested near those areas. As at other surface mines throughout the region, raptor nesting efforts at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines have typically been influenced primarily by natural factors such as prey abundance and availability of nesting substrates. Due to the lack of woody vegetation, raptors that nest in trees or on cliffs are not as abundant as those that either nest on the ground or are adaptable to nesting on mine facilities or other man-made structures (platform nests, etc.). During mining, new nesting habitat can be created through enhancement efforts like nest platforms, nest boxes, and tree plantings. A total of 44 intact raptor nests were present in 2007 and 2008 within the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts and could be impacted if the tracts were leased and mined under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative. 3.10.4.2.1.1 North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts Eighteen intact raptor nests that were present within the combined general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field (8 nests), South Hilight Field (2 nests), and West Hilight Field (8 nests) LBA Tracts in 2007 would be affected by leasing and mining these three tracts, each under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration. Thirteen of these 18 intact raptor nests were ferruginous hawk nests representing seven territories within the combined general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field (five nests), South Hilight Field (two nests), and West Hilight Field (six nests) LBA Tracts. However, ferruginous hawks have actively nested (laid eggs) at only two of those 13 nests in recent years. 3.10.4.2.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Nine intact raptor nests were present within the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract in 2007 and 2008. Five of these nine intact raptor nests were ferruginous hawk nests. Ferruginous hawks actively nested Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-195

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (laid eggs) at only one of those five sites in recent years. Only two raptor species (Swainson’s hawk and golden eagle) have been recorded nesting on the BLM study area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract (the tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative). 3.10.4.2.1.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts Seventeen intact raptor nests that were present within the combined general analysis areas for the North Porcupine (11 nests) and South Porcupine (six nests) LBA Tracts in 2007 would be affected by leasing and mining these two tracts, each under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration. Ten of these 17 intact raptor nests were ferruginous hawk nests representing 3 territories within the combined general analysis areas for the North Porcupine (7 nests) and South Porcupine (3 nests) LBA Tracts. All intact nests within the general analysis areas for both North and South Porcupine tracts are encompassed by the current permit area for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine (Figures 3-36 and 3-37) and could therefore be impacted by mine-related operations regardless of whether the LBA tracts are leased. Although individual birds or pairs could be impacted by those activities, the continued use of effective mitigation measures will minimize impacts to overall regional raptor populations. Mining activity could cause raptors to abandon nests proximate to disturbance, particularly if mining encroaches on active nests during a given breeding season. Monitoring data collected over the last 20 plus years, has indicated that some of the raptor pairs that breed within these two general analysis areas have alternate nesting sites elsewhere within their territories, but beyond the two-mile wildlife survey area. 3.10.4.2.2 No Action Alternative Impacts to raptor species under the No Action Alternative would be similar to the impacts described in Section 3.10.1.2.2. 3.10.5 Upland Game Birds 3.10.5.1 Affected Environment Four upland game bird species have historically been documented within the general Wright analysis area. These species are the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), gray partridge (Perdix perdix), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), and Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). The mourning dove, however, is the most prevalent upland game bird in this area, and the only species known to occur with any regularity. Based on annual lek searches since the late 1970’s, sharp-tailed grouse do not appear to inhabit the surface coal mine region of the southern PRB. The nearest sharp-tailed grouse lek is located over 40 miles northwest of the general Wright analysis area. 3-196 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Mourning doves are a migrant and are relatively common in the area during spring and fall with fewer observations during the nesting season. This species is a relatively common breeding bird in Campbell County and may be found in a variety of habitat types. Doves are most often seen near sites with water sources and trees, though they are occasionally observed in sagebrush and greasewood stands. Mourning doves were observed within the general Wright analysis area in 2007 and 2008. The gray partridge (a.k.a. Hungarian partridge or Hun) is an introduced, non migratory game bird species that form flocks (or coveys) outside the breeding season. Gray partridge have been infrequently observed on reclaimed areas, sagebrush shrublands, upland grassland, and cultivated lands in the general Wright analysis area. In some years, this species is occasionally encountered, while in other years, partridge appear to be totally absent. Gray partridge were not observed in the general Wright analysis area in 2007 or 2008. Wild turkeys have been seen infrequently over time in the general Wright analysis area, with spans of several years between observations. All historical observations have occurred during spring, when males were gobbling. This species is most often observed along Antelope Creek, generally south of the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. Wild turkeys were not observed in the general Wright analysis area in 2007 or 2008. The Greater sage-grouse, hereafter referred to as sage-grouse, is a species of concern throughout the West and is considered a “landscape species”, which means that large expanses of unfragmented land are required in order to provide all the habitat components for their annual life cycle. Relying on sagebrush for food, cover, and shelter, sage-grouse require sagebrush habitat year-round and for every phase of their life cycle, and exhibit seasonal movements to utilize discrete sagebrush habitats. Sage-grouse breeding occurs on strutting grounds (leks) during late March and April. Leks are generally established in open areas surrounded by Wyoming big sagebrush, which is used for escape and protection from predators. Generally, lek sites are used year after year and are considered to be the center of year-round activity for resident sage-grouse populations. On average, approximately two-thirds of sage-grouse hens nest within 3 miles of the lek where they were bred. New spring plant growth, residual cover, and understory are important habitat components for nesting sage-grouse hens. Areas near nests are used for several weeks by hens for brood rearing. The habitats used during the first few weeks after hatching must provide good cover to conceal the chicks and must provide essential nutritional requirements during this period of rapid development. Brood-rearing habitats that have a healthy and wide diversity of plant species, particularly grasses and forbs, tend to provide a variety and abundance of insects that are an essential protein supply for the young. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-197

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Summer habitat consists of sagebrush mixed with areas of wet meadows, riparian, or irrigated agricultural fields. As summer progresses and forbs mature and dry up, sage-grouse broods must move to more mesic, wet meadow-type habitats where succulent plants and insects are still available. This can be especially important in drier years and during long drought periods. As the fall season nears, sage-grouse form flocks as brood groups break up. As fall progresses, sage-grouse move toward their winter ranges. During winter, sage-grouse feed almost exclusively on sagebrush leaves and buds. Suitable winter habitat requires sagebrush above snow. It is crucial that sagebrush be exposed at least 10 to 12 inches above snow level as this provides food and cover for wintering sage-grouse. Population and habitat analyses suggest that wintering habitat can be as limiting as breeding habitats. These seasonal movements are related to severity of winter weather, topography, and vegetative cover. Since 1999, the USFWS has received eight petitions requesting that the sagegrouse be listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered. Three of the petitions requested that sage-grouse be listed as endangered across its entire range. On January 12, 2005, following a 12 month status review on the species, the USFWS concluded that listing was not warranted at that time. On December 4, 2007, U.S. District Court, District of Idaho, ruled that the USFWS 12-month petition finding on sage-grouse was in error and remanded the case back to the Service for further reconsideration. On February 26, 2008, the USFWS announced the initiation of another status review for the Greater sage-grouse. USFWS has indicated the need for continued efforts to conserve sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat on a long-term basis, and has encouraged continued development and implementation of conservation strategies throughout the species’ range. The sage-grouse is also a BLM Sensitive Species and a USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species (see Appendix H). On September 11, 2003, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission announced that the 2003 hunting season for sage-grouse in Johnson, Sheridan, and Campbell counties would be closed, following the deaths of 11 sage-grouse in northeastern Wyoming from West Nile Virus in August and early September of that year. According to WGFD’s September 11, 2003 press release, the commission took this action because the incidence of infection was much higher in northeastern Wyoming than the rest of the state and the area is on the fringe of sage-grouse range with marginal, fragmented habitat. Recent lek count data indicate that Wyoming’s sage-grouse populations increased slightly from 2004 through 2007. Lower incidences of West Nile Virus mortalities were also documented in those years, primarily due to cooler temperatures that reduced mosquito populations. Sage-grouse hunting seasons were consequently reopened in 2004 (Christiansen 2004). 3-198 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences In 2007, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal commissioned a Statewide Sage-grouse Implementation Team which emerged from the Governor’s 2007 Sage-Grouse Summit. On March 17, 2008, the Implementation Team preliminarily identified and mapped recommended sage-grouse core breeding areas in Wyoming in an effort to better understand what types of habitat the grouse prefer and what areas should be protected. The general Wright analysis area is not located within the mapped core breeding areas. On August 1, 2008, the Governor of Wyoming released an executive order regarding sage-grouse core area protection (Office of the Governor of Wyoming 2008). The sage-grouse focus area protection concept came about as a result of work by the Sage-grouse Implementation Team. The Implementation Team developed a Core Population Strategy for the State of Wyoming “to maintain habitats and viable populations of sage-grouse in areas where they are most abundant” and delineated approximately 40 areas around the state with a focus of maintenance and enhancement of grouse habitats and populations within the focus areas. The areas were delineated by evaluating habitats within a 4-mile radius of selected sage-grouse leks in high lek-density areas. The BLM Wyoming State Office is in the process of developing a state-wide sage-grouse management policy and has incorporated sage-grouse focus areas based on the core area concept in the draft management policy. BLM has indicated that the sage-grouse management strategy for management of future surface disturbance (including actions proposed in this EIS) will likely be based on the sage-grouse focus areas (BLM 2008c). WGFD has adopted definitions for the purposes of collecting and reporting sage-grouse data (WGFD 2007b). The definitions contain an assessment of the annual status and a management status of sage-grouse leks. The annual status is assessed annually based on the following definitions:


Active – Any lek that has been attended by male sage-grouse during the strutting season. Inactive – Any lek where sufficient data suggests that there was no strutting activity throughout a strutting season. Unknown – Leks for which status as active or inactive has not been documented during the course of a strutting season.



The management status is based on a lek’s annual status; a lek is assigned to one of the following categories for management purposes:


Occupied – A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the prior ten years. Occupied leks are protected through prescribed management actions during surface disturbing activities.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-199

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences


Unoccupied (formerly “historical lek”.) – There are two types of unoccupied leks, “destroyed” and “abandoned.” Unoccupied leks are not protected during surface disturbing activities.  destroyed – A formerly active lek site and surrounding sagebrush habitat that has been destroyed and is no longer suitable for sagegrouse breeding.  abandoned – A lek in otherwise suitable habitat that has not been active during a period of 10 consecutive years. To be designated abandoned, a lek must be “inactive” (see above criteria) in at least four non-consecutive strutting seasons spanning the 10 years. The Forest Service defines “abandoned” as leks that have been documented as inactive for five consecutive years.



Undetermined – Any lek that has not been documented active in the last 10 years, but survey information is insufficient to designate the lek as unoccupied. Undetermined leks will be protected through prescribed management actions during surface disturbing activities until sufficient documentation is obtained to confirm the lek is unoccupied.

The Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines have conducted surveys of known sage-grouse leks and searches for new leks as part of their wildlife baseline inventories and wildlife monitoring programs since the early 1980s. Baseline inventories, which have occurred prior to initial permitting and subsequent permit amendments, encompassed the respective mine’s permit area and a 2-mile perimeter. The mines continued annual surveys that included the respective mine permit area and a 1-mile perimeter and began when each mine was initially permitted. Those surveys became mandatory with the implementation of Appendix B of the WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations in 1993. Each occupied and undetermined lek is generally surveyed three times within a given breeding season. As a result, most of the general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts have been included in previous regular survey efforts. In May 2002, the USFWS office in Cheyenne, Wyoming, released a list entitled Coal Mine List of 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming, which replaced the previous Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest List. The sage-grouse is included on the updated list, giving further impetus to ongoing annual survey efforts. Figures 3-32 through 3-37 depict the locations of sage-grouse leks identified within the 2-mile perimeter that encompasses the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tract, respectively, in 2007 and 2008. There are overlaps between the six sage-grouse survey area boundaries, and as such, there are overlaps in the depiction of sage-grouse leks on these 3-200 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences figures and in the tract discussions that follow below. A total of 10 sage-grouse leks have been documented on and within 2 miles of the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts. Two leks, Kort I and Kort II, likely represent a shift in lekking activity rather than two distinct leks (Figures 3-36 and 3-37). Four of the leks have been active during recent survey years and are classified as occupied; two leks have not been attended by displaying grouse for at least the last 10 years and are classified as unoccupied/abandoned; two leks have been removed by mining activities and are classified as unoccupied/destroyed; there has been no documented activity for the last 10 years at two leks, but survey information is insufficient to designate them as unoccupied, so they are classified as undetermined. Sage-grouse populations are generally considered to be cyclic, with periodic intervals between peaks in region-wide male lek attendance. However, sagegrouse populations and their distribution in Wyoming have declined over the last five decades (WGFD long-term data, provided by L. Jahnke, 2008) despite higher counts in some years. No sage-grouse broods were recorded within the BLM study area for each LBA tract (the tract as applied for and the additional area evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2) during specific surveys or incidental to other wildlife surveys conducted in those areas annually since at least 1993. Although nesting and winter surveys for sage-grouse are not required as part of the annual wildlife monitoring programs for the three applicant mines, winter surveys have been conducted as part of the required baseline inventories for previously planned mine expansions. Additionally, winter surveys for other species (e.g., big game, bald eagle roosts, and other wintering raptors) have been conducted at the three mines in recent years. Due to their proximity to existing mine permit areas, the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts have been included in a minimum of seven consecutive years of big game winter surveys (from 1993 through 1999) and no sage-grouse were ever documented in or near the LBA tracts during those surveys. Radio-telemetry data gathered from grouse collared at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine during a voluntary, multi-year (2001 through 2007) study have, however, demonstrated that most birds in the North Porcupine wildlife survey area reside near the mine year-round. Few grouse were recorded within 2 miles of the South Porcupine LBA Tract during that telemetry monitoring. 3.10.5.1.1 Sage-Grouse Use Associated With the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts The sage-grouse is a year-round resident throughout much of the PRB, but has declined dramatically on and within 2 miles of the general analysis areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts over the last 30 years. The lack of sage-grouse use in that region has been well documented from the late 1970s through 2008. Sage-grouse were last confirmed in these study areas in 2003 (Hansen Lakes lek located within the BLM study area for the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-201

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences North Hilight Field tract), though some leks in these areas were not checked annually by the WGFD prior to the 2007 and 2008 surveys associated with this EIS. Five sage-grouse leks are located on and within 2 miles of the North, South, and West Hilight Field general analysis areas: Stuart I, Stuart II, Black Thunder, Butch, and Hansen Lakes Leks (Figures 3-32 through 3-34). Three of the five leks (Butch, Hansen Lakes, and Stuart II) fall within one of the three general analysis areas, with the remaining two (Black Thunder and Stuart I) located in the 2-mile wildlife survey perimeter (Figures 3-32 through 3-34). The Black Thunder lek was eclipsed by mining activities in 2007 after 12 consecutive years of inactivity. The remaining four leks have experienced lengthy periods of little or not activity over at least the last 16 years (1992 2007). As described above, no lek activity has been documented in these three wildlife survey areas since 2003, though the Butch and Hansen Lakes leks were not checked every year. The wildlife study areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts are not within a sage-grouse focus area. Two sage-grouse leks have been documented within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract: Hansen Lakes and Butch (Figure 3-32). The Butch lek was discovered in 1990, and was active every year through 1993. That was the same year that the Hansen Lakes lek was discovered; it was active each year from 1993 through 2003 and is therefore considered active. The Hansen Lakes lek is located approximately 1.5 miles east of Butch lek, and could potentially represent a shift in the lek’s location. The Butch lek was checked annually from 1994 through 2001, with no records of grouse during that period. The lek was not checked again until 2007; it was also inactive that year and is therefore now classified unoccupied/abandoned. The Hansen Lakes lek was checked in 3 of the last 4 four years and no grouse were present. No other leks have been documented within the wildlife study area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. One sage-grouse lek has been documented approximately 1 mile east of the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract: Black Thunder (Figure 3-33). In 2005, the Black Thunder lek was classified as historical after 12 consecutive years of inactivity. Surveys were no longer required at that lek after that year, and it was eclipsed by mining in 2007. The Black Thunder lek is now classified unoccupied/destroyed. No other leks have been documented within the wildlife study area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Two sage-grouse leks have been documented on and within 2 miles of the West Hilight Field general analysis area: Stuart I and Stuart II (Figure 3-34). The Stuart II lek is located within the LBA tract as applied for, and the Stuart I lek is located approximately 1.3 miles west of the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. The Stuart II lek was monitored by the WGFD and/or USFS at approximately three-year increments from 1979 through 2004. 3-202 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The highest number of grouse ever recorded during that period was seven in 1991. That was also the last year when grouse were confirmed at the lek. The Stuart II lek has been monitored by private consultants in each of the last four years (2005 through 2008) and no grouse were observed. The Stuart I lek was discovered in 1977. The lek was monitored in three of the following four years, and was active in each survey year. Monitoring efforts were reduced to every third year (WGFD standard timing) from 1982 through 2003; annual monitoring began in 2004. Grouse were observed in only one of the monitoring years from 1982 through 2007. Two males were recorded at the Stuart I lek in 1991 and that was the last year when grouse or sign were confirmed at the lek. No sage-grouse have been recorded at the Stuart I and II leks for over 10 years; however, not enough consistent data have been collected to classify either as abandoned. Both Stuart I and Stuart II leks are now classified undetermined (insufficient information to designate the leks as unoccupied). No other leks have been documented within the wildlife study area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. 3.10.5.1.2 Sage-Grouse Use Associated With the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Two sage-grouse leks have been documented within 2 miles of the West Jacobs Ranch general analysis area: Stuart I and Stuart II (Figure 3-35). The Stuart II lek is located approximately 1 mile south of the LBA tract as applied for, and the Stuart I lek is located approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. While displaying males have not been recorded at either of these two leks for over ten years (not since 1991 at both sites), there is insufficient data to indicate that they are abandoned; therefore, both leks are presently classified undetermined. The Stuart I lek would probably not be re-occupied in the near future due to the presence of a CBNG compression station and other CBNG development facilities within ¼ mile of the lek site. The Stuart II lek would probably not be re-occupied in the near future due to the presence of CBNG access roads and other CBNG facilities within ¼ mile of the lek site (IR 2008). No other leks have been documented within the wildlife study area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, and this area is not within a sage-grouse focus area. 3.10.5.1.3 Sage-Grouse Use Associated With the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts Five sage-grouse leks have been documented within 2 miles of the North Porcupine general analysis area: Payne, Wilson, Kort I, Kort II, and Rochelle (Figure 3-36). Payne lek is located on the LBA tract as applied for and is close to the tract’s eastern edge. The Wilson, Kort I, and Kort II lek sites are within 2 miles of the LBA tract’s general analysis area and are all southeast of the tract’s southeastern corner. The Rochelle lek site is also located southeast of Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-203

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences the tract’s general analysis area, although it is just outside of the 2-mile wildlife study area boundary. The Rochelle lek was discovered in 1990 but experienced reduced attendance after 1992, with birds present in only 3 of the subsequent 11 years. The site may have been a satellite to the Wilson lek; used only when the local grouse population was relatively high or increasing. The Rochelle lek was mined through in 2004, and is now classified as unoccupied/destroyed. The Kort I lek was first identified in spring 1998 when, for unknown reasons, grouse apparently shifted their breeding activities from the Wilson lek. Male attendance at the Kort I lek gradually declined through 2004 (low of three males), and the birds shifted their display location to the Kort II lek site in 2005. The Kort I and Kort II leks are currently classified as occupied. The Wilson Lek is classified as unoccupied/abandoned. The Payne lek was first discovered in spring 2001. The peak male count (21) recorded that year was higher than that of any subsequent year. Grouse counts at the Payne lek have fluctuated over the last seven years, with numbers increasing each year from 2005 through 2007 (peak of 14 males in 2007). The management status of the Payne lek is currently listed as occupied. No other leks have been documented within the wildlife study areas for the North Porcupine LBA Tract. No leks have been documented within the wildlife study area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract (Figure 3-37). The Payne lek, which is nearly 5 miles to the northeast, is the closest sage-grouse lek to the South Porcupine LBA Tract. The wildlife study areas for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are not within a sage-grouse focus area. Peak male counts at leks located within 2 miles of the general analysis areas for the North and South Porcupine tracts have been well documented from the mid-1980s through 2007. Annual grouse counts fluctuated during that period, with new leks discovered in some years and declining counts recorded in others. Although sage-grouse numbers have generally been low in these areas over the years, known or potential grouse habitat is present. However, the most suitable sage-grouse habitat exists in the North Porcupine area, as suggested by the distribution of grouse leks between the two areas and confirmed through the information gleaned from the last 7 years of radiotelemetry data collected in the general vicinity. Results from that project have demonstrated that grouse are most commonly recorded in the eastern quarter of the 2-mile wildlife survey area for the North Porcupine tract, east of the Payne County Road. Detailed reports and long-term maps documenting grouse locations in the area have been submitted to WDEQ/LQD and other agencies in each study year. Annual surveys for sage-grouse broods were conducted in native and reclaimed stream channels at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine and adjacent mines from 1994 through 1999; such surveys were no longer required by WGFD and WDEQ/LQD after that year due to the consistent lack of grouse broods 3-204 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences observed at coal mines throughout the PRB. Likewise, no sage-grouse broods were seen during recent baseline inventories conducted for the two Porcupine tracts. All grouse broods that have been recorded over the years occurred as incidental sightings during other wildlife surveys 3.10.5.2 Environmental Consequences 3.10.5.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Leasing and mining the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts would affect some potential habitat for mourning doves, wild turkeys, and gray partridge. While woody corridors are not abundant in the general Wright 205analysis area, they also are not unique to the LBA tracts. Similar habitat is present in other areas near the tracts, where mining is not projected to occur in the near future. Additionally, sightings of turkeys and partridge are infrequent in the area, and doves are not restricted to wooded habitats. Overall, the sage-grouse population has been steadily declining in Wyoming and across the rest of the west. A study prepared by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies estimated that sage-grouse populations in western North America declined at an overall rate of 2.0 percent per year from 1965 to 2003 (Connelly et al. 2004). The decline rate was greater from 1965 to 1985, with populations stabilizing and some increasing from 1986 to 2003. For Wyoming, this study estimated that sage-grouse populations declined at an average rate of 9.66 percent from 1968 to 1986 (0.51 percent per year), and at an average rate of 0.33 percent per year from 1987 to 2003. Population lows were reached in the mid-1990s and there has been some gradual increase in numbers since that time (Connelly et al. 2004). The North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are within the Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Group (NWLSWG) area. It includes portions of the WGFD Sheridan and Casper regions and the USFS Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG). Sage-grouse monitoring has occurred within the NWLSWG since 1967. Within this area, sage-grouse population trends have exhibited a cyclical pattern, although the overall trend indicates declining numbers since at least 1967 (Figure 3-38). Population trends within the NWLSWG Area appear to be mirroring statewide trends in Wyoming, although the average number of males per lek in the NWLSWG Area, including in the TBNG, has typically been lower than those observed statewide (Figure 3-39). Since 1996, sage-grouse populations within the state and in northeast Wyoming have fluctuated but exhibited an overall increase, with a recent peak in male lek attendance occurring in 2006. The causes of the range-wide decline in sage-grouse population levels are not fully understood, but they may be influenced by local conditions. However, Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-205

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

No. Males per Lek

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Year

Figure 3-38. Average Male Sage-grouse Lek Attendance Within the Northeast
Wyoming Local Working Group Area (1968-2008)

Source: USFS (2006), Thiele (2009)

Statewide 45 40 NW LSW G TBNG

No. Males per Lek

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Figure 3-39. Average Male Sage-grouse Lek Attendance Statewide and Within the Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-grouse Working Group Area and the Thunder Basin National Grasslands (1995-2008).
Source: USFS (2006), Thiele (2009), Painter (2009)

3-206

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2008

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences habitat loss due to disturbance of leks, nesting and brood-rearing areas as a result of increasing development, drought, and the potential for West Nile Virus, as well as loss of population connectivity are key threats to this species (Wisdom et al. 2002, Naugle et al. 2004). Some potential impacts of mineral development (including coal mining and oil and gas development) on sage-grouse include: 1) direct habitat loss and fragmentation from mine, well, road, pipeline, transmission and power line construction, 2) alteration of plant and animal communities, 3) increased human activity, which could cause animals to avoid the area, 4) increased noise, which could cause animals to avoid an area or reduce their breeding efficiency, 5) increased motorized access by the public leading to legal and illegal harvest, 6) direct mortality associated with water evaporation ponds and production pits, and 7) reduced water tables resulting in the loss of herbaceous vegetation. Some of these impacts are short-term and related to specific periods of activity. In some cases, mineral development may result in positive effects, which may include increased forb production, habitat diversity, and additional water sources. Some impacts may be long-term (30 years or more), and rehabilitation of impacted habitats may take many years to complete (WGFD 2003). In the case of sage-grouse lek attendance near the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines, the decline in attendance preceded physical mining disturbance and thus may not be attributable to mine-related activities (Orpet 2007, J&S 2007). Areas of suitable habitat for nesting and strutting grounds are needed to sustain sage-grouse populations. One recent study suggests that availability of winter habitat may also affect sage-grouse populations (Naugle et al. 2006). When mining occurs in potential sage-grouse habitat, there is a short term loss of potential nesting habitat and potential disturbance to breeding activities, especially when mining operations occur in proximity to sage-grouse leks. Following reclamation, there may be a long term loss of nesting and winter habitat, depending on the amount of sagebrush that is restored relative to the amount of sagebrush that is present before mining. Should these six BLM study areas (the six LBA tracts as applied for and the additional areas evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2, BLM preferred alternative for each tract) be leased, mined and reclaimed, alterations in the topography and vegetative communities would likely result in such changes in species composition from pre-mine conditions. Some vegetative communities currently present in the BLM study areas, such as low-growth species (e.g., blue grama, and birdsfoot sagebrush) and big sagebrush, are often difficult to reestablish through artificial plantings. Until sagebrush returns to its premining density levels, there would be a reduction in potential habitat for wildlife species associated with the habitat in the general Wright analysis area. However, given the limited presence of sage stands in the area, it is not likely that many sagebrush obligates would be affected. If mining activities disturbed a lek, sage-grouse would have to use an alternative lek or establish a new lek site for breeding activities. Fidelity to lek Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-207

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences sites has been well documented (WGFD 2003), but monitoring of sage-grouse activities has indicated that the birds may change lek sites. As discussed in Section 3.10.5.1, ten sage-grouse leks have been documented within the six combined sage-grouse survey areas. Four of the leks have been active during recent survey years and are classified as occupied (Hansen Lakes, Payne, and Kort I and Kort II, which likely represent a shift in lekking activity rather than two distinct leks). Two of the leks have not been attended by displaying grouse for at least the last 10 years and are classified as unoccupied/abandoned (Butch and Wilson). There is insufficient data on two leks, therefore they have been classified as undetermined (Stuart I and Stuart II). Two leks have been eclipsed by mining activities at the adjacent Black Thunder and North Antelope Rochelle mines (Black Thunder and Rochelle, respectively). The occupied leks, Hansen Lakes and Payne, are within the BLM study areas for the North Hilight Field and North Porcupine LBA Tracts, respectively, and are therefore likely to be directly impacted if these two tracts are leased and mined under the Proposed Action and/or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative. The 3-mile radii of concern for the two other occupied leks (Kort I and Kort II, which are likely only one strutting ground that has been relocated slightly), overlap the North Porcupine LBA Tract. If the North Porcupine LBA Tracts as applied for and/or the additional areas evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2, the BLM’s preferred alternative, is leased and mined, potential nesting habitat for grouse that were bred at the Kort I and II leks would likely be affected by mining activity in those areas. Stuart II, one of the two undetermined leks, is within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for, and the 3-mile radii of both undetermined leks (Stuart I and Stuart II) overlap both the West Hilight Field and West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tracts as applied for. The 3-mile radius is the area in which twothirds of the hens that were bred at those leks would be expected to nest. As previously discussed, the Stuart I and Stuart II leks are classified undetermined, but they are likely unoccupied/abandoned and will probably not be re-occupied in the near future due to the presence of nearby CBNG development activities and facilities. Therefore, if the West Hilight Field and West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tracts as applied for and the additional areas evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2 are leased and mined, it is unlikely that those two undetermined leks would be affected. However, as also previously discussed, few sage-grouse nests and no broods have been recorded on any of the six LBA tracts as applied for or on lands added under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract, during specific surveys or incidental to other wildlife surveys conducted in those areas annually since at least 1994. The noise associated with mining operations may disrupt sage-grouse breeding and nesting activities that might occur in those areas. There is some limited evidence that sage-grouse do repopulate areas after reclamation for the species. However, there is no evidence that populations 3-208 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences attain their previous levels, and reestablishment in reclaimed areas may take 20 to 30 years or longer (Braun 1998). Estimates for the time it would take to restore shrubs, including sagebrush, to pre-mine density levels range from 20 to 100 years, which may delay sage-grouse repopulation in the reclaimed areas. 3.10.5.3 No Action Alternative Impacts to upland game birds under the No Action Alternative would be similar to the impacts described in Section 3.10.1.2.2. 3.10.6 Other Birds 3.10.6.1 Affected Environment USFWS uses a list entitled Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming, specifically the Coal Mine List of 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming, for reviews related to existing and proposed coal mine leased land (USFWS 2002). This list was taken directly from the Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan (Cerovski et al. 2001). The Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming replaced the Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest (MBHFI) list. The Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines have conducted specific surveys for migratory birds of concern annually since at least 1993, incorporating new lists and survey protocols as they were issued. The surveys, which are conducted in the spring and summer, include the existing permit area and a surrounding ½ mile perimeter for most species. Species of added concern such as the sagegrouse and bald eagle may require expanded survey perimeters. Due to the proximity of the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts to the existing mine permit areas, significant portions of the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts have been included in annual surveys for avian species of concern since at least 1993. Results from surveys for migratory birds at the three applicant mines are available in baseline and annual wildlife reports, on file with WDEQ/LQD. Those reports include a tabulation of the regional status, expected occurrence, historical observations, and breeding records for each species on the current list of avian species of concern for a given report year, as well as two or more preceding years. Additional information for each species observed within the given year is provided in the text of those reports. The Wildlife Section of the supplemental information document to this EIS, which is available on request, includes a tabulation of the regional status and expected occurrence, historical observations, and breeding records for each of the species on the Coal Mine List of 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming, based on a compilation of the results of the annual Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-209

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences surveys conducted on and near the respective LBA tract’s general analysis area. Non-raptor avian species that have been documented within the PRB and are included on both the Coal Mine List of 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming and at least one more list of special status species include the mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii), sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), and Greater sage-grouse. Of those species, the long-billed curlew, sage thrasher, loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, and sage-grouse have been recorded within the combined general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts; only the sage thrasher, loggerhead shrike, Brewer’s sparrow, and sage-grouse are known or suspected to nest in those vicinities. Raptor species that have been documented in the PRB and are on the Coal Mine List of 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming and on at least one other list of special status species include the bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Each of those species has been documented in the combined general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts, with all but the bald eagle known or suspected to nest there. Those species are discussed at length in Appendix H of this EIS. In sum, 23 of the 40 listed species have historically been observed within the combined general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts. Species that historically have been recorded nesting in these areas or are suspected of nesting, based on their presence and behavior during the breeding season, include the burrowing owl, Brewer’s sparrow, Swainson’s hawk, short-eared owl, ferruginous hawk, lark bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), loggerhead shrike, lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), sage thrasher, chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus), McCown’s longspur (Calcarius mccownii), greater sage-grouse, and the vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus). Other species observed in the areas less often include the peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus), bald eagle, bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), common loon (Gavia immer), long-billed curlew, red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erthrocephalus), sage sparrow, and merlin (Falco coumbarius). The bald eagle is only observed in the winter or as a migrant. The other non-nesting species have been observed infrequently as migrants. The mountain plover is included on the list of Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming. The mountain plover was designated as a proposed threatened species by the USFWS in October, 2001 (USFWS 2001). USFWS subsequently published a withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the mountain plover as threatened on September 9, 2003 (USFWS 2003). The USFWS continues to encourage provisions in mine reclamation plans that 3-210 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences would provide protection for this species, as it continues to be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and as a USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species and as a Sensitive Species under BLM policy (Bureau Manual 6840.06 E., Sensitive Species). Wildlife surveys conducted at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines since the late 1970s have detected the presence of very few mountain plovers with only one confirmed nesting attempt, which was an active nest discovered inside the current mine permit area for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine in 2004, fledging two young. The survey areas, which include the mines’ permit areas and a ½-mile perimeter around each, are inventoried for suitable mountain plover habitat annually. No other mountain plovers have been documented in the general Wright analysis area before or after that year. The bald eagle, a USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species and a BLM Sensitive Species, is seasonally common and most frequently observed during the winter months. Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants in northeastern Wyoming’s PRB, but only rarely nest in that region. No bald eagle nests or winter roosts have been documented on and within 1 mile of the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts during either baseline or annual monitoring studies since they began in the late 1970s. Aside from a few isolated and small (fewer than five trees) stands of cottonwoods that occur along major drainages, little potential bald eagle nesting and winter roosting habitat is present in the general Wright analysis area. In addition, the area does not generally contain consistent yearly, concentrated, prey or carrion sources (e.g., fisheries, large groups of big game, waterfowl, sheep, etc.) that would be expected to attract bald eagles. This species is infrequently seen in the general Wright analysis area, perched or foraging only during winter. Additional information about the observed occurrence of the bald eagle on these six LBA tracts can be found in the Sensitive Species Evaluation (Appendix H) of this EIS document. Swainson’s hawks have nested in the general Wright analysis area for the last few years. However, because of the restricted number of trees in the area, and the fact that Swainson’s hawks return to the region relatively late (mid-April) in the spring after most other raptor species have initiated nesting, the potential for increased numbers of nesting Swainson’s hawks may be limited. The burrowing owl is uncommon and is observed as an occasional or uncommon breeder in the general Wright analysis area. Sage-grouse, recently added to the Level I list of avian species of concern at coal mines, have declined in the general Wright analysis area but are still classified as a common breeder on and within 3 miles of the general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, and North Porcupine LBA Tracts (see Section 3.10.5 above). The USFWS considers Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-211

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Level I species as in need of conservation action, which includes having a monitoring and mitigation plan for those birds. Lark buntings and vesper sparrows have been recorded in the general Wright analysis area during each of the last 15 years (1994-2008). Lark buntings generally return to the area from migration in early May, while vesper sparrows are typically present in April. Results from general surveys and breeding bird point counts over time indicate that the lark bunting is the most abundant breeding bird of management concern in the area. The vesper sparrow is also quite common in most years. Both species are typically observed in all habitats in the general Wright analysis area throughout spring and summer, and are presumed to nest in the vicinity. Lark sparrows have been recorded periodically in the general Wright analysis area over the years. Lark sparrows inhabit a wide variety of habitats (Rising 1997), but were most often observed in relatively rugged terrain. It may be that some features associated with this species’ breeding habitat, such as open areas of low scrub or scattered trees (Harrison 1984, Peterson 1990), are more prevalent in those areas having relatively rugged breaks, thus the higher number of sightings there. Grasshopper sparrows have occasionally been recorded in the general Wright analysis area, but most sightings have been in the relatively mature stands of reclaimed grassland associated with the nearby existing mines. In the Great Plains region, including the PRB, grasshopper sparrows are typically associated with taller grassland vegetation, such as that found in mature reclamation areas (Vickery 1996). Short-eared owls and upland sandpipers have occasionally been recorded in the general Wright analysis area. Most observations of these species consisted of migrants and non-breeding adults. Although potential nesting habitat is present, neither species has been known to nest in the general Wright analysis area. The remaining 17 migratory bird species of management concern have never been recorded in the general Wright analysis area. Suitable habitat that would support these species like coniferous woodlands, large expanses of native prairie, lush riparian corridors, and large persistent bodies of water are scarce if not absent in the general Wright analysis area. Under natural conditions, the general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts provide limited and marginal habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. The natural aquatic habitat, prior to CBNG development within and adjacent to the general Wright analysis area, was mainly available during spring migration as ponds (primarily stock reservoirs and playa areas) and intermittent and ephemeral streams. Many of these water features generally were reduced to small, isolated pools or were completely dry during the remainder of the year. However, the relatively recent development of CBNG within and upstream of the general Wright analysis area 3-212 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences has enhanced the available water resources, resulting in somewhat improved habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. Waterfowl and shorebird observations have primarily consisted of relatively low numbers of common species, often restricted to spring migration. Few broods have been recorded in the area during baseline or annual monitoring studies due to limited and unreliable water resources in the area. Avian species typically associated with aquatic habitats in the general Wright analysis area include, but are not limited to, the mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and redwinged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). 3.10.6.2 Environmental Consequences 3.10.6.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Of the 23 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming that have historically been observed in the general Wright analysis area at least once, 12 species are classified as Level I (those identified as needing conservation action). Eight of those 12 species are known or presumed to nest in and near the general Wright analysis area: ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, sagegrouse, Brewer’s sparrow, Swainson’s hawk, McCown’s longspur, short-eared owl, and upland sandpiper. The raptors and sparrow have nested with some regularity in the area over the last two decades of annual monitoring. In contrast, the other three species are presumed to have nested less frequently, in part due to dwindling populations (sage-grouse) and more limited nesting habitat (McCown’s longspur and upland sandpiper). The other four Level I species historically observed in the general Wright analysis area include the long-billed curlew, peregrine falcon, sage sparrow, and bald eagle. Bald eagles are seasonally present and have been observed perched or foraging in the area in many years during winter. No bald eagle nests have ever been documented within several miles of the general Wright analysis area, and none of the other three species have ever been documented to display breeding behaviors or nest in the general Wright analysis area. Leasing and subsequently mining these six BLM study areas (the LBA tracts as applied for and the additional areas evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2, the BLM’s preferred alternative for each LBA tract) would fragment, impair, or destroy current existing habitat within the general analysis areas for these 12 Level I species. The habitat loss would be relatively short-term for some grassland species, but would last much longer for shrub-dependent species and other species requiring more specialized habitats. The current reclamation plans and practices for the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines are designed to provide a mosaic of upland grass and sagebrush habitats that would potentially host most of these species. Natural regrowth of some habitats (e.g., birdsfoot sagebrush) and recolonization of others (prairie dog colonies) would contribute to those reclamation efforts. Only a few native trees are present within the general Wright analysis area and limited primarily to reaches along Little Thunder Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-213

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, and Porcupine Creek. Some domestic trees were planted in shelterbelts adjacent to ranch buildings located within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. Any naturally-occurring trees that are removed by mining would be inventoried and replaced with the same number of new trees on the postmine landscape, as required by state and federal law. Specific impacts to and mitigation measures for avian species of management concern such as bald eagles, sage-grouse, ferruginous hawks, and others are included in the preceding discussions or in Appendix H of this EIS document. In addition to those efforts, the availability of existing suitable habitat beyond the general Wright analysis area may provide off-site options for displaced species and individuals, provided that those areas are not already at carrying capacity for the various species. No impacts to mountain plovers are anticipated because they have not been observed in the vicinity of the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts during wildlife surveys conducted for the adjacent applicant mines that began in the 1970s, and the typical suitable habitat for this species is not currently present in these areas. Mining the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts as applied for and the additional areas evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2, the BLM’s preferred alternative for each LBA tract, would have a negligible effect on migrating and breeding waterfowl and shorebirds. Sedimentation ponds created during mining would provide interim habitat for these fauna; such ponds are readily used by these species at other coal mines in the region. Any diverted stream channels (i.e., Little Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, and Porcupine Creek) would provide similar, but not identical, habitat compared to the natural stream channels, though natural stream flow and the presence of CBNG discharge water in some areas would not be affected. Active mining adjacent to those drainages could inhibit use by aquatic avian species. The current reclamation plans for the three applicant mines require that any portion of a stream channel affected by currently permitted mining be reclaimed to restore its pre-mining hydrologic functions. If these six LBA tracts are leased and mined, these reclamation efforts would be extended into the portion of the streams affected by mining the new tracts. Replacement of all impacted jurisdictional wetlands would be required in accordance with Section 404 of the CWA (Section 3.7). If the replaced wetlands on the tracts do not duplicate the exact function and/or landscape features of the pre-mine wetlands, waterfowl and shorebirds could potentially be positively or adversely affected as a result.

3-214

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.10.6.2.2 No Action Alternative Impacts to migratory bird species, waterfowl, and shorebirds under the No Action Alternative would be similar to the impacts described in Section 3.10.1.2.2. 3.10.7 Amphibians, Reptiles, and Aquatic Species 3.10.7.1 Affected Environment Monitoring of amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic species is not required at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. Likewise, fish surveys were not required or conducted specifically for the associated proposed lease areas included in this analysis. Nevertheless, wildlife surveys completed specifically for the applicant mines and other mines in the PRB, as well as biological research projects in the eastern PRB, have documented numerous other wildlife species that inhabit the region, including various amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic species. All of these species are locally common inhabitants of the area, depending on the quantity and quality of aquatic habitats present. Under natural conditions, aquatic habitat in the general Wright analysis area is limited by the ephemeral nature of surface waters. The lack of deepwater habitat, extensive and persistent water sources, and mesic habitat in general limits the presence and diversity of fish, amphibians, and other aquatic or semi-aquatic species within most of the general Wright analysis area. As discussed above, all water courses are ephemeral, receiving flow contributions primarily from convective thunderstorm runoff and, to a lesser extent, from snowmelt runoff in the spring (Ogle and Calle 2006). Limited portions of the streams may receive recharge from bank storage, making them locally intermittent. Historically, water was often present in the main stream channels only as small, shallow, isolated pools. Currently, and for an indefinite time into the future, some of the water courses and internallydrained playas are receiving discharge water from CBNG development; however, streamflow is still very much a function of the amount and timing of precipitation and snowmelt runoff. Therefore, the mean annual streamflow rates and discharge volumes have not significantly increased, although extended periods of no flow are less common (Clark and Mason 2007). Despite the recent influx of water into the general Wright analysis area, many channels are still reduced to isolated, shallow pools in the summer. Little Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, and Porcupine Creek have not become perennial, even with the addition of CBNG discharge water. Seventeen in-channel stock reservoirs (over 1 acre in size) and 41 playa areas exist within the six combined general analysis areas. Water discharged from CBNG wells has enhanced the water supply within some of those water bodies, resulting in improved habitat for amphibian and aquatic species. However, those enhanced areas are still relatively limited and/or isolated in nature. The upland areas provide habitat for reptile species. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-215

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Numerous amphibian and reptile species have been recorded during the various wildlife surveys conducted on the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mine areas and adjacent lands, including the LBA tracts. These species include the tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), plains spadefoot (Scaohiopus bombifrons), great plains toad (Bufo cognatus), boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata maculata), northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglassi), northern sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus graciosus), plains hognose snake (Heterondon nasicus nasicus), wandering garter snake (Thamnophis elegans vagrans), redsided garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis), prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis viridis), bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleucas sayi), western plains garter snake (Thamnophis radix haydeni), and eastern yellowbelly racer (Coluber constrictor flaviventris). The relatively low quantity and quality of aquatic habitat in the general Wright analysis area reduces its potential to attract these species, particularly amphibians and turtles. The boreal chorus frog has been the most common herptile observed in the area over the last two decades. These frogs have been heard in creeks and ponds throughout the area during spring. Other less common species observed on or near the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts over time include the northern leopard frog, tiger salamander, and wandering garter snake. Prairie rattlesnakes, short-horned lizards, and sagebrush lizards have been observed infrequently in sagebrush stands throughout the area. Other dryland species, such as the bullsnake, are likely to occur but are seldom observed. The northern leopard frog is listed as a USFS and BLM Sensitive Species (see Appendix H). Fish sampling was conducted on the TBNG in the Cheyenne River, Little Thunder River, Black Thunder Creek, and Antelope Creek in 2003 and 2004 by USFS personnel. Species observations included the following: black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), plains killifish (Fundulus zebrinus), carp (Cyprinus spp.), brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni), plains minnow (Hybognathus placitus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), sand shiner (Notropis stramineus), sucker spp. (Catostomus spp.), plains top minnow (Fundulus sciadicus), and flathead chub (Platygobio gracilis). The flathead chub and plains minnow are considered a USFS Region 2 sensitive species. Plains minnows were observed in Little Thunder Creek and the Cheyenne River. Flathead chubs were observed in the Cheyenne River. Based on WGFD gill net sampling conducted in 2000 and 2004, black bullhead, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) were present in the Little Thunder Reservoir, which is located on the West Hilight Field tract. There are no historical monitoring records of Little Thunder Reservoir’s water levels. Anecdotally, local residents and mine personnel recall this reservoir held only a fraction of its volume capacity prior to CBNG discharges in the Little Thunder Creek drainage above the impoundment, which began in the mid- to late-1990s. Anecdotal evidence 3-216 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences also indicates that the reservoir was rarely used for recreational fishing prior to CBNG development in the area. The stocking of catchable rainbow trout began at the Little Thunder Reservoir in 2004, and WGFD has not restocked the reservoir since 2006. 3.10.7.2 Environmental Consequences 3.10.7.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Mining activities in the general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts would remove habitat for amphibians, reptiles and aquatic species, particularly in portions of the ephemeral drainages (Little Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, and/or Porcupine Creek) during active mining. Under natural conditions, habitat for amphibians and aquatic species is limited on these six LBA tracts as applied for and the additional area evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, for each tract. Additionally, reclamation of the primary stream channels and restoration of surface water flow quantity and quality after mining to approximate pre-mining conditions would restore the naturallyoccurring mesic and aquatic habitats of those water courses. 10.7.2.2 No Action Alternative Impacts to amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic species under the No Action Alternative would be similar to the impacts described in Section 3.10.1.2.2. 3.10.8 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species; BLM Sensitive Species; and USFS Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species Refer to Appendices G and H. 3.10.9 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Regulatory guidelines and requirements designed to prevent or reduce surface coal mining impacts to wildlife include:


fencing designed to permit passage of pronghorn and other big game species to the extent possible; development of a Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for raptors and other migratory bird species of management concern that must be approved by the USFWS, including the following provisions:  creation of raptor nests and nesting habitat through enhancement efforts (nest platforms, tree plantings) to mitigate other nest sites impacted by mining operations;



Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-217

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences  relocation of raptor nests that would be impacted by mining in accordance with the approved raptor monitoring and mitigation plan;  obtaining a permit for removal and mitigation of golden eagle nests and those of other raptor species;  restriction of mine-related disturbances from encroaching within stipulated buffers of active raptor nests from egg-laying until fledging to prevent nest abandonment and injury to eggs or young;  reestablishment of the ground cover necessary for the return of a suitable raptor prey base after mining;  required use of raptor-safe construction for overhead power lines;


development of a Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern for Coal Mines in Wyoming Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, which must be approved by USFWS; restoration of sage-grouse habitat after mining including reestablishment of sagebrush and other shrubs on reclaimed lands and grading of reclaimed lands to create swales and depressions suitable for sagebrush obligates and their young; restoration of diverse landforms, direct topsoil replacement, and the construction of brush piles, snags, and rock piles to enhance habitat for wildlife; restoration of short-grass habitat for species that nest and forage in those habitat types; restoration of habitat provided by jurisdictional and functional wetlands; and reclamation of the stream channels and restoration of surface water flow quantity and quality after mining to approximate pre-mining conditions.



The current mine permits for the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines require reconstruction of bed form features, such as pools and runs, in major stream channels. Those efforts should help restore the channels’ natural form and function, as well as provide habitat. Future restoration will continue to be achieved by salvaging sufficient material from original channel and terrace alluvium, or other materials having the same physical characteristics, to reconstruct naturally-occurring channel features. These measures are included in the existing mining and reclamation permits and would be included in any amended mining and reclamation plans, if one or more of the LBA tracts are leased and proposed for mining. 3-218 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Baseline wildlife surveys were conducted for all three applicant mines before mining operations began. Annual wildlife monitoring has been ongoing since the late 1970s or early 1980s. These surveys are required by state and federal regulations. The wildlife monitoring surveys cover the lands within the approved mine permit area and a surrounding perimeter that varies in size according to the species being considered. As a result, a majority of the respective general analysis area for each of these six LBA tracts have been encompassed during the required monitoring efforts for the neighboring three mines. The required annual wildlife monitoring programs currently consists of the following:


early spring surveys for new and/or occupied raptor territories and/or nests, upland game bird lek locations, T&E species, and migratory birds on and around the existing leases; late spring surveys for migratory birds and raptor production at occupied nests, opportunistic observations of all wildlife species, and T&E species; summer surveys for raptor production at occupied nests, migratory birds, and lagomorph density; raptor territorial occupancy and nest productivity is surveyed annually on and within a 1- or 2-mile perimeter surrounding the existing permit areas, depending on the mine; and winter surveys for bald eagle winter roosts on and within 1 mile of the permit area (conducted as needed base on proximity of disturbance to potential roosting habitat).



Surface coal mines in the PRB were required to conduct seasonal surveys for big game species and brood surveys for upland game birds annually from 1994-1999. At the end of that period, the WGFD reviewed monitoring data and requirements for those species on mine properties. WGFD biologists concluded that the monitoring had demonstrated a lack of impacts to big game on existing mine sites, and that the brood surveys were not providing meaningful data. Additionally, no severe mine-related big game mortalities had occurred and no long-lasting impacts to big game had been documented on existing mine sites. The WGFD therefore recommended in late 1999 that big game monitoring and upland game bird brood surveys be discontinued on all existing mine sites. New mines will be required to conduct big game monitoring if located in crucial winter range or in significant migration corridors, neither of which are present within the general Wright analysis area. Although big game surveys are no longer required, the Black Thunder and North Antelope Rochelle mines (as well as the neighboring Antelope Mine) voluntarily elected to continue winter aerial and ground counts in alternate Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-219

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences years to enhance previous annual data for those species. Numerous other mines in the PRB also conduct these voluntary surveys on the same schedule as these mines. All three applicant mines operate under a current USFWS approved Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for raptors and other migratory bird species of management concern. Their respective plans would be amended to include the associated LBA tracts if they are leased and permitted for mining. The amended plans would be subject to review and approval by the USFWS before the amended mine plans are approved. If the current Coal Mine List of 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming is updated, or if additional species are documented nesting or using the area regularly, the current Monitoring and Mitigation Plans for each mine would be amended to incorporate and protect those birds and their habitats. 3.10.10 Residual Impacts Although the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts would be reclaimed in accordance with the requirements of SMCRA and Wyoming statutes, there would still be some residual wildlife impacts. The topographic moderation would result in a permanent loss of habitat diversity and a potential decrease in slope-dependent shrub communities. This would reduce the carrying capacity of the land for shrub-dependent species. Reclamation standards for bond release may also limit replacement of habitat for some species that occupy somewhat specialized, low-growth form habitats. Those species may repopulate reclaimed areas, but populations may not attain premining levels without special variances to accommodate those specific needs. For example, every effort would be made to preserve source populations of prairie dogs in the vicinity of development, as these animals can be valuable in restoring similar structural characteristics of pre-mine grassland species through regular clipping and harvesting of vegetation. Limited riparian habitat is present in the general Wright analysis area. Areas that currently support sagebrush would be altered to a grassland community, perhaps for decades, during the interim between sage plantings and maturity in reclamation. Until pre-mining habitats have been fully reestablished, such habitat transformations would likely result in a change in wildlife species composition. Minimal residual impacts to T&E, candidate, or proposed plant and animal species are expected to occur, because state and federal regulations require reclamation of specific habitats.

3-220

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.11 Land Use and Recreation 3.11.1 Affected Environment Surface ownership within the general Wright analysis area consists primarily of private lands with intermingled federal lands. Table 3-15 summarizes the distribution of surface ownership for each LBA tract configured under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative. Federally owned lands included in the general Wright analysis area include portions of the Thunder Basin National Grasslands (TBNG) administered by the USFS. As indicated in Table 3-14, approximately 162 acres of state owned land is included in the North Porcupine LBA Tract configured under Alternative 2, and no federally owned land is included in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract configured under Alternative 2. Surface ownership within the BLM study area (the Alternative 2 configuration) for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, is shown in Figures 3-40 through 3-45, respectively. Table 3-15. Distribution of Surface Ownership Within Each LBA Tract Configured Under Alternative 2, BLM’s Preferred Alternative.
LBA Tract North Hilight Field South Hilight Field West Hilight Field West Jacobs Ranch North Porcupine South Porcupine Total Federal Ownership (Acres) (Percent) 80.9 2,572.6 2,900.0 0.0 5,289.6 1,637.6 12,480.7 1.1 88.0 40.3 0.0 71.8 45.9 34.4 State Ownership (Acres) (Percent) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 162.1 0.0 162.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.5 Private Ownership (Acres) (Percent) 7,058.5 349.8 4,291.4 8,076.2 1,915.1 1,930.4 23,621.4 98.9 12.0 59.7 100.0 26.0 54.1 65.1

Livestock grazing on native rangeland is the primary land use, while oil and gas production, wildlife habitat, communication and power lines, transportation, and recreation are secondary land uses for both public and private lands. As indicated in Table 3-14, approximately 12,481 acres of federal surface administered by the USFS is included in the North, South and West Hilight Field tracts and the North and South Porcupine tracts under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative. This federal land is within Grazing Allotments #270 (located in the North Hilight Field tract), #256 (located in the South and West Hilight Field tracts), #266 (located in the West Hilight Field tract), #280, #223, #240, #298, #264, #282 (located in the North Porcupine tract), and #278 and #281 (located in the South Porcupine tract), all of which are currently held by Thunder Basin Grazing Association (TBGA 2008). Areas of disturbance within and near the six proposed lease areas include roads, oil and gas wells and associated production facilities, surface mineDraft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-221

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
3 2
1
6 5
4
3 2

ck Bla

BNSF & UP RR

R oad

r de un Th

Hili ght

Kee line

Cre

Road

ek
15
14

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

No rth
Pr on g
3 2

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

Lit

tle

State

Highway 450

BNSF & UP RR

R oad

Th un de r
11
12
7 8
9
10
11

Hili ght

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for North Hilight Field LBA
Tract Under Alternative 2,
BLM's Preferred Alternative Foundation Coal West, Inc. Jacobs Ranch Coal Company
0 3000 6000 12000

k ee Cr

LEGEND

Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC Arc Land Co. Thunder Basin National Grassland Jacobs Land & Livestock Mills Brothers Partnership Guy W. Edwards Trust Western RR Properties Inc. & BNRR

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-40. Surface Ownership Within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

3-222

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
th Nor
8 9 10 11 12
7 8
9

Prong

Lit

tle
ek re r C de un Th

Lit

tle Th

de r
29

Creek

T. 43
N. T. 42
N.

Hilight Road

T. 43
N. T. 42
N.

Edwards Road

Reno Road

Antel ope R oad

BNSF & UP RR

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC
0 3000 6000 12000

Western RR Properties Inc. & BNRR Thunder Basin National Grassland

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-41. Surface Ownership Within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-223

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 71 W.
19 20 21 22 23

rth

Pr on g
30 29 28 27

Hilight Road

Small Road
26

L ittle

Th un de r

ek C re

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for
11

West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative Area Added Under Alternative 3 (See Figure 3-43 for Surface Ownership) Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC

Little

Th un d

Arc Land Co.
Thunder Basin National Grassland
Bridle Bit Ranch Co.

k ee Cr
19 20 21 22 23

James R. & Irene Stuart Trusts
Thomas W. & Leah B. Edwards

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Matheson Road

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

3000

6000

12000

R. 71 W.

Edwards Road

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-42. Surface Ownership Within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

3-224

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Cree k

Co al

BNSF & UP RR

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

Hilight R oad

es t

Fo rk

Shroyer Road

Small Road
26
25

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

No rth

State Highway 450

Pr on g
7 8 9 10

Li tt le
11
12

r de un Th

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight R oad

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

L it tle
de un Th r
14 13

Cr ee k

LEGEND
Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Boundary West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative Jacobs Ranch Coal Company Boller-Mills Ranch L P
0 3000 6000 12000

William M. & Lois R. Chittenden Ark Land Co.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-43. Surface Ownership Within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-225

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Antelope Road

B NS F & UP RR

Antelope Road

Figure 3-44. Surface Ownership Within the North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives.

3-226
15 18 16 15 14 14 13 17 13

Reno Road

Mackey Road

21 20 21

24 19 22

Matheson Road

28 29 28

27 30

Mackey Road

T. 42 N.
Po rcu pi n e

33 32

34 31

35 36

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

T. 41 N.
3 1 6 2 5

Matheson Road

k ee Cr

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
12000

Thunder Basin National Grassland State of Wyoming Jerry N. & Rhonda Wilkinson Powder River Coal, LLC School Creek Coal Resources Western Railroad Properties, Inc.

3000

6000

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
T. 42 N. T. 41 N. R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
34 35

Matheson Road

T. 42
N. T. 41 N.

Road

Antelope

Po rcu

pi n e

Cr ee k

Ho rs e
22 23
24
19 20

BNSF & UP RR

ek C re

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative Powder River Coal, LLC Western Railroad Properties, Inc.
0 1500 3000
6000

Thunder Basin National Grassland Barbara H. Dilts Living Trust Jerry J. Dilts Living Trust Jerry J. Dilts Family LP I
Bridle Bit Ranch Company Jerry J. Dilts Family LP II
and Bridle Bit Ranch Co.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-45. Surface Ownership Within the South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-227

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences related facilities and activities, and activities associated with ranching operations. State Highway 59, which runs north-south, is located west of all six LBA tracts, and State Highway 450, which runs east-west, borders the southern edge of the West Jacobs Ranch tract and the northern edge of the West Hilight Field tract (Figure 1-1). County roads that border or traverse the LBA tracts and provide public and private access within and near the general Wright analysis area include Shroyer Road (County Road 116), Hilight Road (County Road 52), Reno Road (County Road 83), Mackey Road (County Road 69), Antelope Road (County Road 4), and Matheson Road (County Road 70). Several unnamed two-track roads also traverse and provide private access within and near the proposed lease areas. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe & Union Pacific (BNSF & UP) railroad right-of-way (ROW) crosses portions of, or is adjacent to all six of the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 (Figures 3 40 through 3-45). The oil and gas estate within the general Wright analysis area is federally and privately owned, with the majority (approximately 67 percent) being federally owned. Most, although not entirely all, of the federally owned oil and gas estate is currently leased. The ownership of the oil and gas estate for each LBA tract is shown on Figures 3-46 through 3-51. Lists of the current federal oil and gas lessees within the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are listed in Tables 3-16 through 3-21, respectively. According to the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) records as of May 14, 2008, there were 74 permitted conventional oil and gas wells on lands included within the BLM study areas (the tracts as applied for and the additional areas evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2) for these six LBA tracts (Figures 3-46 through 3-51). Of these 74 wells, 28 were permanently abandoned, 33 were still producing, nine were shut in, three were permanently abandoned injector holes, and one was a dry hole. Of the 42 wells capable of producing (inclusive of the nine shut-in wells), 16 have economically recoverable reserves. Seven of these 16 wells are located on private leases. Within these six LBA tract study areas, approximately 79 percent of the 74 permitted conventional oil and gas wells were drilled between 1967 and 1980, and no conventional oil or gas wells have been drilled since 1990. The conventional oil and gas wells located in the BLM study areas for these six LBA tracts that are capable of production are listed in Appendix E. The Supreme Court has ruled that the coal bed natural gas (CBNG) belongs to the owner of the oil and gas estate (98-830). Therefore, the oil and gas lessees have the right to develop CBNG as well as conventional oil and gas on the LBA tracts. According to the WOGCC records as of May 14, 2008, there were 287 permitted CBNG wells on lands included within the BLM study areas for these six LBA tracts (Figures 3-46 through 3-51). Of these, 287 CBNG wells, 212 were producing, 36 were shut-in, 32 were permanently abandoned, and seven were dry holes. Extensive CBNG development has also occurred on lands surrounding the LBA tracts, especially to the west. CBNG wells capable of 3-228 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2

WYW0103392 PRIVATE
10 11 12 7

WYW7750
8 9

WYW091135 WYW144475

WYW3063

WYW14503 PRIVATE

PRIVATE
15 14 13 18 17 16

WYW32195
15 14

PRIVATE

WYW5305 WYW5306 WYW5305 29 WYW5305
28 27

COMPT OG WYW32195
26

WYW0103392 WYW0249938A PRIVATE

PRIVATE

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. OIL & GAS WELL TYPES CBNG - Producing CBNG - Shut-In Monitor - Shut-in Injector, Plugged and Abandoned Oil - Producing Oil - Plugged & Abandoned Oil - Shut-In
0 3000 6000 12000

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative Oil & Gas Ownership Boundaries
WYW00000

Federal Oil & Gas Lease Numbers

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Note: Well locations and status were derived from a download from the WOGCC website on 5/14/08. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity)

Figure 3-46. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-229

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9

RESTRICTED MINERALS

PRIVATE

WYW143686

WYW140940 UNLEASED

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

WYW143940 RESTRICTED MINERALS

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

WYW30501

WYW145841 WYW147833
8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
OIL & GAS WELL TYPES CBNG - Producing CBNG - Dry Hole
CBNG - Plugged and Abandoned
CBNG - Shut-In
Oil - Producing
Oil - Plugged & Abandoned
0 3000 6000 12000

Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
WYW00000

Oil & Gas Ownership Boundaries Federal Oil & Gas Lease Numbers

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Note: Well locations and status were derived from a download from the WOGCC website on 5/14/08. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity)

Figure 3-47. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

3-230

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 71 W.
19 20 21 22 23

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

WYW95702 WYW150372 WYW95702 WYW29941
6 5 4 3 2

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 3 Oil & Gas Ownership Boundaries Federal Oil & Gas WYW00000 Lease Numbers

WYW143686 WYW36006

WYW95702

UNLEASED WYW142058 WYW135567

WYW95702 WYW132212
18 17 16 15 14

OIL & GAS WELL TYPES
PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE
19 20 21

WYW140773 RESTRICTED MINERALS WYW36006 WYW143062
30 29 28

CBNG - Producing CBNG - Dry Hole CBNG - Plugged and Abandoned CBNG - Shut-In Conventional Gas - Shut-In Conventional Gas - Producing Oil - Dry Hole Oil - Producing Oil - Plugged & Abandoned Note: Well locations and status were derived from a download from the WOGCC website on 5/14/08. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity)

WYW140773
27 26

WYW124456 PRIVATE
31

WYW140939

WYW96875
32 33 34 35

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

WYW124456 PRIVATE WYW96875
6 5 4 3

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

3000

6000

12000

R. 71 W.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-48. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-231

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
12 7 8 9 10 11 12

WYW132214
13 18 17 16

PRIVATE

WYW143510

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

WYW118520

WYW132214 NOT POSTED WYW132214
4 3 2 1

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

WYW143510

WYW150372 WYW139066
12 7 8 9 10

WYW95702 WYW142057
11 12

WYW133562 WYW150372

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. OIL & GAS WELL TYPES CBNG - Producing CBNG - Plugged and Abandoned CBNG - Shut-In
Conventional Gas - Plugged and Abandoned
Oil - Dry Hole Oil - Producing Oil - Plugged & Abandoned Oil - Shut-In
0 3000 6000 12000

LEGEND
Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Boundary Existing Jacobs Ranch Mine Federal Coal Leases West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative Oil & Gas Ownership Boundaries
WYW00000

Federal Oil & Gas Lease Numbers

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Note: Well locations and status were derived from a download from the WOGCC website on 5/14/08. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity)

Figure 3-49. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternatives.

3-232

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

WYW095594 WYW093721 WYW093721C
13 18 16 15 14 17

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
WYW042736 WYW042736B WYW042736B WYW042736 WYW042736C
13

WYW095594B
15 14

WYW46352 WYW151157 WYW27703 WYW096554 WYW050890
23

WYW0258354A

WYW151156 WYW163611 WYW163611 WYW093721

WYW147135

WYW093721 WYW093721 WYW163611 WYW093721 WYW093721A
PRIVATE

WYW140938
23 24 19 20 21

WYW67220C

WYW50066

28 29 28

27 26 25 30

PRIVATE

WYW4315
27 26 25

WYW67034 WYW0100872A PRIVATE

NOT POSTED WYW0100872 WYW0100872A WYW75680

WYW43652 NOT POSTED WYW0185974B WYW095594A WYW156685 PRIVATE
34 35

WYW45702A WYW151157

WYW147135
36 31 32

T. 42 N.
WYW0185974B WYW67220C

WYW67220C

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Figure 3-50. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives.
3 1 6 2 5 4 3 2 1

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications
R. 71 W. R. 70 W. OIL & GAS WELL TYPES

T. 41 N.

WYW140937

LEGEND
North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary Existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine Federal Coal Leases North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for

3000

6000

12000

CBNG - Producing CBNG - Shut-In Conventional Gas - Plugged and Abandoned Conventional Gas - Producing Oil - Producing Oil - Plugged & Abandoned Note: Well locations and status were derived from a download from the WOGCC website on 5/14/08. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity)

North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative Oil & Gas Ownership Boundaries WYW00000 Federal Oil & Gas Lease Numbers

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3-233

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

WYW136941 WYW136875 WYW141205
3 2 1 6 5 4

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

WYW67219 WYW48385 WYW130033
9 10 11 12 7

WYW141205 NOT POSTED

WYW128995 PRIVATE
16 15 14 13 18

WYW143931
17 16

WYW140769 WYW141206
21 22 23 24

WYW144681 WYW141205
19 20 21

WYW141205

WYW138118 WYW143508

Campbell County
28

30 27 26 25

Converse County

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

OIL & GAS WELL TYPES CBNG - Producing CBNG - Shut-In Conventional Gas - Producing Oil - Plugged & Abandoned Note: Well locations and status were derived from a download from the WOGCC website on 5/14/08. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity)
0 3000 6000 12000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-51. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives.

3-234

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-16. North Hilight Field LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record.
Location T.44N., R.70W. Section 17; Lots Section 19; Lots Section 20; Lots Section 21; Lots LeaseNumber 9, 7, 1, 1, 10, 15, 16 8, 10, 15, 18 2, 7-10, 15 8-10, 15, 16
WYW005305 Lessees of Record Citation 2002 Investment LP
Key Production Co., Inc.
M&K Oil Co., Inc.
ExxonMobil Oil Corp. Kerr McGee O&G Onshore LP Marathon Oil Co. Patina Oklahoma Corp. Primary Natural Resources, Inc. Citation 2002 Investment LP Key Production Co., Inc. M&K Oil Co., Inc. APD Energy Co., LP Citation 2002 Investment LP Derby Energy LLC Kennedy, George C. Key Production Co., Inc. Langham Petrol Expl Meagher O&G Properties, Inc. Oilfield Salvage & Service Co. Pip Energy IV-80 Unruh, Dean -Inexco Oil Co. Merit Energy Partners III Merit MGMT Partners I LP CTV O&G Multi-State, LLC Inexco Oil Co. Key Production Co., Inc. M&K Oil Co., Inc. Questar Expl and Prod Co. Primary Natural Resources, Inc. Bill Barrett CBM, LLC CTV O&G Multi-State, LLC M&K Oil Co., Inc. Questar Expl and Prod Co.

Section 18; Lots 7-10, 15-17

WYW007750

Section 18; Lot 18 Section 20; Lot 16

WYW014503 WYW005306

Section 22; Lots 4, 11, 13

WYW032195

Section 22; Lots 8, 9, 14, 15 T.44N., R.71W. Section 13; Lots 3-6 Section 14; Lot 1 Section 13; Lots 11-14 Section 24; Lots 1, 2

Compt. OG WYW003063

WYW103392

Section 14; Lot 2 Section 14; Lots 3-4 Section 24; Lots 7, 8

WYW091135 WYW144475 WYW0249938A

Note:

From BLM Oil and Gas Plats (dated 09/07/07 & 12/17/07). The oil and gas rights (including CBNG) and coal rights for the above locations are owned by the federal government. For the rest of the LBA tract, the oil and gas rights (including CBNG) are privately owned, and the coal rights are federally owned.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-235

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-17. South Hilight Field LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record.
Location T.42N., R.71W. Section 1; Lots 7-10 Section 1; Lots 15-18 LeaseNumber WYW143940 WYW147833 Lessees of Record Lance O&G Co., Inc. Williams Prod RMT Co. Five Star Energy, LLC Lance O&G Co., Inc. Williams Prod RMT Co. Petro Canada Res (USA) Inc. Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc. Western Gas Resources, Inc.

Section 2; Lots 5, 6, 11-14, 19, 20 Section 2; Lots 7-10, 15-18 T.43N., R.71W. Section 23; Lots 10-15 Section 26; Lots 1, 2, 7-10, 15, 16 Section 35; Lots 1, 2, 7-9, 16 Section 23; Lots 1-9, 16 Section 35; Lots 11-14 Section 35; Lots 10, 15 Section 35; Lots 3-6

WYW145841 WYW030501 WYW140940

Restricted Minerals Unleased Oil & Gas WYW143686

--Jolen Operating Co. Lance O&G Co., Inc. Williams Prod RMT Co.

Note:

From BLM Oil and Gas Plats (dated 09/07/07 & 12/14/07). The oil and gas rights (including CBNG) and coal rights for the above locations are owned by the federal government. For the rest of the LBA tract, the oil and gas rights (including CBNG) are privately owned, and the coal rights are federally owned.

production on or in sections adjacent to the LBA tracts are listed in Appendix E. Additional information on the conventional oil and gas and CBNG development in the general Wright analysis area and surrounding area is included in Section 3.3.2. Certain ancillary facilities are needed to support oil and gas production. These support facilities may include well access roads; well pads; production equipment at the wellhead (which may be located on the surface and/or underground); well production casing (which extends from the surface to the zone of production); underground pipelines (which gather the oil, gas, and/or water produced by the individual wells and carry it to a larger transmission pipeline or collection facility); facilities for treating, discharging, disposing of, containing, or injecting produced water; central metering facilities; electrical power utilities; gas compressor stations; and high-pressure transmission pipelines for delivering the gas to market. Currently, there are some oil and gas production facilities, primarily oil and gas pipelines, on the LBA tracts, as discussed in Section 3.15 of this EIS. Additional support facilities might not be constructed on the LBA tracts because conventional oil and gas and CBNG well 3-236 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-18. West Hilight Field LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record.
Location T.43N., R.71W. Section 8; Lots 2, 7-10, 15, 16 LeaseNumber WYW143686 Lessees of Record Jolen Operating Co. Lance O&G Co., Inc. Williams Prod RMT Co. Explorers Petro Corp. Harvey E. Yates Co. Heyco Employees LTD. Spiral, Inc. CTV O&G Multi-State, LLC Deputy Robert W. Devon Energy Prod Co. Farley, Thomas H. Jr. GF Collins Jr. Trust Key Production Co., Inc. Questar Expl and Prod Co. RBC Expl & Product Co. Ryder Stilwell Oil St Mary Land & Exploration Co. Stadelman, Diana L. Stadelman, Joseph R. WP Properties Corp. Hilcorp Energy, LP -Lance O&G Co., Inc. Williams Prod RMT Co. Bill Barrett CBM, LLC Western Gas Resources, Inc. EOG Resources, Inc. -Western Gas Resources, Inc. Explorers Petro Corp. Harvey E. Yates Co. Heyco Employees LTD Spiral, Inc. Western Gas Resources, Inc. CH4 Energy, LLC Western Gas Resources, Inc. Williams Prod RMT Co. Lance O&G Co. Inc.

Section Section Section Section

8; Lots 1 WYW095702 9; Lots 1-12, 14-16 10; Lot 1 17; Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 Section 8; Lots 3-6, 11-14 WYW036006 Section 20; Lots 1, 2, 7-10, 15, 16

Section 9; Lot 13 Section 10; Lots 2, 7-10, 15, 16 Section 10; Lots 3, 4 Section 10; Lots 5, 6 Section 10; Lot 12 Section 10; Lot 13 Section 20; Lots 3, 6, 11-14 Section Section Section Section Section 20; Lot 5 22; Lots 11, 14 21; Lots 11, 14 27; Lots 3-6, 11-14 28; Lots 2-7, 10-12, 14, 15 Section 21; Lots 9, 10, 15, 16 Section 21; Lots 4, 5, 12, 13

WYW029941 Unleased Oil & Gas WYW150372 WYW142058 WYW135567 WYW132212 Restricted Minerals WYW140773 WYW124456

WYW140939 WYW143062

Section 28; Lots 1, 8, 9, 16 WYW096875 Section 34; Lots 1, 2, 7-10, 15, 16 Note: From BLM Oil and Gas Plat (dated 12/14/07). The oil and gas rights (including CBNG) and coal rights for the above locations are owned by the federal government. For the rest of the LBA tract, the oil and gas rights (including CBNG) are privately owned, and the coal rights are federally owned.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-237

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-19. West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record.
Location T.43N., R.71W. Section 3; Lots 2, 5-14, 18, 19 LeaseNumber WYW095702 Lessees of Record Explorers Petro Corp. Harvey E. Yates Co. Heyco Employees LTD Spiral, Inc. Bill Barrett CBM, LLC Lance O&G Co., Inc. Williams Prod RMT Co. EOG Resources, Inc. Western Gas Resources, Inc. Williams Prod RMT Co. Western Gas Resources, Inc.

Section 3; Lots 16, 17 Section 3; Lot 15 Section 4; Lots 7, 8 Section 4; Lots 5, 6, 11, 12 Section 4; Lots 9, 10 T.44N., R.71W. Section 15; Lots 11-14 Section 22; Lots 3-6 Section 34; Lots 3-6, 9, 10, 15, 16 Section 30; Lots 5, 12, 13, 20 Section 34; Lots 11-14 Section 31; Lots 5, 12 Section 31; Lots 13, 20 Note:

WYW142057 WYW150372 WYW133562 WYW139066

WYW132214

WYW143510

Jolen Operating Co. Lance O&G Co., Inc. Williams Prod RMT Co. Sawyer, Paul F.

WYW118520 Not Posted

development has likely reached a peak due to exhausted reserves and diminished production. Coal mining is the predominant land use in the general Wright analysis area. The applicant mines (Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle) are part of a group of contiguous surface coal mines located in Campbell County (Figure 1-1). Coal production from the three applicant mines increased by 58 percent between 1998 and 2007 (from approximately 136.4 million tons in 1998 to 215.8 million tons in 2007). Of the 19 federal coal leases issued in the PRB since decertification of the federal coal region, nine (Jacobs Ranch, West Black Thunder, North Antelope/Rochelle, Powder River, Thundercloud, North Jacobs Ranch, NARO South, Little Thunder, and NARO North) have been issued within this group of three mines. The currently pending North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine lease applications evaluated in this EIS are in this group of mines (Tables 1-1 and 1-2). The City of Gillette/Campbell County Comprehensive Planning Program (City of Gillette 1978) was finalized by the City of Gillette and Campbell County in June 3-238 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-20. North Porcupine LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record.
Location T.42N., R.70W. Section 19; Lots 13, 20 LeaseNumber WYW093721C Lessees of Record Bill Barrett Corp. Darius Oil Properties, LLC Powder River Coal, LLC Bill Barrett Corp. El Paso E&P Co., LP Kaiser-Francis Oil Kerr McGee O&G Onshore LP Merit Energy Partners III Merit Partners LP Bill Barrett Corp. Bill Barrett Corp. Darius Oil Properties, LLC Powder River Coal, LLC El Paso E&P Co., LP Mach Petro, Inc. Powder River Coal, LLC ABO Petro Corp. Myco Industries, Inc. Sharbro Oil LTD Co. Yates Drilling Co. Yates Petroleum Corp. Bill Barrett Corp. Bill Barrett Corp. Conrad, Clayton Jouflas, George P. Mobil Expl & Prod ABO Petro Corp. Myco Industries, Inc. Sharbro Oil LTD Co. Yates Drilling Co. Yates Petroleum Corp. Brazos LTD Partnership Petroleum, Inc. Whiting Oil & Gas DNR O&G, Inc. Berenergy Corp. Daven Corp. Sport Resources, Inc. Zab, Inc. Zalman Res, Inc. -Mobil Expl & Prod Powder River Coal, LLC Damson Oil Corp. Powder River Coal, LLC Stalls, Clark F. Powder River Coal, LLC

Section 19; Lots 9, 12, 14, 19 Section 20; Lots 9, 16

WYW093721

Section 19; Lots 16, 17 Section 20; Lots 8, 10, 15 Section 20; Lots 5, 11, 14

WYW163611 WYW042736

Section 20; Lots 6, 12, 13

WYW042736B

Section 20; Lot 7

WYW151156

Section 21; Lots 3-6, 11-14 Section 21; Lots 1, 2 Section 22; Lots 3-6 Section Section Section Section 22; Lots 9, 10, 15, 16 21; Lots 7-10, 15, 16 22; Lots 11-14 27;Lots 9-16

WYW042736C WYW027703

WYW096554 WYW151157

Section 26; Lots 13, 14

WYW045702A

Section 26; Lots 3-6, 11, 12 Section 26; Lots 9, 10, 15, 16

WYW050066 WYW004315

Section Section Section Section Section

27; 27; 29; 29; 30;

Lot 4 Lots 1-3, 5-8 Lots 1-3 Lot 4 Lot 6

Not Posted WYW050890 WYW0100872 WYW0100872A

Section 30; Lot 5

WYW075680

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-239

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-20. North Porcupine LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record (Continued).
Location T.42N., R.71W. Section 22; Lots 5, 6, 11-14 Section 22; Lots 7-10, 15, 16 Section 27; Lots 9, 10, 15, 16 Section 23; Lots 7, 8 Section 23; Lots 9, 10, 16 Section 24; Lots 11-14 LeaseNumber WYW140938 WYW147135 WYW095594B WYW095594 Lessees of Record Bill Barrett Corp. Bill Barrett Corp. Bill Barrett Corp. Klabzuba Oil and Gas Devon Energy Prod Co. LP F&H Schultz Trst Klabzuba, Robert Schultz Mgmt LTD Bill Barrett Corp. Bill Barrett Corp. Citadel Energy, Inc. Key Production Co., Inc. Powder River Coal, LLC St Mary Land & Exploration, Co. Independent Prod Co. Devon Energy Prod Co. LP F&H Schultz Trst Klabzuba, Robert Schultz Mgmt LTD Bill Barrett Corp. El Paso E&P Co., LP Kaiser-Francis Oil Kerr McGee O&G Onshore LP Merit Energy Partners III Merit Partners LP -Devon Energy Prod Co. LP Powder River Coal, LLC Reunion Energy Co. Powder River Coal, LLC ExxonMobil Oil Corp. Axel Johnson Expl.
Black Hills Expl & Prod Inc.
DeLoyd Cook Estate
Ladd, Jerry D.
Meyer Oil Co Inc.
Whiting Oil & Gas Corp.
Wright, Dale O.
Bill Barrett Corp.

Section 23; Lots 11-14 Section 23; Lot 15 Section 23; Lots 5, 6 Section 25; Lots 1, 2

WYW0258354A WYW095594A WYW043652

Section 24; Lots 10, 15 Section 24; Lots 11-14

WYW093721A WYW095594

Section 24; Lots 9, 16

WYW093721

Section 25; Lots 3, 4 Section 26; Lots 1, 2 Section 35; Lots 3-6 Section 26; Lots 3, 4 Section 27; Lots 3-6, 11-14 Section 27; Lots 1, 2, 7, 8 Section 34; Lots 1-8 Section 35; Lots 11-14

Not Posted WYW185974B

WYW156685 WYW067034 WYW67220C

Section 34; Lots 9-16 Note:

WYW140937

From BLM Oil and Gas Plats (dated 09/07/07 & 09/20/07). The oil and gas rights (including CBNG) and coal rights for the above locations are owned by the federal government. For the rest of the LBA tract, the oil and gas rights (including CBNG) are state or privately owned, and the coal rights are federally owned.

3-240

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-21. South Porcupine LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record.
Location T.41N., R.70W. Section 7; Lots 7-10, 15-18 Section 18; Lots 6, 11, 14, 19 Section 18; Lots 7-10, 15-18 T.41N., R.71W. Section 1; Lots 7-10, 15-18 Section 1; Lots 5, 6, 11, 12 Section 10; Lot 9 LeaseNumber Not Posted WYW143931 WYW144681 WYW136875 WYW136941 WYW130033 Lessees of Record -Powder River Coal, LLC Powder River Coal, LLC Rubenstein, Kathleen A. Powder River Coal, LLC ABO Petro Corp. Lance O&G Co., Inc. Myco Industries, Inc. Sharbro Oil LTD Co. Williams Prod RMT Co. Yates Drilling Co. Yates Petroleum Corp. ABO Petro Corp. Lance O&G Co., Inc. Myco Industries, Inc. Williams Prod RMT Co. Yates Drilling Co. Yates Petroleum Corp. Key Production Co., Inc.
St. Mary Land & Exploration Co.
Liberty Petroleum Corp. Universal Fuels Co. West Trend Res Corp. Yates Petroleum Corp. Lance O&G Co., Inc. Williams Production RMT Co. Williams Production RMT Co.

Section 11; Lots 11, 12, 14

WYW128995

Section 11; Lots 9, 10, 15, 16 Section 12; Lots 1, 2, 4-8, 11-14 Section 13; Lots 1-10, 15, 16
Section 12; Lot 3

WYW048385

WYW067219

Section 13; Lots 12-14 Section 14; Lots 9, 16 Section Section Section Section 1; Lots 13, 14, 19, 20 12; Lots 9, 10, 15, 16 13; Lot 11 23; N½ Lot 8

WYW138118 WYW140769 WYW141205

Section 23; Lot 1 Section 24; Lots 2-4, N½ Lots 5-7 Note:

WYW141206 WYW143508

Williams Production RMT Co. Five Star Energy, LLC Williams Production RMT Co.

From BLM Oil and Gas Plats (dated 09/06/07 & 02/27/08). The oil and gas rights (including CBNG) and coal rights for the above locations are owned by the federal government. For the rest of the LBA tract, the oil and gas rights (including CBNG) are privately owned, and the coal rights are federally owned.

1978. The 1978 plan was updated in March 1994 and both plans provide general land use goals and polices for state and federal coal leases in the county. These documents emphasized local government involvement in state Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-241

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences and federal government decisions and plans. On August 21, 2007, the Campbell County Natural Resource and Land Use Plan (the Plan) was adopted. The Plan was developed by a diverse cross section of county residents appointed by the Board of Campbell County Commissioners and it focuses on planning for growth and development in the county (Campbell County 2007). The Plan describes the local environment, natural resources, and industries within the county. It defines the social and economic conditions, and the Plan’s intent is for Campbell County’s values to be taken into consideration in any state or federal agency action which falls under NEPA requirements. There are no provisions for zoning in the Plan, and the proposed lease areas do not have designated zoning classifications. Big game hunting is the principal recreational land use within the general Wright analysis area, and pronghorn, mule deer, and white-tailed deer are present within the area (Section 3.10.2). On private lands, hunting is allowed only with landowner permission. Land ownership within the PRB is largely private (approximately 80 percent), with some private landowners permitting sportsmen to cross and/or hunt on their land. There has been a trend over the past 2 to 3 decades towards a substantial reduction in private lands that are open and reasonably available for hunting. Access fees continue to rise and many resident hunters feel these access fees are unreasonable. This trend has created problems for the WGFD in their attempt to distribute and control harvest at optimal levels, as well as for sportsmen who desire access to these animals (WGFD 2007a). In general, publicly owned lands (i.e., USFS or BLM-administered federal lands and state school sections) are open to hunting if legal access is available. Due to safety concerns, however, public surface lands contained within an active mining area are generally closed to the public, further limiting recreational use. There are approximately 12,642.8 acres of public surface lands within the BLM study areas for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts (Figures 3-40 through 3-45 and Table 3-14). A majority of the public surface lands (12,480.7 acres) are associated with the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. Approximately 7,288 acres of the public surface lands within the BLM study areas for these six LBA tracts are within the current mine permit boundaries or are surrounded by private lands and thus may be inaccessible to the public. Specific details regarding big game herd management objectives within and near the general Wright analysis area are contained in Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s (WGFD’s) 2007 Big Game Herd Unit Job Completion Reports for the Casper and Sheridan Regions (WGFD 2007a). The WGFD classifies the entire general Wright analysis area as yearlong and winter/yearlong habitat for antelope. No crucial or critical pronghorn habitat is recognized by the WGFD in this area. WGFD definitions of big game ranges are included in Section 3.10.2.1. The proposed lease areas are within pronghorn Hunt Area 24 (north of Highway 450), which is contained in the Hilight Herd Unit, and pronghorn 3-242 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Hunt Area 27 (south of Highway 450), which is contained in the Cheyenne River Herd Unit. In post-season 2007, the population of the Hilight Herd Unit was estimated to be approximately 12,397 animals, which is above the WGFD objective of 11,000, and the population of the Cheyenne River Herd Unit was estimated to be 55,287, which is above 45 percent above the WGFD objective of 38,000 animals (WFGD 2007a). Historical problems associated with the management of the Hilight Herd Unit include hunter access, over harvest on limited public lands, and quantifying landowner preferences and desires. Prior to 1997, the herd population was fairly stable and near the objective of 11,000 antelope. Losses from severe winters, poor production rates, and disease subsequently decreased the population; however, the herd has recently recovered and since 2005 it has been slightly above the objective level. Hunt Area 24 contains mostly privately owned surface lands with poor hunter access to limited publicly owned lands; therefore, the number of antelope is expected to steadily increase. If the population exceeds objective levels, more licenses will be needed and these may be difficult to sell in this mostly private land area. Nearly all landowners charge access fees for hunting and private land access is based on the desires and perceptions of the landowners. Some portions of the herd unit are leased to outfitters, which makes areas more expensive and restrictive with regards to access. Increased harvest may also be difficult to achieve because of the increased CBNG development, which is limiting rifle hunting on associated lands. Assuming most licenses are sold and given the predicted harvest, the 2008 post-season population was expected to be 12,129 antelope (WGFD 2007a). Between 1995 and 2001, the Cheyenne River Herd Unit population was fairly stable at about 15 percent below the objective population. Pronghorn populations in this herd unit dropped in 2001, primarily because of lower productivity and survival caused by climatic factors. Population recovery began in the following years, with an increase of approximately 2,000 additional pronghorn each year between 2002 and 2005. The herd objective was surpassed in 2005 and continues to grow. Hunt Area 27 contains mostly privately owned surface lands (roughly 77 percent of the herd unit is private land) with poor hunter access to limited publicly owned lands. Given inadequate access to private lands, WGFD’s inability to sell all issued licenses, and the uneven distribution of animals throughout the area, managing this herd is difficult and the number of pronghorn is expected to steadily increase. Nearly all landowners either charge access fees for hunting or lease their land to outfitters. In addition, an increased harvest may be difficult to achieve because of the increased CBNG development, which is limiting rifle hunting on associated lands. The 2007 post-season population estimate was 45 percent above the objective. While WGFD significantly increased license issuance in 2008, the estimated harvest assumes many remain unsold and the 2008 post season population was expected to be 53,142 antelope (WGFD 2007a).

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-243

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The WGFD has classified the general Wright analysis area as yearlong and “OUT” mule deer use range (the OUT designated areas do no contain enough animals to be important habitat, or the habitat is of limited importance to a species). Crucial or critical mule deer habitat does not occur on or within several miles of the general Wright analysis area. The general Wright analysis area is located within WGFD mule deer Hunt Areas 10 and 21, part of the Thunder Basin Mule Deer Herd Unit, which also includes mule deer Hunt Areas 7, 8, 9, and 11. The Thunder Basin Herd Unit encompasses 3,642 square miles, of this, 71 percent is privately owned. Hunt Area 10, however, contains substantial blocks of public land. According to WGFD, there has been an increase in the number of landowners leasing to outfitters, which is increasing hunting pressure on public lands and decreasing hunting opportunity on private lands. Reducing the number of licenses issued and length of hunting season in Hunt Area 10 has reduced hunter pressure on public lands within this herd unit. The population of this herd reached objective in 2000 and since 2002 it has grown on average 9 percent per year. The 2007 post-season objective for this mule deer herd was 20,000 and the population was estimated at 20,980. WGFD believes the herd should be reduced to or below the objective population because of drought-related forage conditions; however, limited sales and use of certain types of licenses and insufficient harvest of deer from private land may hamper the ability to reduce the population through hunting. Given average herd productivity and climatic conditions, the 2008 post-season population is expected to increase to 22,265 animals (WGFD 2007a). White-tailed deer are not managed separately by WGFD, but are managed and hunted in conjunction with mule deer. The population occupying Hunt Areas 10 and 21 is part of the Central White-tailed Deer Herd Unit. White-tailed deer are seldom observed within the general Wright analysis area due to their preference for riparian woodlands and irrigated agricultural lands. WGFD classifies the entire general Wright analysis area, with the exception of a narrow corridor along Antelope Creek, as OUT white-tailed deer use range. The narrow corridor along the Antelope Creek is classified as yearlong range. There is no population model for this herd. The general Wright analysis area is within Elk Hunt Areas 113 and 123 of the Rochelle Hills Herd Unit. The Rochelle Hills Elk Herd resides in the Rochelle Hills, which are located immediately east of the three applicant mines. The herd favors the ponderosa pine/juniper woodlands, savanna, and steeper terrain habitat offered by the Rochelle Hills. As more lands are reclaimed from coal mining adjacent to the Rochelle Hills, elk are shifting their winter use to these areas. Such lands typically offer excellent winter grass supplies, especially during more severe winters when other sites are less accessible. Elk are presently using the reclaimed mine lands of the Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. The WGFD has designated an approximately five square mile area on reclaimed lands within the Jacobs Ranch Mine permit area as crucial winter habitat for the Rochelle Hills elk herd (Odekoven 1994). Rio Tinto Energy America (RTEA), owner of the Jacobs 3-244 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Ranch Mine, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) finalized a formal agreement that created the Rochelle Hills Conservation Easement. The easement contains nearly 1,000 acres, with 75 percent of that area comprised of reclaimed mining lands on RTEA’s Jacobs Ranch Mine. The easement acreage was donated to RMEF by RTEA to ensure that the reclaimed land continues to be used as grazing land and wildlife habitat for the extended future (RMEF 2007). Much of the occupied range of the Rochelle Hills Elk Herd is located on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. Elk Hunt Areas 113 and 123 contain crucial winter, parturition, winter-yearlong, yearlong, OUT, and undecided/unknown use ranges. Hunting in Areas 113 and 123 has been permitted every two or three years, allowing very good bull quality for this herd; many of which have scored in the official record books. Some landowners within Hunt Areas 113 and 123 had, in previous years, allowed free public access for much of the season, although in more recent years, trespass or outfitting fees have become more common, particularly for antlered elk. The current postseason population objective for this herd is 400 elk. For post season 2007, the estimated herd size was approximately 600, with a probable range of between 600 and 800 animals. Elk have been observed dispersing from the designated herd boundary, due to behavioral or habitat limitations. Habitat conditions in recent years have been poor throughout this herd unit and elk appear to have moved out of the rougher hills habitats and into the lowlands habitat in search of adequate forage. As a result, the majority of the elk in Hunt Area 123 are found in the northeastern portions of the area and almost entirely on private land (WGFD 2007a). No elk have been observed recently within any of the LBA tracts, but have been reported near the Hilight Road by area landowners. The public enjoy observing these elk along Highway 450 and within accessible USFS lands; thus they also provide for nonconsumptive recreational use opportunities. Under natural conditions, aquatic habitat is very limited by the ephemeral nature of surface waters in the general Wright analysis area; therefore, public fishing opportunities are likewise very limited. The lack of deep-water habitat and extensive and persistent water sources limits the presence and diversity of fish and other aquatic species. There are currently no fisheries on the as applied-for LBA tracts. However, Little Thunder Reservoir, an in-channel impoundment on Little Thunder Creek, is located within the BLM’s West Hilight Field study area (Figure 3-29). The reservoir is located on TBNG surface and is managed as a warm water sport fishery by the USFS. Local residents use the reservoir year-round for fishing, camping, and recreational shooting. WGFD stocked the reservoir with catchable rainbow trout from 2004 through 2006. Upon an evaluation, they found that is was well-stocked with bullheads and small mouth bass that could maintain themselves. They plan another evaluation in the summer of 2009 with the idea of maintaining active management of the fishery. Access to the reservoir is across private surface owned by TBCC (Figures 3-29 and 3-42); however, USFS has an easement over this land that allows legal public access to the reservoir. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-245

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Water discharged from CBNG wells from within and upstream of the general Wright analysis area has temporarily enhanced the water supply within some drainages, particularly Little Thunder Creek, North Prong Little Thunder Creek, and Porcupine Creek, and increased potential habitat for some aquatic species. For example, there are no historical monitoring records of Little Thunder Reservoir’s water levels. Anecdotally, local residents and mine personnel recall this reservoir held only a fraction of its volume capacity prior to CBNG discharges in the Little Thunder Creek drainage above the impoundment, which began in the mid- to late-1990s. Anecdotal evidence also indicates that the reservoir was rarely used for recreational fishing prior to CBNG development in the area. CBNG production and the related surface discharge of groundwater are expected to decrease over time. As a result, regular inflow of water to the Little Thunder Reservoir will diminish over time, the naturallyoccurring low water volume stored in the reservoir will resume, and the impoundment may not function as it currently does as a fishery. Sage-grouse, mourning dove, waterfowl, rabbit, and coyote are hunted in the general vicinity, and some coyote and red fox trapping may occur. 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences 3.11.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 The major adverse environmental consequences of leasing and mining the West Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts with respect to land use would be the temporary reduction of livestock grazing, incremental loss of wildlife habitat (particularly big game), and curtailment of oil and gas development while the areas are being mined and reclaimed. This would include removal of all existing oil and gas surface and downhole production and transportation equipment and facilities. Livestock grazing, and to a lesser extent wildlife use, would be displaced while the tracts are being mined and reclaimed. Access for recreational and other activities (i.e., ranching, oil and gas development) would be restricted during mining operations. The loss of accessibility to lands successfully leased and proposed for mining is long term (during mining and reclamation), but not permanent. Access to approximately 12,481 acres of federal grazing leases on TBNG surface that are currently held by the Thunder Basin Grazing Association would be suspended during mining and reclamation operations. Estimated disturbance areas for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative configuration for each tract, are presented in Tables 3-1 through 3-6, respectively. Sections 3.3.2 and 3.11.1 and Appendix E of this document address producing, abandoned, and shut in oil and gas (conventional and CBNG) wells that presently exist in the BLM study areas for these six LBA tracts. Well location information, federal oil and gas ownership, and federal oil and gas lessee 3-246 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences information are presented in Figures 3-46 through 3-51 and Tables 3-15 through 3-20. BLM manages federal lands on a multiple use basis, in accordance with the regulations. In response to conflicts between oil and gas and coal lease holders, BLM policy advocates optimizing the recovery of both coal and CBNG resources to ensure that the public receives a reasonable return for these publicly owned resources. Optimal recovery of both coal and oil and gas resources requires negotiation and cooperation between the oil and gas lessees and the coal lessees. In the past, negotiations between some of the applicant mines and some of the existing oil and gas lessees have resulted in agreements that allow development of both resources on portions of the LBA tract. Producing conventional oil and gas and CBNG wells are present on all six of these LBA tracts. In the PRB, royalties have been and would be lost to both the state and federal governments if conventional oil and gas wells are abandoned prematurely, if the federal CBNG is not recovered prior to mining, or if federal coal is not recovered due to conflicts. State and federal governments can also lose bonus money when the costs of the agreements between the lessees are factored into the fair market value determinations. As discussed above, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts configured under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, include approximately 12,481 acres of TBNG surface, which is administered by the USFS; approximately 7,288 acres of which are currently accessible to the public. According to the USFS Douglas Ranger District, each mine can close access in areas that are actively mined for human health and safety reasons (Homuth 2003). The loss of access to federal lands is long term (during mining and reclamation), but is not permanent. Public access to federal lands would be restored after mining and reclamation are complete. Hunting on the LBA tracts, including the federal surface discussed above, would be eliminated during mining and reclamation. Pronghorn and mule deer have been observed on and adjacent to the LBA tracts, as have sage-grouse, mourning doves, waterfowl, rabbits, and coyotes. The federal lands actually represent a relatively small portion of the currently accessible public surface lands for recreational opportunity within the respective animal hunt areas. None of the lands included in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under Alternative 2 are managed by the USFS; thus, no federal lands would be removed from public access if this LBA tract were leased. Public access to Little Thunder Reservoir, which is located on federal surface, would be eliminated during mining and reclamation of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract configured under Alternative 2. Hunting, fishing, camping and recreational activities afforded by the impoundment would be suspended during mining and reclamation operations. TBCC permitted and constructed Pronghorn Lake, located in T.43N., R.70W., Section 27 (Figure 3-29), as a postmining public recreational facility. This permanent postmining impoundment, which is located on land owned by USFS Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-247

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences and TBCC, currently functions as storage for dust suppression water used on the Black Thunder Mine site. Pronghorn Lake is located within an active portion of the mine’s permit area, and as such, safety concerns for the general public preclude access to the reservoir for the current time and the foreseeable future. Plans are for Pronghorn Lake to become available as a public recreation area for fishing and other activities once it no longer serves a function for the mining operation. The recreational activities provided by Little Thunder Reservoir could be replaced by those provided by Pronghorn Lake; however, the time at which Pronghorn Lake becomes accessible to the general public may not coincide with the time at which Little Thunder Reservoir becomes inaccessible. Following reclamation, the land would be suitable for grazing by domestic livestock and wildlife uses, which are the historic land uses. The reclamation standards required by the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and Wyoming State Law meet the standards and guidelines for healthy rangelands for public lands administered by the BLM in Wyoming. Following reclamation bond release, management of the privately owned surface would revert to the private surface owner and management of the federally owned surface would revert to the federal surface managing agency (USFS). 3.11.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and associated disturbance and impacts to land use and recreation would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Coal removal and associated surface disturbance and impacts to land use and recreation would continue as currently permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit areas. Impacts to land use related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.11.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Mined areas would be reclaimed as specified in the approved mine and reclamation plan to support the anticipated post-mining land uses of rangeland and wildlife habitat, which are premining land uses. The reclamation procedures would include stockpiling and redistributing soil, using reclamation 3-248 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences seed mixtures approved by WDEQ, and replacing recreational and livestock reservoirs. Steps to control invasion by weedy (invasive nonnative) plant species using chemical and mechanical methods would be included in the amended mine plan. Revegetation growth and diversity would be monitored until the final reclamation bond is released (a minimum of 10 years following seeding with the approved final seed mixture). Erosion would be monitored to determine if there is a need for corrective action during establishment of vegetation. Controlled grazing would be used during revegetation to determine the suitability of the reclaimed land for anticipated post-mining land uses. Section 3.3.2.3 includes the discussion of regulatory requirements, mitigation and monitoring related to oil and gas development. 3.11.4 Residual Impacts No residual impacts to land use and recreation are expected. 3.12 Cultural Resources 3.12.1 Affected Environment Cultural resources, which are protected under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, are nonrenewable remains of past human activity. The PRB, including the general Wright analysis area, appears to have been inhabited by aboriginal hunting and gathering people for more than 13,000 years. Throughout the prehistoric past, the area was used by highly mobile hunters and gatherers who exploited a wide variety of resources. Several thousand cultural sites have been recorded within the PRB. Frison’s (1978, 1991) chronology for the Northwestern Plains divides occupations from early to late into the Paleoindian, Early Plains Archaic, Middle Plains Archaic, Late Plains Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and Protohistoric periods. These periods are defined by the years before the present time (B.P.). Frison’s chronology is listed below. The Plains designation within the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic periods has been omitted from the list. • • • • • • • Paleoindian period (13,000 to 7,000 years B.P.) Early Archaic period (7,000 to 5,000-4,500 years B.P.) Middle Archaic period (5,000-4,500 to 3,000 years B.P.) Late Archaic period (3,000 to 1,850 years B.P.) Late Prehistoric period (1,850 to 400 years B.P.) Protohistoric period (400 to 250 years B.P.) Historic period (250 to 120 years B.P.)

The Paleoindian period dates from about 13,000 to 7,000 years ago and includes various complexes (Frison 1978). Each of these complexes is Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-249

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences correlated with a distinctive projectile point style derived from a general large lanceolate and/or stemmed point morphology. The Paleoindian period is traditionally thought to be synonymous with “big game hunters” who exploited megafauna such as bison and mammoth (plains Paleoindian groups), although evidence of the use of vegetal resources is noted at a few Paleoindian sites (foothill-mountain groups). The Early Archaic period dates from about 7,000 to 5,000-4,500 years ago. Projectile point styles reflect the change from large lanceolate types that characterize the earlier Paleoindian complexes to large side- or corner-notched types. Subsistence patterns reflect exploitation of a broad spectrum of resources, with a much-diminished utilization of large mammals. The onset of the Middle Archaic period (4,500 to 3,000 years B.P.) has been defined on the basis of the appearance of the McKean Complex as the predominant complex on the Northwestern Plains around 4,900 years B.P. (Frison 1978, 1991, 2001). McKean Complex projectile points are stemmed variants of the lanceolate point. These projectile point types continued until 3,100 years B.P. when they were replaced by a variety of large corner-notched points (i.e., Pelican Lake points) (Martin 1999). Sites dating to this period exhibit a new emphasis on plant procurement and processing. The Late Archaic period (3,000 to 1,850 years B.P.) is generally defined by the appearance of corner-notched dart points. These projectile points dominate most assemblages until the introduction of the bow and arrow around 1,500 years B.P. (Frison 1991). The period witnessed a continual expansion of occupations into the interior grasslands and basins, as well as the foothills and mountains. The Late Prehistoric period (1,850 to 400 years B.P.) is marked by a transition in projectile point technology around 1,500 years B.P. The large cornernotched dart points characteristic of the Late Archaic period are replaced by smaller corner- and side-notched points for use with the bow and arrow. Around approximately 1,000 years B.P., the entire Northwestern Plains appears to have suffered an abrupt collapse or shift in population (Frison 1991). This population shift appears to reflect a narrower subsistence base focused mainly on communal procurement of pronghorn and bison. The Protohistoric period (400 to 250 years B.P.) witnesses the beginning of European influence on prehistoric cultures of the Northwestern Plains. Additions to the material culture include most notably the horse and European trade goods, including glass beads, metal, and firearms. Projectile points of this period include side-notched, tri-notched, and unnotched points, with the addition of metal points. The occupants appear to have practiced a highly mobile and unstable residential mobility strategy. The historic period (250 to 120 years B.P.) is summarized from Schneider et al. (2000). The use of the Oregon Trail by emigrants migrating to the fertile lands 3-250 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of Oregon, California, and the Salt Lake Valley brought numerous pioneers through the State of Wyoming, but few stayed. It was not until the fertile land in the West became highly populated, along with the development of the cattle industry in the late 1860s, that the region currently comprising the State of Wyoming became attractive for settlement. The region offered cattlemen vast grazing land for the fattening of livestock, which could then be shipped across the country via the recently completed (1867-1868) transcontinental railroad in southern Wyoming. The settling of the region surrounding Gillette, Wyoming began in the late 1800s, after a government treaty in 1876 placed the Sioux Indians on reservations outside the territory. Cattlemen were the first settlers to establish themselves in the area, with dryland farmers entering the area after 1900. The town of Gillette was established by the railroad in 1891 in an effort to promote the settling of undeveloped areas along their rail lines. The presence of the railroad allowed for the greater development of the cattle industry because it facilitated shipping cattle from the area. Several early ranches established in the region include the 4J Ranch (1875), Half Circle L Ranch (1880s), I Bar U Ranch (1888), and the T7 Ranch (1881). Early ranches established in the region surrounding the general Wright analysis area as of 1883 include the Ritchie Ranch, the McCray Ranch, and the 6 Ranch. Later arrivals to the area (as of 1908) include the Grant Ranch on Hay Creek, the Rooney Ranch on Rawhide Creek, and the Gardner and Wilson Ranches on the Little Powder River. The specific project area of Site 48CA3378 was homesteaded by George Oedekoven in 1917, and his family still maintains the property today. Site 48CA1918 was homesteaded by Bert Herrod in 1919. This homestead has been abandoned since at least 1983. The Dry Land Farming movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries had a profound effect on the settlement of the PRB during the years around World War I. Although the principles of dry land farming were sound, success still required a certain amount of precipitation each year. Wyoming encouraged dry land settlement of its semi-arid lands through a Board of Immigration created in 1911. Newspapers extolled the virtues of dry land farming, and railroads conducted well-organized advertising campaigns on a nationwide basis to settle the regions through which they passed. The most intensive period of homesteading activity in the Eastern PRB occurred in the late 1910s and early 1920s. Promotional efforts by the state and the railroads, the prosperous war years for agriculture in 1917 and 1918, and the Stock Raising Act of 1916 with its increased acreage (but lack of mineral rights) all contributed to this boom period. A large amount of land filings consisted of existing farms and ranches expanding their holdings in an optimistic economic climate. However, an equally large number of homesteaders had been misled by promotional advertising and were not adequately prepared for the experiences that awaited them in the PRB. It soon became apparent to the would-be dry land farmer that he could not make a living by raising only crops. Some were initially successful in growing wheat, oats, barley and other small grains, along Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-251

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences with hay, alfalfa, sweet clover and other grasses for the increased number of cattle. A drought in 1919 was followed by a severe winter. The spring of 1920 saw market prices fall. Those homesteaders who were not ruined by the turn in events often became small livestock ranchers and limited their farming to the growing of forage crops and family garden plots. Some were able to obtain cheap land as it was foreclosed or sold for taxes. During the 1920s the size of homesteads in Wyoming nearly doubled and the number of homesteads decreased, indicating the shift to livestock raising (LeCompte and Anderson 1982). With serious drought beginning in 1932, several federal actions were taken. In April of 1932, Weston, Campbell, and Converse counties were eligible for a drought relief program. The Northeast Wyoming Land Utilization Project began repurchasing the sub-marginal homestead lands and making the additional acres of government land available for lease. This helped the small operator to expand the usable grazing land. Cropland taken out of production could be reclaimed and then added to the grazing lease program. Grazing associations were formed to regulate the grazing permits. In 1934, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration began studying portions of Converse, Campbell, Weston, Niobrara, and Crook counties. In all, 2 million acres, including about 560,000 acres of federal owned lands, were included in the Thunder Basin Project (LA-WY-1) to alter land use and to relocate settlers onto viable farmland. Nationally, the program hoped to shift land use from farms to forest, parks, wildlife refuges or grazing districts. In marginal areas cash crops were to be replaced by forage crops, the kind and intensity of grazing would be changed and the size of operating units would be expanded (USFS n.d.). Land purchase work on the Thunder Basin Project began late 1934 and the purchasing of units started in 1935. During the development program to rehabilitate the range, impounding dams were erected, wells were repaired, springs developed, and homestead fences were obliterated while division fences were constructed for the new community pastures. Farmsteads were obliterated and the range reseeded. Remaining homesteaders and ranchers often purchased or scavenged materials from the repurchased farmsteads. Pits were dug on some homesteads and machinery and demolished buildings buried (many of these were dug up during the World War II scrap drives). Ironically, the rehabilitation project utilized a labor pool of former farmers who had spent years building what the government paid them to destroy. Their efforts were so successful that almost no trace remains of many homesteads. While counties lost much of their population base as a result of the Resettlement Administration relocation program, they were strengthened financially: schools were closed, maintenance of rural roads was restricted to main arterioles, and delinquent taxes were paid. The remaining subsidized ranches were significantly larger and provided a stabilizing effect on the local economies. Three grazing 3-252 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences associations were formed: the Thunder Basin Grazing Association, the Spring Creek Association, and the Inyan Kara Grazing Association. These associations provided responsible management of the common rangeland. Class III Cultural Resources Survey A Class III cultural resources survey is an intensive and comprehensive inventory of a proposed project area conducted by professional archaeologists and consultants. The survey is designed to locate and identify all prehistoric and historic cultural properties 50 years and older that have exposed surface manifestations. The goal of the survey is to locate and evaluate for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) all cultural resources within the project area. Cultural properties are recorded at a sufficient level to allow for evaluation for possible inclusion to the NRHP. Determinations of eligibility are made by the managing federal agency in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Consultation with the SHPO must be completed prior to the approval of the mining plan. After completion of a Class III cultural resources survey, additional investigations may be undertaken to complete an individual site record. If necessary, site-specific testing or limited excavation may be utilized to collect additional data which will: 1) determine the final evaluation status of a site; and/or 2) form the basis of additional work to be conducted during implementation of a treatment plan if the site is determined eligible for the NRHP. A treatment plan is then developed for those sites that are eligible for the NRHP and are within the area of potential effect. Treatment plans are implemented prior to mining and can include such mitigation measures as avoidance (if possible), large scale excavation, complete recording, Historical American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record documentation, archival research, and other acceptable scientific practices. Data recovery plans are required for sites that cannot be avoided by project development and are recommended as eligible for the NRHP following testing and consultation with the SHPO. Until consultation has occurred and agreement regarding NRHP eligibility has been reached, all sites recommended as eligible or undetermined eligibility must be protected from disturbance. If an LBA tract is leased, full consultation with the SHPO will be completed prior to approval of the mining plans. Those sites determined to be unevaluated or eligible for the NRHP through consultation would receive further protection or treatment. Numerous Class I (survey records review) and Class III cultural resource surveys associated with oil and gas field development, as well as with surface mining operations, have been conducted in the general Wright analysis area. The general analysis areas of the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts (defined as the LBA tract as applied for, the additional area evaluated under Alternative 2, plus a ¼-mile disturbance buffer) have been entirely Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-253

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences surveyed for cultural resources at a Class III level. These areas include all anticipated areas of disturbance assuming the coal is mined by the existing adjacent mines. Additional information about the surveys and the cultural sites that were documented in the survey areas is included in the supplementary information document for this EIS, which is available upon request. 3.12.1.1 North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts Cultural resource inventories in this area began in the early 1980s and continued with numerous projects associated with oil and gas field development as well as surface mining operations throughout the 1990s and 2000s. TBCC contracted with GCM Services, Inc. of Butte, Montana to perform Class I and Class III surveys of the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts and surrounding areas in the summer of 2007, which completed the Class III level inventory of the entire general analysis areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts. A total of 52 cultural sites have been documented in the North Hilight Field general analysis area. Of these, 39 are prehistoric and 13 are historic. Prehistoric sites consist primarily of lithic scatters and campsites. Historic sites consist primarily of homesteads and trash dumps. Twelve of the prehistoric sites and five of the historic sites have been determined not eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO. Eight of the prehistoric sites have been determined to be eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO. Nineteen of the prehistoric sites and eight historic sites are considered unevaluated for eligibility by the SHPO; of which many have never been reviewed, while at least eight will require additional documentation, testing or evaluation in order for the SHPO to make an eligibility determination. A total of 21 cultural sites have been documented in the South Hilight Field general analysis area. Of these, 14 are prehistoric and seven are historic. Prehistoric sites consist primarily of lithic scatters and campsites. Historic sites consist primarily of trash dumps. Twelve of the prehistoric sites and four of the historic sites have been determined not eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO. Two of the prehistoric sites and three historic sites are considered unevaluated or not reviewed for eligibility by the SHPO. There are no NRHPeligible sites documented in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract at this time. A total of 74 cultural sites have been documented in the West Hilight Field general analysis area. Of these, 59 are prehistoric and 15 are historic. Prehistoric sites consist primarily of lithic scatters and campsites. Historic sites consist primarily of trash dumps. Thirty of the prehistoric sites and two of the historic sites have been determined not eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO. Six of the prehistoric sites and none of the historic sites have been determined to be eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO. Twenty-three of the prehistoric sites and 13 historic sites are considered unevaluated for eligibility 3-254 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences by the SHPO, most of which have never been reviewed, while at least 13 will require additional documentation, testing or evaluation in order for the SHPO to make an eligibility determination. In summary, a total of 147 cultural sites have been documented in the general analysis areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Of these, 108 sites were previously recorded and were identified during record searches (Class I inventories). An additional 39 sites were located during the 2007 inventories of the remaining unsurveyed lands in the entire general analysis areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Of the 147 total cultural sites, 112 are prehistoric cultural remains and 35 are historic cultural remains. Of the 147 total cultural sites, 14 sites have been determined to be eligible for the NRHP by SHPO, which will have to be avoided or a mitigation plan approved and implemented prior to any disturbance. There are a total of 68 sites currently considered unevaluated by SHPO; which are given the same protections as eligible sites and are to be avoided until a determination of eligibility have been made. At least 26 of the unevaluated sites will require additional documentation, formal testing, or evaluation in order for the SHPO to make an eligibility determination. There are 65 sites that have been determined not eligible for the NRHP and no further work is required at these sites. 3.12.1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Cultural resource inventories in this area began in 1975 and continued with numerous projects associated with oil and gas field development as well as surface mining operations throughout the 1990s and 2000s. JRCC contracted with GCM Services, Inc. of Butte, Montana to perform Class I and Class III surveys of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract and surrounding areas in 2006 and 2007, which completed the Class III level inventory of the entire general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. The Class I review of the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract identified 13 previously recorded, documented cultural sites, while 18 new cultural properties were identified during the Class III surveys. Of these 31 total sites, 16 are historic, seven are prehistoric, one contains both historic and prehistoric components, and seven sites are rock cairns of indeterminate age and cultural affiliation. The historic sites consist primarily of homesteads and include a ranch complex and a stock herder’s camp. The prehistoric sites consist of lithic scatters, stone circles or tipi ring sites, and rock cairns. The multi-component site consists of an historic corral complex and a prehistoric rock alignment. Twenty-five of these 31 recorded cultural properties have not been reviewed and evaluated by the SHPO in terms of their NRHP eligibility. Of these, 23 sites are recommended not eligible by the recorders and are unlikely to be determined significant. The other two unevaluated cultural properties are prehistoric sites that may lack sufficient information for the SHPO to make an Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-255

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences eligibility determination. Of the 31 total sites, six have been reviewed and determined not eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO. There are no sites within the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract considered eligible for the NRHP; however, significance determinations for these sites will have to be made by the lead agency and SHPO. 3.12.1.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts Cultural resource inventories in this area began in the early 1990s and continued with numerous projects associated primarily with surface mining operations, as well as with oil and gas field development, through 2005. The entire general analysis areas for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts have been previously surveyed for cultural resources at a Class III level. A total of 48 cultural sites have been documented in the North Porcupine general analysis area. Of these, 27 are prehistoric, 11 are historic, and 10 are multi-component (contains both historic and prehistoric components) sites. Prehistoric sites consist primarily of lithic scatters and campsites. Historic sites consist primarily of homesteads and associated remains. All inventory results have been reviewed by either BLM or OSM and submitted to SHPO, who concurred with the recommendations on site eligibility for the NRHP. Test excavations were carried out at some sites. A total of four prehistoric sites (campsites) and two of the multi-component sites have been determined eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO. A total of 20 cultural sites have been documented in the South Porcupine general analysis area. Of these, eight are prehistoric, 11 are historic, and one is multi-component. Prehistoric sites consist primarily of lithic scatters and campsites. Historic sites consist primarily of homesteads and associated remains. All inventory results have been reviewed by either BLM or OSM and submitted to SHPO, who concurred with the recommendations on site eligibility for the NRHP. One of the 20 cultural sites, a homestead, is recommended eligible to the NRHP based on testing and evaluation. In summary, a total of 67 cultural sites have been documented in the general analysis areas for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. All 67 sites were previously recorded and were identified during record searches (Class I inventories) that were conducted by PRC in 2008. Of the 67 cultural sites documented in the entire general analysis areas for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, 35 are prehistoric, 21 are historic, and 11 are multicomponent sites. A total of 16 homestead sites, all dating back to the early 1900s, are located within the general analysis areas for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. Ten of the homestead sites are located within the North Porcupine general analysis area, seven are located within the South Porcupine general analysis area, and portions of one homestead are located on both the general analysis areas. Either BLM or OSM have reviewed the cultural resource inventories covering the general analysis areas for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts and have submitted the results to the SHPO. 3-256 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences SHPO has concurred with the recommendations finding seven sites (six in the North Porcupine tract general analysis area and one in the South Porcupine tract general analysis area) eligible for the NRHP. 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences 3.12.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Data recovery plans are required for all sites recommended eligible to the National Register following testing and consultation with the SHPO. Until full consultation with the SHPO has been completed and agreement regarding NRHP eligibility has been reached, all sites would be protected from disturbance. Full consultation with the SHPO must be completed prior to approval of a mining plan. At that time, those sites determined to be unevaluated or eligible for the NRHP through consultation would receive further protection or treatment. Impacts to eligible or unevaluated cultural resources cannot be permitted. If unevaluated sites cannot be avoided, they must be evaluated prior to disturbance. If eligible sites cannot be avoided, a data recovery plan must be implemented prior to disturbance. Ineligible cultural sites may be destroyed without further work. Any eligible sites on the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts that cannot be avoided or that have not already been subjected to data recovery action would be carried forward in the mining and reclamation plans as requiring protective stipulations until a testing, mitigation, or data recovery plan is developed to address the impacts to the sites. The lead federal and state agencies would consult with Wyoming SHPO on the development of such plans and the manner in which they are carried out. Cultural resources adjacent to the mine areas may be impacted as a result of increased access to the areas. There may be increased vandalism and unauthorized collecting associated with recreational activity and other pursuits outside of but adjacent to mine permit areas. Unintended or uninformed impacts related to increased off-road traffic outside of but adjacent to mine permit areas during mine related activities are the most frequent impacts to cultural resources. 3.12.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and the associated disturbance and impacts would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Coal Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-257

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences removal and associated surface disturbances would continue as currently permitted on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit areas. Potential impacts to cultural resources related to mining operations at these three applicant mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected as a result of recovering the remaining coal in the existing leases under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.12.3 Native American Consultation Native American heritage sites can be classified as prehistoric or historic. Some may be presently in use as offering, fasting, or vision quest sites. Other sites of cultural interest and importance may include rock art, stone circles, various rock features, fortifications or battle sites, burials, and locations that are sacred or part of the oral history and heritage but have no man-made features. No Native American heritage, special interest, or sacred sites have been formally identified and recorded to date within the general Wright analysis area. However, the geographic position of the general Wright analysis area between mountains considered sacred by various Native American cultures (the Big Horn Mountains to the west, the Black Hills to the east, and Devils Tower to the north) creates the possibility that existing locations may have special religious or sacred significance to Native American groups. If such sites or localities are identified, appropriate action must be taken to address concerns related to those sites. Tribes that have been identified as potentially having concerns about actions in the PRB include the Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Shoshone, Arapaho, Oglala Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, Crow Creek Sioux, Lower Brule Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, Cheyenne River Sioux, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Comanche Tribe of Oklahoma, and Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma. These tribal governments and representatives have been sent copies of the EIS. They are also being provided with more specific information about the known cultural sites on the tract in this analysis. Their help has been requested in identifying potentially significant religious or cultural sites in the general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts before a leasing decision is made on any tract. Native American tribes were consulted at a general level in 1995-1996 as part of an update to the BLM Buffalo Resource Area RMP. Some of the Sioux tribes 3-258 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences were consulted by BLM on coal leasing and mining activity in the PRB at briefings held in Rapid City, South Dakota in March 2002. 3.12.4 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Class I and III surveys are conducted to identify cultural properties on all lands affected by federal undertakings. Prior to mining, the SHPO is consulted to evaluate the eligibility of the cultural properties for inclusion in the NRHP. Cultural properties that are determined to be eligible for the NRHP are avoided or, if avoidance is not possible, a recovery plan is implemented prior to disturbance. Mining activities are monitored during topsoil stripping operations. If a lease is issued for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, BLM would attach a stipulation to each lease requiring the lessee to notify appropriate federal personnel if cultural materials are uncovered during mining operations (Appendix D). 3.12.5 Residual Impacts Cultural sites that are determined to be eligible for the NRHP would be avoided if possible. Eligible sites that cannot be avoided would be destroyed by surface coal mining after data from those sites is recovered. Sites that are not eligible for the NRHP would be lost. Cultural sites are permanently destroyed by surface coal mining operations but, as a result of the intensive pedestrian inventories, site evaluations and excavation and analysis of prehistoric cultural resources discussed above, there is a more informed understanding of what types of resources exist in the region and a better understanding of local prehistory. 3.13 Visual Resources 3.13.1 Affected Environment Visual sensitivity levels are determined by people’s concern for what they see and the frequency of travel through an area. Landscapes within and around the general Wright analysis area are characterized by a gently rolling topography and large, open expanses of sagebrush and short-grass prairie, which are common throughout the PRB. There are also areas of altered landscape, such as oil and gas fields and surface coal mines. The existing active surface mines that are located on the eastern side of the PRB form three geographic groups that are separated by areas with no mining operations (Figure 1-1). Two of the groups of surface mines are located east of Highway 59 from south of Gillette to south of Wright, a distance of about 50 miles; the third mine group is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 14-16 from Gillette north for about 13 miles. Other man-made intrusions on the natural Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-259

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences landscape in the general Wright analysis area include oil and gas development (oil well pumpjacks, pipeline and utility ROWs, water storage reservoirs, access roads, CBNG well shelters, and natural gas compressor stations), transportation facilities (public and private roads, road signage, power and utility transmission lines, and railroads), ranching activities (fences, ranch buildings, livestock, and abandoned homesteads), and environmental monitoring installations. The natural scenic quality in and near the general Wright analysis area is fairly low because of the industrial nature of the adjacent existing mining operations and oil and gas field development. The Visual Resource Management (VRM) system is the basic tool used by BLM to inventory and manage visual resources on public lands. Prior to 1986, the five VRM classes defined below were used to describe increasing levels of change within the characteristic landscape. The number of VRM classes was reduced from five to four in 1986 (BLM 2007), but the new resource management class objectives remain very similar to the original objectives of VRM Classes I through IV. The pre-1986 VRM Classes are summarized as follows: Class I: Natural ecologic changes and very limited management activity is allowed. Any contrast (activity) within this class must not attract attention. Class II: Changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color, texture) caused by an activity should not be evident in the landscape. Class III: Contrasts to the basic elements caused by an activity are evident but should remain subordinate to the existing landscape. Class IV: Activity attracts attention and is a dominant feature of the landscape in terms of scale. Class V: This classification is applied to areas where the natural character of the landscape has been disturbed up to a point where rehabilitation is needed to bring it up to the level of one of the other four classifications. The 2001 Buffalo Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision (BLM 2001) covers the general Wright analysis area. It retained and carried forward the VRM inventory from the 1985 Buffalo RMP (BLM 1985). At this time, the lands included in the general Wright analysis area continue to be managed in accordance with the VRM classes established in 1981, and the predominant VRM class is Class IV. Approximately 12,481 acres (or 34 percent) of the surface of these LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract, is part of the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. The USFS has established scenic integrity objectives for the TBNG. In the general Wright analysis area, the scenic integrity objective is low. A low scenic integrity 3-260 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences objective refers to landscapes where the value landscape character appears moderately altered. In this area, facilities and landscape modifications may be visible but should be reasonably mitigated to blend and harmonize with natural features according to USFS’s revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the TBNG (USFS 2001). Currently, mine facilities and mining activities at the Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope mines are visible from various public-use roads in the general Wright analysis area, including State Highway 450, Jacobs Road, Shroyer Road, Keeline Road, Hilight Road, Edwards Road, Reno Road, Antelope Road, Mackey Road, and Matheson Road. 3.13.2 Environmental Consequences 3.13.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Some mining activities on the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts would be visible from State Highway 450, a major travel route that borders the West Hilight Field tract. Some of the existing mining operations at the Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch mines are currently visible from this highway. Some mining activities on the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would be visible from State Highway 450, which borders the tract. Portions of the West Hilight Field and West Jacobs Ranch tracts may also be visible from State Highway 59, which is from about 2 to 5 miles east of the tracts. Not all of the mining activities on these four LBA tracts would be visible from these major highways because of the rolling terrain. Portions of these four LBA tracts would also be visible from Keeline Road, Jacobs Road, Shroyer Road, Hilight Road, Edwards Road, Reno Road, and Matheson Road. Some mining activities on both the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts would be visible from Antelope Road and Matheson Road. Some mining activities on the North Porcupine tract would also be visible from the Edwards Road, Reno Road, and Mackey Road. Some of the existing mining operations at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine are currently visible from these public roads. Due to the existing mining activities in the general Wright analysis area, the predominant BLM VRM class is Class IV. This classification would not be altered by the leasing and subsequent mining of the six LBA tracts under any of the Action Alternatives. After reclamation of the LBA tracts and adjoining mines, the VRM Class IV conditions would be improved and the reclaimed land would resemble the surrounding undisturbed terrain. The USFS scenic integrity objectives for the general Wright analysis area allow facilities and landscape modifications to be visible, but call for reasonable mitigation to blend and harmonize with natural features. No visual resources that are unique to this area have been identified on or near the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-261

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Reclaimed terrain would be almost indistinguishable from the surrounding undisturbed terrain. Slopes might appear smoother (less intricately dissected) and gentler (less steep) than undisturbed terrain and sagebrush would not be as abundant for several years; however, within a few years after reclamation, the mined land would not be distinguishable from the surrounding undisturbed terrain except by someone very familiar with landforms and vegetation. 3.13.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and associated disturbance and impacts to visual resources would not occur on potions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternatives 2 or 3 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. The additional acres that would be disturbed under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract, would not change the current VRM Class IV designation for those lands. Currently approved mining operations would continue on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine leases. Impacts to visual resources related to mining operations at these mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plan. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.13.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Landscape character would be restored during reclamation to approximate original contour and would be reseeded with an approved seed mixture, including native species. See Sections 3.2 and 3.9 for additional discussion of the regulatory requirements, mitigation, and monitoring for topography and vegetation, respectively. 3.13.4 Residual Impacts No residual impacts to visual resources are expected.

3-262

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.14 Noise 3.14.1 Affected Environment Existing noise sources in the general Wright analysis area include coal mining activities, rail traffic, traffic on nearby state highways, county roads and access roads, natural gas compressor stations, and wind. Noise originating from CBNG development equipment (e.g., drilling rigs and construction vehicles) is apparent locally over the short term (i.e., 30 to 60 days) where well drilling and associated construction activities are occurring. The amount of noise overlap between well sites is variable and depends on the timing of drilling activities on adjacent sites and the distance between the site locations. Studies of background noise levels at PRB mines indicate that ambient sound levels generally are low, owing to the isolated nature of the area. The unit of measure used to represent sound pressure levels (decibels) using the A-weighted scale is a dBA (A-weighted decibel). It is a measure designed to simulate human hearing by placing less emphasis on lower frequency noise because the human ear does not perceive sounds at low frequency in the same manner as sounds at higher frequencies. Figure 3-52 presents noise levels associated with some commonly heard sounds. In 2004, Matheson Mining Consultants, Inc. conducted a noise survey at the two occupied locations closest to the existing Antelope Mine operations. The Antelope Mine is located adjacent to the South Porcupine LBA Tract (Figure 1 1). Measurements were taken at a residence located directly west of the Antelope Mine on State Highway 59 and at the Dyno Nobel West Region office located northeast of the Antelope Mine on Campbell County Road 4 (Antelope Road). The Dyno Nobel office is located within the southern portion of the South Porcupine LBA Tract (Figure 3-18). The maximum daily time weighted (Leq) noise reading at the residence was 51 dBA, which is comparable to that of a normal office, 50 feet in the distance. The maximum measured Leq at the Dyno Nobel office was 52.6 dBA, which is equivalent to the noise level of an average office environment (BLM 2008d). No site-specific noise level data are available for the other proposed coal lease areas included in this analysis; therefore, the current median noise level is estimated to be 40-60 dBA for day and night, with the noise level increasing with proximity to the currently active mining operations. Mining activities are characterized by noise levels of 85-95 dBA at 50 feet from actual mining operations and activities (BLM 1992). OSM prepared a noise impact report for the Caballo Rojo Mine (OSM 1980) that determined that the noise level from crushers and a conveyor would not exceed 45 dBA at a distance of 1,500 feet. The air overpressure created by blasting is estimated to be 123 dBA at the location of the blast. At a distance of approximately 2,500 feet (0.47 mile), the intensity of this blast would be reduced to 55 dBA. Under the authority of the Noise Control Act of 1972, EPA Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-263

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

HOW IT FEELS

EQUIVALENT SOUNDS
50 hp siren (100 ft) Jet engine (75 ft) Turbo-fan jet at takeoff power (100ft) Scraper-loader Jet fly over (1000 ft) Noisy newspaper press Air compressor (20 ft) Power lawnmower Steady flow of freeway trafic 10-HP outboard motor Automatic dishwasher Vacuum cleaner Window air conditioner outside at 2 ft. Window air conditioner in room Occasional private auto at 100 ft. Quiet home during evening Bird calls Library Soft whisper 5 ft.

DECIBELS

EQUIVALENT SOUNDS

Jackhammer

HOW IT SOUNDS

Near permanent damage level from short exposures Pain to ears Danger to hearing

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

Chainsaw
Fire cracker
(15 ft.)
Rock and roll
band
Unmuffled motor bike
(2-3 ft.)
Car horn
Unmuffled cycle
(25 ft.)
Garbage trucks
and city buses
Diesel truck
(25 ft.)
Garbage disposal
Food blender
Muffled jet ski
(50 ft.)
Passenger car
65 mph (25 ft)
Busy downtown area

135 dB(A)
Approx. 64 times
as loud as 75dB(A)
125 dB(A)
Approx. 32 times
as loud as 75dB(A)
115 dB(A)
Approx. 16 times
as loud as 75dB(A)
105 dB(A)
Approx. 8 times
as loud as 75dB(A)
95 dB(A)
Approx. 4 times
as loud as 75dB(A)
85 dB(A)
Approx. 2 times
as loud as 75dB(A)
75dB(A)

Uncomfortably loud

Discomfort threshold Very loud Conversation stops

Intolerable for phone use Extra auditory physiological effects

Quiet Sleep interference

Normal conversation

55 dB(A)
Approx. 1/4
as loud as 75dB(A)
45 dB(A)
Approx. 1/8
as loud as 75dB(A)
35 dB(A)
Approx. 1/16
as loud as 75dB(A)

Very quiet

In a quiet house at midnight

Leaves rustling

Adapted From ABC's of Our Noise Codes published by Citizens Against Noise, Honolulu, Hawaii

Figure 3-52. Relationship Between A-Scale Decibel Readings and Sounds of Daily Life.

3-264

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences designates that a 24-hour equivalent level of less than 70 dBA prevents hearing loss and that a level below 55 dBA, in general, does not constitute an adverse impact (EPA 1974). Figures 3-9 through 3-11 depict the occupied residences and active businesses located within 3 miles of the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, respectively. Figure 3-14 depicts the occupied residences and active businesses within 3 miles of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. Figures 3-17 and 3-18 depict the locations of active businesses (no occupied residences exist) within 3 miles of the North Porcupine and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, respectively. The distances from each LBA tract to the nearest occupied dwelling are given in Table 3-22. 3.14.2 Environmental Consequences 3.14.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Noise levels on the LBA tracts would be increased considerably by mining activities such as blasting, loading, hauling, and possibly in-pit crushing. The BNSF & UP rail line currently borders and/or traverses all six LBA tracts; therefore, rail traffic noise on the tracts would continue to be proportionate to the rate of coal production from the PRB mines in the future. Due to the remoteness of the LBA tracts and because mining is already ongoing in the area, noise would have few off-site impacts. A noise level below 55 dBA does not constitute an adverse impact (EPA 1974). Any occupied dwelling within 2,500 feet of active mining (particularly blasting) would experience adverse noise impacts. If the tracts are leased under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract, the potential blasting related noise impacts associated with mining are presented in Table 3-21. The five occupied dwellings that are located within the tracts (two within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract and three within the West Jacobs Ranch tract) would be vacated prior to advancing mining activities. No occupied dwellings would experience adverse noise impacts from mining activities if the South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are leased as applied for or under Alternative 2. The two occupied dwellings that are located immediately adjacent to the North Hilight Field tract (Figure 3-9), would experience adverse noise impacts if mining activities (particularly blasting) occur within 2,500 feet of them. Wildlife in the immediate vicinity of mining may be adversely affected; however, anecdotal observations at surface coal mines in the area indicate that some wildlife may adapt to increased noise associated with coal mining activity. Guidelines were developed by the FS to prevent or limit noise impacts to wildlife on the TBNG, which include the following:

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-265

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-22. Noise Impacts Associated with Mine Blasting on the Wright Area LBA Tracts.
Number of Dwellings Within 3 Miles Single Multiple Family Residences2 20 1 8 29 0 2 0 24 24 0 Number of Dwellings Within 2,500 Feet Single Multiple Family Residences2 45 0 0
6

LBA Tract1 North Hilight Field South Hilight Field West Hilight Field West Jacobs Ranch North Porcupine

Distance to Closest Dwelling (feet) 0 15,840 5,280 0 --

Max Noise Level to Closest (dBA) 123.0 39.0 48.5 123.0 ---

Potential Impact3 I N N I N N

0 0 0 0 0

South Porcupine 0 0 0 0 -1 Configured under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative. 2 Multiple occupied residences and/or businesses exist closely together. 3 3 I: Impacts anticipated. N: No impact anticipated (24-hour equivalent level of less than 55 dBA). 4 Includes the developed area around the town of Wright. 5 Two residences are located within the LBA tract and two are located adjacent to the LBA tract. 6 All three residences are located within the LBA tract.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences • To help prevent reproductive failure, limit noise on sage-grouse display grounds from nearby facilities and activities to 49 dBA (10 dBA above background noise) from March 1 to June 15.


Prohibit development or operations of facilities within 2 miles of a sagegrouse display ground if these activities would exceed a noise level of more than 10 dBA above the background noise level (39 dBA), at 800 feet from the source, from March 1 to June 15.

The occurrence of sage-grouse within the 2-mile wildlife study areas for each of the Wright area LBA tracts, and the effects of mining the proposed lease areas are discussed in Section 3.10.5 and Appendix H of this EIS. Two of the currently occupied sage-grouse leks that have been documented within the six combined wildlife survey areas are located on the BLM study areas for the North Hilight Field and North Porcupine LBA Tracts and are therefore likely to be directly impacted if these two tracts are leased and mined under the Proposed Action and/or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative. Noise impacts to those two leks (Hansen Lakes and Payne) would occur prior to surface disturbance of the display grounds by mining operations (topsoil salvage). The only other currently occupied leks in the general Wright analysis area (Kort I and Kort II) are located roughly 1.5 miles southeast of the North Porcupine LBA Tract and would therefore likely experience noise impacts from blasting if the tract is leased and mined. However, active mining operations at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine are presently closer to these two active leks than the boundary of the North Porcupine LBA Tract. All other leks that have been documented in the general Wright analysis area are currently classified as either unoccupied or undetermined and will probably not be re-occupied due to the presence of nearby CBNG development and/or mining activities. After mining and reclamation are completed, noise would return to premining levels. 3.14.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and associated noise would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Coal removal and the associated noise would continue on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases. Noise impacts related to mining operations at these mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-267

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.14.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Mine operators are required to comply with Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) regulations concerning noise, which include protecting employees from hearing loss associated with noise levels at the mines. MSHA periodically conducts mine inspections to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. 3.14.4 Residual Impacts No residual impacts to noise are expected. 3.15 Transportation 3.15.1 Affected Environment Transportation resources within the general Wright analysis area include State Highways 450 and 59, numerous improved two-lane county roads, several improved and unimproved local roads and accesses, numerous two-track trails, the Gillette-Douglas rail line used jointly by BNSF & UP Railroads, mine railroad spurs, oil and gas pipelines, utility/power lines, telephone lines, and associated ROWs. Figures 3-53 through 3-55 depict the current transportation facilities, excluding pipelines, within and near the North, South, and, West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, and the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, respectively. Figure 3-56 through 3-58 depict the existing pipelines (oil, gas and water) within and near the North, South, and, West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, and the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, respectively. The highways and improved county roads provide public and private access within the general Wright analysis area. State Highway 59, a paved two-lane highway located west of all six LBA tracts, is the major north-south transportation corridor, while State Highway 450, also a paved two-lane highway, is the principal east-west transportation corridor. Other paved county roads, including Hilight Road (Campbell County Road 52), Edwards Road (Campbell County Road 30), Reno Road (Campbell County Road 83), and Antelope Road (Campbell County Road 4), are also major public transportation routes. There are numerous other improved county roads, including Shroyer Road (Campbell County Road 116), Matheson Road (Campbell County Road 70), Mackey Road (Campbell County Road 69), and Keeline Road (Campbell County Road 62). Access to the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines, as well as the LBA tracts included in this analysis, is primarily from the west (from Highway 59) via State Highway 450 or the Edwards/Reno Road. Hilight Road and Antelope Road are the major northsouth public transportation corridors closest to the applicant mines. Some improved county roads within active mine permit areas have been vacated by the Campbell County Commissioners (i.e., Jacobs Road and Small Road) and are therefore no longer accessible to the general public. Unimproved local 3-268 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

Hilight Road

Ke elin e

Ro 13 ad

Jacobs Road

Shroyer Road
23 24 19

Small Road

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450

Sta

High

way

450
30

T. 43 31 N. T. 42 N.

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Hilight Road

Matheson Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road
Antelope Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases Overhead Electric Telephone Tower BNSF & UP Rail Line DM & E Proposed Rail Line
0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-53. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-269

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
30 29 28 27 26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

T. 45 N. T.
44 N.

Keeline Road

T. 45 N. T. 44
N.

Hilight Road

Ke el i ne
Jacobs Road
13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

Shroyer
Road

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

Small Road
26

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450
12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sta

Hig

hw a

y 4 50

Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

5000

10000

20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-54. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract.

3-270

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Hilight Road
4 3 2

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
1 6

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
1 6

Edwards Road

Reno Road

k Cree ool d S ch R oa
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8

Antel ope R oad

Reno Road

Mackey Road

MathesonRoad
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27

Mackey Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Matheson
4 3

Road
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

Campbell County
28

26 25

Converse County

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.
8

T. 41 N.
5

te An
9 10 11

pe lo

ad
6 5 4

T. 40 N.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
BNSF & UP Rail Line DM & E Proposed Rail Line Overhead Electric Telephone Corridor North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary Existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine Federal Coal Leases North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

5000

10000

20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-55. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-271

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
BNSF & UP RR

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
11 12 7 8 9 10

el in e

Hilight Road

Jacobs

ad
13 18

Road
22

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450

Sta

High

way

450
30

T. 43 31 N. T. 42 N.

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Hilight Road

Matheson Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road
Antelope Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases Pipeline (Oil, Gas, and/or Water)

5000

10000

20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

Figure 3-56. Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts.

3-272

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
30 29 28 27 26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

T. 45 N. T.
44 N.

Keeline Road
1

T. 45 N. T. 44
N.

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

Ke el
Jacobs Road

ine

ad
13

Shroyer
Road

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450
12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sta
24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

Hig

hw a

450

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Boundary Existing Jacobs Ranch Mine Federal Coal Leases West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2)
0 5000 10000 20000

Pipeline (Oil, Gas, and/or Water)

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-57. Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-273

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
2

Edwards Road

Reno Road
Sc
Antel ope R oad
10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11

ek l Cre hoo
12

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
1 6

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
1 6

Reno Road

Mackey Road

MathesonRoad
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27

Mackey Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Matheson
4 3

Road
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

26 25

Campbell County Converse County
29

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.
8

T. 41 N.
5

te An
9 10 11

pe lo

ad
6

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

SF BN

T. 40 N.

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
Pipeline
(Oil, Gas, and/or Water)

5000

10000

20000

South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 3-58. Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts.

3-274

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences roads and accesses in the area are primarily for private use or public access to federal lands. The general Wright analysis area presently has one major railroad. The BNSF & UP Gillette-Douglas rail line runs north-south along the eastern edge of the PRB, roughly parallel to and east of State Highway 59. The coal mines located north of Gillette ship most of their coal via the east-west BNSF rail line that runs through Gillette for destinations in the Midwest. The coal mines located south of Gillette and Wright ship most of their coal via the Gillette-Douglas BNSF & UP joint trackage that runs south through Campbell and Converse counties and then east over separate BNSF and UP mainlines for destinations in the Midwest. Individual spur lines connect each mine to the BNSF track or the joint BNSF & UP track. The Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad has proposed an expansion into the PRB of Wyoming. If constructed, the DM&E Expansion Project would be the largest railroad construction project in the United States in the last 100 years (Sheridan Press 2006). If constructed as proposed, the DM&E railroad would provide additional rail capacity for those mines located south of Gillette. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) completed an EIS and gave final approval to the project in 2002. However, in response to a successful appeal, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals directed the STB to give further consideration to four environmental issues that were raised. The STB issued a Final Supplemental EIS (SEIS) on the expansion project December 30, 2005, which addressed the four issues that were remanded back to the STB with input from various federal agencies, Tribes, organizations, environmental groups, businesses, and members of the general public (STB 2006). The issuedriven alignment has been determined and the DM&E rail line would potentially be in a position to haul coal produced by the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. The STB granted final approval to construct the rail line on February 15, 2006. The Final SEIS was also appealed, but was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in December 2006. In early September 2007, Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd announced the acquisition of DM&E and its subsidiaries (MSNBC 2007). The transaction was approved by STB on September 29, 2008. 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences 3.15.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Essentially all of the coal mined on the LBA tracts would be transported by rail system. Since the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts would be an extension of the operating applicant mines, the existing rail facilities and infrastructure would be used during mining of the proposed lease areas. BNSF & UP have upgraded and will continue to upgrade their rail capacities to handle the increasing coal volume projected from the PRB, with or without the leasing of the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-275

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. The construction of the proposed DM&E Railroad expansion into this area is not dependent on leasing one or more of the six LBA tracts. As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, some of the coal included in each of the six LBA tracts under both the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration, is overlain by portions of various public roads. SMCRA prohibits mining within 100 feet of the outside ROW line of any public road unless the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected public and landowners will be protected [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. As a result, the coal underlying the public road ROWs and adjacent buffer zones has been determined to be unsuitable for mining according to coal leasing Unsuitability Criterion Number 3 [43 CFR 3461(c)]. The coal underlying portions of State Highway 450, Antelope Road, Hilight Road, Reno Road, Shroyer Road, Mackey Road, and Matheson Road is included in the LBA tracts being considered for leasing because the coal under the roads could be mined if the authorized public road authorities determine that the roads could be abandoned or relocated [see 43 CFR 3461.5(c)(2)(iii) and discussions in Section 2.1]. If the roads are not moved, including the coal underlying the public roads in the leases would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to the road ROWs and buffer zones (100 feet on either side of the road ROW). Stipulations stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portion(s) of the lease within the public road ROW(s) and buffer zone(s) unless the authorized public road authorities determine that the road(s) could be abandoned or relocated will be attached if a lease is issued for an LBA tract. The exclusion from mining by lease stipulation honors the finding of unsuitability under Unsuitability Criterion Number 3. All mining related road abandonment and relocation option plans would be reviewed and approved by the Campbell County Board of Commissioners (for the Campbell County roads) and/or the Wyoming Department of Transportation (for State Highway 450) prior to road abandonment and relocation Vehicular traffic to and from the mines would continue at existing or slightly higher levels for an extended period of time, depending on which LBA tracts are leased and which alternatives are selected. Pipelines and utility/power transmission lines currently cross the LBA tracts. If the tracts are leased and proposed for mining, these pipelines and utility/power lines would have to be removed and relocated if they are currently active. Any relocation of these pipelines and utility lines would be handled according to specific agreements between the coal lessee and the pipeline and utility owners, if the need arises. There would be additional surface disturbance associated with construction when pipeline is relocated.

3-276

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.15.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and associated effects to transportation resources would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2 that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Coal removal and any associated impacts to transportation resources would continue on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases. Impacts to transportation resources related to mining operations at these mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.15.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring The regulatory requirements regarding transportation facilities require that no public road be relocated unless the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated or closed, and that existing pipelines and utility lines be relocated, if necessary, in accordance with specific agreements between the coal lessee and the pipeline and utility owners. 3.15.4 Residual Impacts No residual impacts to transportation facilities are expected. 3.15.4.1 Coal Loss During Rail Transport There are potential impacts from sifting and blowing coal dust and fines coming off freshly loaded, moving rail cars, which can accumulate along rail beds, railroad ROWs, and on adjacent lands. Coal dust can be washed into adjacent drainages where it accumulates. Accumulated coal dust has been linked to train derailments and can also spontaneously combust and cause rangeland wildfires. With the opening of the PRB coal field in Wyoming in the late 1970s, U.S. coal shipments have grown dramatically from 4.8 million carloads back then to 8.4 million carloads in 2006 as the railroads deliver low sulfur coal to help electric utilities achieve Clean Air Standards (FRA 2008). The largest rail coal movements are from the PRB to generating power plants in Illinois, Missouri, and Texas (FRA 2008).

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-277

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences According to the 2001 Final EIS for the DM&E PRB Expansion Project, a 1996 study conducted in Virginia on metallurgical coal (which is finely crushed and has a low moisture content) indicated that 400 to 800 pounds of coal dust and fines are typically lost per rail car over a 500-mile trip (STB 2001). Although PRB coal is generally transported with larger particles sizes and is higher in moisture content, which reduces the amount of coal dust blowing off of moving rail cars (STB 2001), it is generally accepted that coal dust is accumulating along the rail lines, especially in the first portion of the journey as the loaded coal trains leave the mines (UPRR 2005). Coal can be lost from rail cars through dust and fines sifting from the rail car discharge doors, spillage over the rail car sides, and by being blown from rail car tops during transit. In testing conducted by BNSF & UP Railroad and the National Coal Transportation Association (NCTA), the average loss of coal from an individual rail car’s rapid discharge doors was about 19 pounds per 216 miles, or 0.09 pounds per mile (NCTA 2007). The same testing indicated that an average of 225 pounds of coal was lost from the top of a coal car through either top spillage or being blown off during a 567 mile test trip, which equated to about 0.40 pounds per mile (NCTA 2007). The derailment of two trains in the PRB in 2005 resulted from track instability problems caused by a buildup of coal dust and other particles on the rail bed in combination with high concentrations of moisture (UPRR 2005). BNSF railway officials toured the PRB rail infrastructure in June, 2007. According to a BNSF official, when coal dust is blown off rail cars, it gets lodged in the rail bed, allowing moisture to intrude. The moisture then degrades the structural stability of the rail bed and leaves the rail more vulnerable to buckling under stress (Gillette News-Record 2007a). NCTA testing results suggested that rail car bottom spillage may have more of a negative impact on rail ballast stability than loss from the top of rail cars since the leakage is directly above and near the ballast. NCTA testing also showed that after the rapid discharge doors were adjusted, there was a 32 percent decrease in bottom spillage of coal (NCTA 2007). Accumulating coal dust and deposition has become a concern in Converse County, Wyoming. The majority of coal mined in the PBR travels through Converse County on railroads. Coal dust blows off and sifts from the freshly loaded coal cars on their way from the PRB mine load-outs to Bill, Wyoming and through Converse County (Casper Star Tribune 2007). The Converse County Board of Commissioners is concerned with the coal dust piles that have accumulated in the county from coal being transported by rail. Spontaneous combustion of accumulated coal dust can cause rangeland fires. Smoldering coal dust within a railroad right-of-way can ignite a wildfire and quickly spread to surrounding private lands if the fire is not immediately controlled. The Douglas, Wyoming Volunteer Fire Department Chief, Rick Andrews, estimates that coal fires account for at least 50 percent of the department’s average summer call volume (Casper Star Tribune 2007). Water 3-278 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences often only temporarily extinguishes the flames and some fires repeatedly ignite over the course of several hours or days. While the county’s rural fire district is compensated for some of the costs involved in putting out fires caused by coal dust accumulation, the compensation doesn’t come close to the actual costs, according to the Douglas Volunteer Fire Department Chief. Coal fires along the railroad tracks are an ongoing problem for the Douglas Volunteer Fire Department (Casper Star Tribune 2007). BLM was invited by a Converse County private land owner to examine and survey the coal deposition that has occurred from coal trains traveling through his land. On July 7, 2008, BLM personnel met with the private landowner and toured his rangeland adjacent to the railroad ROW between Bill and Douglas, Wyoming. It was observed that water runoff had washed lost coal from the rail bed into adjacent drainages and the amount of deposition varied along the railroad ROW. BLM surveyed coal accumulations in Box Creek, and one area was found to have an accumulation 1.8 feet thick (BLM 2008e). In an effort to reduce the amount of small particles that are created in the coal crushing process, BNSF is encouraging the utility companies and the mines to not crush as finely (i.e., crushing to 3-inch diameter rather than 2-inch diameter) (Gillette News-Record 2007a). Another possibility that may help lessen blowing coal dust from trains is the use of a surfactant applied to the tops of loaded coal cars. When applied to coal, surfactant can stabilize and adhere fines and dust to larger pieces. Some tests have shown that coal dust on railroad tracks can be reduced by up to 95 percent with surfactant use (Gillette News-Record 2007a). In order for a surfactant to be used, it would need to meet utility companies’ burning specifications. A collaborative effort between the NCTA, PRB mines, and BNSF and UP railroads has resulted in an improved design for a coal loading chute that distributes coal more evenly and produces a lower profile load (UPRR 2006). Preliminary results have demonstrated that this new design may result in a 30 to 60 percent reduction in coal dust blowing off the top of cars during the early portion of the route (UPRR 2006). The collaborative team is also analyzing the value of crushing the coal to a 3-inch diameter rather than 2-inch diameter to reduce dust and fines sifting through the bottom gates of rail cars, and using a surfactant applied to the top of the load to reduce coal dust emissions (UPRR 2006). Converse County Commissioners have formally expressed concerns to BLM in regard to fire, health, and safety issues associated with blowing coal dust from trains. The Commissioners have stated that the health and well-being of Converse County citizens downwind of the railroad tracks continue to be jeopardized due to lack of coal dust mitigation in the coal mining permit process (BLM 2008f). The Converse County Commissioners have urged that coal dust mitigation be applied as a standard condition of approval upfront in the mining permit (BLM 2008f). Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-279

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences BLM does not authorize mining permits nor regulate mining operations with the issuance of a BLM coal lease. WDEQ is the agency that permits mining operations and has authority to enforce mining regulations. In Wyoming, WDEQ has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior to regulate surface coal mining operations. Mitigation and other requirements are developed as part of the mining and reclamation permit. These must be approved by WDEQ before mining operations can occur on leased federal coal lands. Other agencies that may be stakeholders in this issue include the Federal Railroad Administration, which implements U.S. Department of Transportation environmental policies related to U.S. railroads, and the NCTA whose mission includes facilitating the resolution of coal transportation issues in order to serve the needs of the general public and industry (NCTA 2008). The leasing and mining of these six LBA tracts would not increase the rate of buildup of coal dust and fines but would prolong the issue. 3.16 Hazardous and Solid Waste 3.16.1 Affected Environment Potential sources of hazardous or solid waste on the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts would include spilled, leaked or dumped hazardous substances, petroleum products, and/or solid waste associated with coal and oil and gas exploration, oil and gas development, the BNSF & UP railroad, utility line installation and maintenance, or agricultural activities. No such hazardous or solid wastes are known to be present on any of the six LBA tracts. Wastes produced by current mining activities at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines are handled according to the procedures described in Section 2.9. 3.16.2 Environmental Consequences 3.16.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 If the applicant mines acquire the six LBA tracts, the wastes that would be generated in the course of mining the tracts would be similar to those currently being generated by the existing mining operations. The procedures that are used for handling hazardous and solid wastes at the existing mines are described in Chapter 2, Section 2.9. Wastes generated by mining the LBA tracts would be handled in accordance with the existing regulations using the procedures currently in use and in accordance with WDEQ-approved waste disposal plans at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines.

3-280

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.16.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal and associated disturbance and impacts would not occur on the portions of the LBA tracts as applied for or the LBA tracts configured under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, that will not be disturbed under the currently approved surface coal mining permits. Coal removal and any associated waste production would continue on the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases. Impacts from mining operations at these mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans, and no waste materials would be generated as a result of coal removal on the tracts. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these six coal lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective tract in the future. 3.16.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring The regulatory requirements regarding production, use, and/or disposal of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials are discussed in Chapter 2. All mining activities involving the hazardous materials are and would continue to be conducted so as to minimize potential environmental impacts. 3.16.4 Residual Impacts No residual hazardous and solid waste impacts are expected. 3.17 Socioeconomics The social and economic study area for the proposed project includes Campbell County and the communities of Wright and Gillette, Wyoming. These two communities are home to a majority of the three applicant mines’ current workforce, as well as most of the mining services, retail and business and consumer service establishments in the area. Gillette, the county seat, would most likely attract the majority of any new residents due to its current population levels and the availability of services, shopping amenities, and educational institutions. 3.17.1 Local Economy 3.17.1.1 Affected Environment Wyoming’s coal mines produced 449.1 million tons in 2007, a new annual production record, according to the Wyoming State Inspector of Mines. This was an increase of more than 9 percent over the 444.9 million tons produced in Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-281

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 2006; itself a record. PRB coal production (from Campbell and Converse counties, 13 active mines) was over 436.5 million tons in 2007, which represented over 97 percent of the statewide coal production (Wyoming Department of Employment 2006 and 2007a). Approximately 27 percent of the November 2007 total employment in Campbell County and 40 percent of the second quarter 2007 total payroll was attributed to the natural resources and mining sector, which includes oil and gas employment (Wyoming Department of Employment 2007a and 2008a). In 2007, Campbell County employment grew at a similar rate compared to the statewide average (3.7 percent versus 3.6 percent change, respectively). Job growth occurred in construction, trade, manufacturing, transportation and utilities, and local government, but the most dramatic increase was in the manufacturing sector (Wyoming Department of Employment 2008b). Revenues to the federal government from the leasing and production of federal coal include retention of one-half of the lease bonus bids and federal mineral royalties. Lease bonus bids are paid to the federal government for the right to enter into lease agreements for federal coal. Bonus bids are paid in five annual installments; the state receives half of each installment. In 2004 and 2005, BLM held competitive sealed-bid lease sales for six federal coal tracts in the PRB (NARO South, West Antelope, West Hay Creek, Little Thunder, West Roundup, and NARO North). No coal lease sales were held for federal coal tracts in the PRB in 2006 or 2007. Three lease sales (Eagle Butte West, South Maysdorf, and North Maysdorf) were held in 2008. The successful bonus bids for the six lease sales held in 2004 and 2005 ranged from 30 cents per ton to 97 cents per ton and totaled $1.69 billion (BLM 2009). Annual bonus bid payments from the six lease sales totaled $338.2 million in 2007 (BLM 2008g). Combined with remaining bonus bid payments from lease sales held in previous years of $90.1 million, the annual bonus bid payment total for 2004 was $428.3 million, derived directly from federal coal in Campbell and Converse counties. The Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG) is projecting that coal lease bonus bid revenues to the state from federal coal in the PRB will be $169.8 million for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009. Presently, the bonus bid revenues received by the state are allocated to fund capital construction for cities and towns, the state’s highway fund, community colleges, and school capital construction (Wyoming CREG 2007). Wyoming, Campbell County, and the communities in the county receive revenue from a variety of taxes and royalties on the production of federal coal in addition to the bonus bids. These include ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, royalty payments, sales and use taxes on equipment and other taxable purchases, and portions of the required contributions to the federal Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program and the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.

3-282

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Federal mineral royalties are collected by the federal government at the time the produced coal is sold, with a royalty rate of 12.5 percent of the sale price. In the past, federal royalties and bonus bids had been divided equally with the State of Wyoming. A modification of the percentage distribution of federal royalties to 52 percent federal/48 percent state for fiscal year 2008 was attached to the Federal budget bill. The percentage of mineral royalty distribution will revert back to 50 percent/50 percent at the end of the 2008 fiscal year unless legislation is passed in the future to maintain or further modify the current percentage of distribution of royalties. Coal mines pay 28 cents per ton of surface coal produced to fund AML reclamation programs. Annual appropriations returned to the states vary depending on Congressional authorizations and AML program priorities. Additional sources of revenue include federal income tax and annual rentals that are paid to the government. Sales and use taxes, which are levied by the state and local governments, are distributed to cities and towns within the county and to the county’s general fund. Approximately 70 percent of the revenues generated from the statewide 4.0 percent levy are retained by the state, the remainder being distributed to the counties, cities and towns according to statutory formula. In addition, the Campbell County government imposes a 1.0 percent general purpose local option tax and a 0.25 percent specific county option tax. Sales and tax revenues are vital for local governments. According to the Excise Tax Division of the Wyoming Department of Revenue (2004), the sales and use taxes collected from coal mines and coal mining-related services in Campbell County in fiscal year (FY) 2004 was $8.2 million. Ad valorem taxes comprise production and property taxes, with production taxes being far greater than property taxes for surface coal mines. Ad valorem taxes are collected by the county and disbursed to local governments and school districts that rely heavily on ad valorem taxes. Rising production and market values for oil and gas, and the increases in coal production tonnages have given rise to dramatic increases in the ad valorem tax bases of producing counties, particularly Campbell County. In 2005, Campbell County had an ad valorem tax base of $3.66 billion; more than 22 percent of the aggregate statewide assessed value on all real property and mineral production. The coal mining industry accounted for 59 percent of Campbell County’s 2005 total assessed value (Wyoming Department of Revenue 2006 and Wyoming State Board of Equalization 2007). In 1994, the University of Wyoming estimated that the total fiscal benefit to the State of Wyoming for coal produced in the PRB was $1.10 per ton (Borden et al. 1994). This study did not include AML fees or bonus bid payments in the calculation for fiscal benefits to the State of Wyoming. Calculating the estimated total fiscal benefit to the State of Wyoming in 2005 by including half of the bonus bid payments, half of the federal mineral royalties based on current prices, half of the AML fees, and all of the ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, and sales and use taxes for coal produced in Campbell County in 2005 results in an estimated $661 million, or $1.62 per ton. Figure 3-59 depicts the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-283

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Bonus Bid Payments $169.1 million (19.9%)

Ad Valorem Taxes $171.6 million (20.2%)

AML Fund $69.3 million (8.2%)

Sales and Use Taxes $23.1 million (2.7%)

Severence Tax $199.7 million (23.6%)

Federal Mineral Royalties $215.1 million (25.4%)

Total Wyoming Revenue = $847.9 Million

Federal Mineral Royalties $223.9 million (36.1%)

AML Fund $69.3 million (11.2%)

Black Lung Fund $158.4 million (25.5%)

Bonus Bid Payments $169.1 million (27.2%)

Total Federal Revenue = $620.7 Million

Figure 3-59. Estimated Wyoming and Federal Revenues from 2007 Coal Production in Campbell County.

3-284

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences estimated total revenues to state and federal governments from 2007 coal production in Campbell County. Recent (2004) Gross State Product (GSP) calculations for Wyoming indicate that the minerals industry (mining and oil and gas) accounted for about 21 percent of the state’s total GSP of $24.1 billion, which made it the largest sector of the Wyoming economy. The contribution of mining was nearly twice that of government, the next largest sector, and more than three times the contribution of the real estate industry, the next largest private sector. Mining alone accounted for 8.3 percent of the Wyoming GSP (Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 2007). 3.17.1.2 Environmental Consequences 3.17.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 The federal and state revenues that would be generated by the leasing and mining of these six LBA tracts would depend on which alternative for each tract is selected and the sale price of the coal. The Wyoming CREG forecasts all mineral revenues to the state, and is forecasting that the average gross sales prices for Wyoming coal production will range from $11.06 per ton in 2008 increasing to $12.50 per ton by 2011 (Wyoming CREG 2008). PRB coal prices are generally lower than prices for coal produced in other areas of Wyoming; however, most of the coal produced in Wyoming is from the PRB. For the purposes of this analysis, a conservative average sales price of $11.06 per ton is assumed for the coal included in the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. The projected federal and state revenues for each of the six Wright Area LBA Tracts presented in Table 3-23 are based on coal production tonnages shown in Tables 3-1 through 3-6, assuming an average coal price of $11.06 per ton and a potential range of bonus bid payments on the leased (mineable) coal of 30 to 97 cents per ton. As discussed in Section 3.0, the estimates of recoverable coal, associated mine life and employment assume that the public roads bordering or crossing the LBA tracts are not moved. If the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are leased and mined under the Proposed Actions or other action alternatives, potential state and federal revenues would vary by LBA tract as indicated below. 3.17.1.2.1.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract If this LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $390 million to $486 million. For the BLM’s preferred alternative configuration under Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-285

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the Wright Area LBA Tracts Under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3. No Action Alternative/ Proposed Alternatives 2 LBA Tract and Item Existing Mine Action and 3
North Hilight Field State Revenues(mm) Federal Revenues(mm) Increased Mine Life (yrs) Additional Employees South Hilight Field State Revenues(mm) Federal Revenues(mm) Increased Mine Life (yrs) Additional Employees West Hilight Field State Revenues(mm) Federal Revenues(mm) Increased Mine Life (yrs) Additional Employees West Jacobs Ranch State Revenues(mm) Federal Revenues(mm) Increased Mine Life (yrs) Additional Employees North Porcupine State Revenues(mm) Federal Revenues(mm) Increased Mine Life (yrs) Additional Employees South Porcupine State Revenues(mm) Federal Revenues(mm) Increased Mine Life (yrs) Additional Employees $2,091.2 $1,629.4 0 0 $488.5 to $584.4 $390.1 to $486.0 2.0 0 $1,210.5 to $1,448.3 $966.8 to $1,204.5 4.8 0

Table 3-23.

$2,091.2 $1,629.4 0 0

$396.1 to $473.9 $316.3 to $394.1 1.6 0

$564.3 to $675.1 $450.7 to $561.5 2.3 0

$2,091.2 $1,629.4 0 0

$700.8 to $838.4 $559.7 to $697.3 2.8 0

$1,789.9 to $2,141.3 $1,429.4 to $1,780.8 7.1 0

$715.4 $557.5 0 0

$1,244.1 to $1,493.4 $1,695.6 to $2,035.3 $994.1 to $1,243.3 $1,354.8 to $1,694.5 16.7 22.8 155 155

$1,744.5 $1,359.3 0 0

$1,114.9 to $1,333.8 $1,382.3 to $1,653.7 $890.3 to $1,109.3 $1,103.9 to $1,375.3 6.3 7.8 0 0

$1,744.5 $1,359.3 0 0

$574.3 to $687.1 $458.6 to $571.4 3.3 0

$629.2 to $752.7 $502.5 to $626.0 3.6 0

Alternatives 2, the potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $967 million to $1,205 million. If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $489 million to $585 million. For Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $1,211 million to $1,448 million. 3-286 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would continue for up to about 4.8 additional years, depending on which alternative is selected. 3.17.1.2.1.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract If this LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $316 million to $394 million. For the BLM’s preferred alternative configuration under Alternatives 2, the potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $451 million to $562 million. If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $396 million to $474 million. For Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $564 million to $675 million. The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would continue for up to about 2.3 additional years, depending on which alternative is selected. 3.17.1.2.1.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract If this LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $560 million to $697 million. For the BLM’s preferred alternative configuration under Alternatives 2, the potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $1,429 million to $1,781 million. If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $701 million to $838 million. For Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $1,790 million to $2,141 million. The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would continue for up to about 7.1 additional years, depending on which alternative is selected. 3.17.1.2.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract If this LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $994 million to $1,243 million. For the BLM’s preferred alternative configuration under Alternatives 2, the potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $1,355 million to $1,695 million. If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $1,244 million to $1,493 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-287

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences million. For Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $1,696 million to $2,035 million. The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would continue for up to about 22.8 additional years, depending on which alternative is selected. 3.17.1.2.1.5 North Porcupine LBA Tract If this LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $890 million to $1,109 million. For the BLM’s preferred alternative configuration under Alternatives 2, the potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $1,104 million to $1,375 million. If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $1,115 million to $1,334 million. For Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $1,382 million to $1,654 million. The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would continue for up to about 7.8 additional years, depending on which alternative is selected. 3.17.1.2.1.6 South Porcupine LBA Tract If this LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $459 million to $571 million. For the BLM’s preferred alternative configuration under Alternatives 2, the potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $503 million to $626 million. If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $574 million to $687 million. For Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $629 million to $753 million. The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would continue for up to about 3.6 additional years, depending on which alternative is selected. 3.17.1.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternatives, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and the potentially recoverable coal included in an LBA tract under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, would not be recovered and the economic benefits 3-288 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences associated with mining that coal would not be realized by the state or federal government. Currently approved mining operations and associated economic benefits would continue on the existing Black Thunder Mine leases, but would cease between 1.6 and 7.1 years earlier than under the Proposed Actions or Alternative 2 for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Currently approved mining operations and associated economic benefits would continue on the existing Jacobs Ranch Mine leases, but would cease between 16.7 and 22.8 years earlier than under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. Currently approved mining operations and associated economic benefits would continue on the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine leases, but would cease between 3.3 and 7.8 years earlier than under the Proposed Actions or Alternative 2 for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. Job losses, both those directly associated with the mines, as well as those secondary jobs supported by the mines, would occur following the cessation of operations. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the LBA lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 3.17.2 Population 3.17.2.1 Affected Environment Campbell County’s population rose from 33,698 in 2000 to an estimated 40,473 in July 2008. This represents a 23 percent growth since 2000 and makes Campbell County the second fastest growing county in the state (following only Sublette County, which ranked fifth in growth in the nation between July 2006 and July 2007). Campbell County’s population ranks it as the third most populous of Wyoming’s 23 counties (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). The majority of the three applicant mines’ employees and support services reside in Gillette and Wright. It is estimated that the total population in the City Limits of Gillette increased from 24,235 at the beginning of 2003 to 30,636 at the end of 2007; an increase of 26.4 percent over five years. Gillette accounts for roughly 62 percent of the county’s residents (City of Gillette 2008a). Wright’s population rose from 1,355 in July 2000 to an estimated 1,529 in July 2007, accounting for about 4 percent of the county’s residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). Gillette is currently the fourth largest city in the state, following Cheyenne, Casper, and Laramie. 3.17.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.17.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 As indicated by Table 3-22, leasing and subsequently mining the six Wright Area LBA Tracts would extend the life of the three existing applicant mines and current employment at those mines by up to nearly 23 additional years (Jacobs Ranch Mine - Table 3-22) at the projected rates of production, under Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-289

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract. Average yearly employment at the mines would increase by up to 155 positions under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (Jacobs Ranch Mine - Table 3-22). It is likely that the additional employees would be available from the existing workforce in Campbell County and no influx of new residents would occur as a result of filling these new positions. 3.17.2.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and the potentially recoverable coal included in an LBA tract under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, would not be mined. Population levels would not be affected by any additional employment at the existing mines. Currently approved mining operations and associated employment levels would continue on the existing mines leases for about 10.2 years at the Black Thunder Mine, about 10.6 years at the Jacobs Ranch Mine, and approximately 10.9 years at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the LBA lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 3.17.3 Employment 3.17.3.1 Affected Environment The statewide total employment increased by more than 10 percent from 2003 to 2006, and nearly one-of-three of the new jobs created during that 3-year period was in the mining industry. During the same period, statewide coal mining employment increased by 762 jobs, a 16 percent increase. From 2003 to 2006, total employment in Campbell County grew by 3,384 jobs, a 16 percent increase. From 2000 through November 2007, the number of employees in Campbell County grew by about 33 percent (19,299 to 25,762) (City of Gillette 2008a). The average unemployment rate in Campbell County for 2006 was 2.1 percent and less than 2.0 percent for 2007 (City of Gillette 2008a), even as the local labor force has grown due to immigration and attraction of additional residents into the labor force (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008). Surface coal mining has changed substantially in recent times, largely as a result of new technologies and higher capacity equipment. The local coal mining labor force grew rapidly during the 1970s as more mines opened and production increased. Between 1980 and 1998, overall production rose while employee numbers generally decreased or remained constant. The employment declines followed large industry capital investments in facilities and production equipment, the majority of which were aimed at increasing productivity (BLM 2005b). Since 1998, direct employment in the PRB coal mines climbed as total 3-290 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences annual production increased by more than 45 percent (Wyoming Department of Employment 1998 and 2007b). The mining sector, which includes oil and gas workers, accounts for nearly 28 percent of all employment in Campbell County, nearly four times the statewide percentage. In the fourth quarter of 2007, around 7,267 people were directly employed by surface coal mines or coal contractors in Campbell County, representing about 26 percent of the Campbell County employed labor force (Wyoming Department of Employment 2008a). Campbell County also has slightly higher percentages of construction and wholesale trade employment, which is keeping with the development demands of continuing growth and the county’s position as a commercial center for northeast Wyoming. 3.17.3.2 Environmental Consequences In January 2008, the unemployment rate in Campbell County was 2.5 percent (664 unemployed persons out of a total labor force of 26,295) (Wyoming Department of Employment 2008b). It is likely that additional employees would be available from the existing labor force in Campbell County, depending on the timing of the hiring at the mines as compared to the timing of hiring for other ongoing and proposed projects in the county, which are discussed in Section 4.1. 3.17.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 3.17.3.2.1.1 North Hilight Field LBA Tract Leasing and subsequently mining the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would extend the life of the Black Thunder Mine by up to about 2 years under the Proposed Action or 4.8 years under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, depending on which alternative is selected. As discussed above, TBCC is not projecting an increase in average yearly employment at the mine under either alternative (Table 3-22). The economic stability of the communities of Gillette and Wright would benefit by having the current Black Thunder Mine workforce living in the community and employed at the mine for up to about 4.8 additional years. 3.17.3.2.1.2 South Hilight Field LBA Tract Leasing and subsequently mining the South Hilight Field LBA Tract would extend the life of the Black Thunder Mine by about 1.6 years under the Proposed Action or 2.3 additional years under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, depending on which alternative is selected. As discussed above, TBCC is not projecting an increase in average yearly employment at the mine under either alternative (Table 3-22). The economic stability of the communities of Gillette and Wright would benefit by having the current Black Thunder Mine workforce living in the community and employed at the mine for up to about 2.3 additional years. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-291

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.17.3.2.1.3 West Hilight Field LBA Tract Leasing and subsequently mining the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would extend the life of the Black Thunder Mine by about 2.8 years under the Proposed Action or 7.1 additional years under both Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative) and Alternative 3, depending on which alternative is selected. As discussed above, TBCC is not projecting an increase in average yearly employment at the mine under any of the Action Alternatives (Table 3 22). The economic stability of the communities of Gillette and Wright would benefit by having the current Black Thunder Mine workforce living in the community and employed at the mine for up to about 7.1 additional years. 3.17.3.2.1.4 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Leasing and subsequently mining the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would extend the life of the Jacobs Ranch Mine by up to about 16.7 years under the Proposed Action or 22.8 additional years under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, depending on which alternative is selected. As discussed above, JRCC is projecting that the average yearly employment at the mine would increase by up to 155 positions under both the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (Table 3-22). The economic stability of the communities of Gillette and Wright would benefit by having the current Jacobs Ranch Mine workforce living in the community and employed at the mine for up to about 22.8 additional years. 3.17.3.2.1.5 North Porcupine LBA Tract Leasing and subsequently mining the North Porcupine LBA Tract would extend the life of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine by about 6.3 additional years under the Proposed Action or 7.8 additional years under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, depending on which alternative is selected. As discussed above, PRC is not projecting an increase in average yearly employment at the mine under either alternative (Table 3-22). The economic stability of the communities of Gillette and Wright would benefit by having the current North Antelope Rochelle Mine workforce living in the community and employed at the mine for up to about 7.8 additional years. 3.17.3.2.1.6 South Porcupine LBA Tract Leasing and subsequently mining the South Porcupine LBA Tract would extend the life of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine by about 3.3 additional years under the Proposed Action or 3.6 additional years under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, depending on which alternative is selected. As discussed above, PRC is not projecting an increase in average yearly employment at the mine under either alternative (Table 3-22). The economic stability of the communities of Gillette and Wright would benefit by having the current North Antelope Rochelle Mine workforce living in the community and employed at the mine for up to about 3.6 additional years. 3-292 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.17.3.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and the potentially recoverable coal included in an LBA tract under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, would not be mined. Mine life and existing employment levels would not be extended by up to nearly 23 additional years, though currently approved mining operations and associated employment would continue on the existing mines leases for about 10.2 years at the Black Thunder Mine, 10.6 years at the Jacobs Ranch Mine, and 10.9 years at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. Direct jobs provided by the mines and those supported indirectly by those operations and the consumer expenditures of the mines’ workforces would be lost sooner than if leasing were to occur. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the LBA lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 3.17.4 Housing 3.17.4.1 Affected Environment According to a 2001 report on housing needs in Campbell County, roughly 61 percent of PRB surface coal mining employees live in Gillette and surrounding areas, 14 percent live in Wright, and 25 percent live outside of Campbell County (Pederson Planning Consultants 2001). There were 11,538 housing units in Campbell County reported in the 1990 census. The 2000 census counted 13,288 housing units in Campbell County, of which 12,207 (92 percent) were occupied; 74 percent by the owners. Of the 1,081 vacant units, 215 were held for seasonal or occasional use and 866 were for sale, rent or vacant for other reasons (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The number of housing units in Gillette increased from 7,078 in 1990 to 7,931 in 2000, an increase of 12 percent. The number of housing units increased in Wright from 528 in 1990 to 544 in 2000, an increase of slightly over 3 percent. The types of housing units counted in 2000 included 6,698 single-family detached units, 794 single-family attached units, 2,276 multi-family units, 3,432 mobile homes, and 88 RVs, vans, or similar types of units. Subsequent construction added 561 single-family detached, 61 single-family attached, 498 manufactured homes, and 352 multi-family units in Gillette and Wright, plus an unknown number of single-family and manufactured units in rural areas. The resulting totals are estimated at 7,259 single-family detached units (49.2 percent), 855 single-family attached units (5.8 percent), 2,628 multi-family units (17.8 percent), 3,930 mobile/manufactured units (26.6 percent), and 88 RV/vans (0.6 percent) (CSI 2005).

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-293

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Population growth since 2000 has prompted new housing construction in the region. In Campbell County, net additions to the number of housing units from 2000 through 2005 total 797. Construction has not kept pace with demand. As a consequence, vacancy rates are near record lows and housing prices have climbed. In the second half of 2006, vacancy rates of rental units were 0.4 percent (6 units) in Campbell County (WCDA 2007). During 2006, there were 631 housing units permitted; a new record. During 2007, another new record was established at 1,112 housing units permitted. The housing inventory in Gillette increased from 10,194 units to 11,347 units over the 2007 calendar year; an increase of 11.3 percent (City of Gillette 2008a). The number of units added in unincorporated, rural areas of Campbell County is not known because the county does not require building permits or certificates of occupancy for residential development in unincorporated areas (Braunlin 2004). A survey conducted in October 2004 estimated the vacancy rate of rental units to be 7.0 percent, based on a sample of approximately 40 percent of all rental units, mostly in larger complexes (CSI 2005). According to a 2006 housing survey, there was a 0.10 percent vacancy rate for rental property in 2007, while the average annual vacancy rate for manufactured home/mobile home rentals within the city limits was 5.2 percent (City of Gillette 2008a). Many apartments had long waiting lists. In the second quarter of 2007, average housing rental costs in Campbell County were $691 for a two-bedroom, unfurnished apartment, $292 for a single-wide mobile home lot, and $1,127 for a two or three-bedroom single family home. In the second quarter of 2008, average housing rental costs in Campbell County were $717 (a 3.8 percent increase) for a two-bedroom, unfurnished apartment, $318 (a 9.1 percent increase) for a single-wide mobile home lot, and $1,314 (a 16.7 percent increase) for a two- or three-bedroom single family home (Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 2008). The average selling price of homes in Campbell County, based on 528 sales, in 2007 was $247,150. That average represents a 23.6 percent increase over that in 2006 and sixth highest among Wyoming counties (WCDA 2008). In addition to permanent housing, temporary or transient housing is a consideration for any project that might have a construction component. Temporary housing can include hotels or motels, campgrounds, and possibly mobile home parks. Given the tight housing market in Gillette, some such units are reportedly being used for longer-term occupancy by workers and families waiting for traditional housing to become available (Langston 2005). There are 17 motels in Gillette with 1,346 guest rooms and a 27-room motel in Wright. Gillette has two year-round commercial campgrounds with 150 hookups for RVs plus tent areas (Gillette Convention and Visitor’s Bureau 2004). Campbell County has a multi-event facility, the CAM-PLEX, located in 3-294 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Gillette. It has 1,821 RV sites, which vary from 688 full service sites with rest rooms and shower facilities to electric only sites. The CAM-PLEX facilities are generally available only for scheduled special events, not for public camping (CAM-PLEX 2005). Gillette also has approximately 1,595 mobile home park spaces. Mobile home parks are generally considered permanent housing resources, but they sometimes provide temporary spaces for RVs as well if there are vacant spaces available. As of early October 2004, the average vacancy rate in Gillette’s mobile home parks was 35 percent, or 558 spaces (CSI 2005). 3.17.4.2 Environmental Consequences 3.17.4.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 As discussed above, TBCC is not projecting an increase in average yearly employment at the Black Thunder Mine under any of the Action Alternatives for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts. The current employment level at the Black Thunder Mine would be extended by up to about 4.8 additional years for the North Hilight Field tract, 2.3 years for the South Hilight Field tract, and 7.1 additional years for the West Hilight Field tract under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, for each LBA tract. As discussed above, JRCC is projecting an increase in average yearly employment by up to 155 positions and employment at the Jacobs Ranch Mine would be extended by up to 16.7 additional years under the Proposed Action and 22.8 years under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. As discussed above, PRC is not projecting an increase in average yearly employment at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine under the Action Alternatives for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. The current employment level at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine would be extended by up to about 7.8 additional years for the North Porcupine tract and 3.6 additional years for the South Porcupine tract under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each LBA tract. No additional demands on the existing infrastructure or services in the community would be expected because little or no influx of new residents would be needed to fill new jobs. Although housing is tight in Gillette, it is likely that housing for the additional employees would be available from the existing and proposed units in Campbell County. 3.17.4.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and the coal included in an LBA tract Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-295

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, would not be mined. Housing occupancy would not be affected by any additional employment at the three applicant mines. Currently approved mining operations and associated employment levels would continue on the existing coal leases for about 10.2 years at the Black Thunder Mine, 10.6 years at the Jacobs Ranch Mine, and for approximately 10.9 years at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. When the existing leases are mined out, mining operations would cease, likely triggering population out-migration from the area and adversely affecting housing markets. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the LBA lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 3.17.5 Local Government Facilities and Services 3.17.5.1 Affected Environment The availability of revenues generated by mineral production has helped local government facilities and services keep pace with growth. Current facilities and services are generally adequate for the current population, although several service providers are engaged in expansion plans to accommodate future growth. Campbell County School District No. 1’s enrollment as of December 2007 is listed as stable at 7,569 students, making it the third largest school district in Wyoming. The district facilities include: one high school (with two campuses) and two junior high schools in Gillette, a junior-senior high school in Wright and 15 elementary schools (including one in Wright and three in rural areas). The district also operates an alternative high school and aquatic center in Gillette (CCSD 2007). The Campbell County School District is involved in a major five-year plan to replace several schools, modernize others and complete major systems maintenance and upgrades. The School District initiated a Capital Facilities Plan during 2007, and there are three new elementary schools under review at this time (City of Gillette 2008a). Law enforcement services throughout the county are provided by the Campbell County Sheriff’s Office, while the Gillette Police Department provides police protection within the City of Gillette. 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 24 hour supervised, 128-bed facility that includes separate modules for women and juveniles (BLM 2005c). Fire suppression throughout Campbell County is provided by the Campbell County Fire Department, which is governed by a city-county joint powers board. The department maintains four stations in Gillette and six dispersed throughout the county. The department has 17 full-time staff and 150 trained volunteers. In addition, there are 30 to 40 volunteers in outlying areas who are 3-296 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences trained and equipped primarily to fight wildland fires. Campbell County coal mines generally provide equipment and trained staff to fight fires on mine property, and if called upon, the County Fire Department provides backup assistance with personnel and equipment (Vonsik 2005). The primary medical care facility in Campbell County is Campbell County Memorial Hospital, a 90-bed acute care hospital, located in Gillette. The hospital has a medical staff of over 50 affiliated physicians in 20 specialties and a total staff of 800 (CCMH 2005). The hospital also operates the Wright Clinic, a satellite clinic with a full-time, family practice physician. Ambulance service for Campbell County is provided by the hospital, which has a 24-hour emergency service capability. The Campbell County Fire Department provides first responder service to emergency calls, but transport is the responsibility of the hospital affiliated ambulance service. Water and wastewater treatment systems are provided by the City of Gillette. Gillette’s water supply, which is a system of groundwater wells, has the capacity to serve approximately 30,600 people within the city limits and some nearby urbanized areas. Water use approaches capacity during the peak demand months in the summer when parks and private lawns are being irrigated (Morovits 2005). The City of Gillette and Campbell County have developed a long term water supply plan called the Gillette Regional Water Supply Project that includes an additional Madison Formation well field and pipeline with a capacity to serve approximately 50,000 people (City of Gillette 2008b). Projected completion is about 6 years. In the interim, the city has other wells it can pump if necessary, but high natural fluoride levels require careful monitoring if they are used (Morovits 2005). Gillette’s sewer treatment system was designed for a service population of approximately 35,000 and improvements begun in the fall of 2004 were designed to increase treatment capacity to accommodate a projected population of 41,000. Currently, the system serves an estimated 25,000 people in the city and surrounding areas. Water and wastewater treatment systems are provided to the community of Wright by the Wright Water and Sewer District. The Wright district’s water and sewage treatment facilities were designed to serve a population of approximately 3,000, albeit with an additional sewage lagoon required when the service population reached about 2,500 people. The district is planning an additional well to increase its water supply capacity by about 30 percent. The district’s facilities in Wright currently serve a population of approximately 1,400 people; essentially the entire town is served by the water system, and most lots are on the sewer system, although there are some private septic systems.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-297

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.17.5.2 Environmental Consequences 3.17.5.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 As discussed above, TBCC is not projecting an increase in average yearly employment at the Black Thunder Mine under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration, for the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Current employment levels would continue for about 4.8 additional years under Alternative 2 for the North Hilight Field tract, 2.3 additional years under Alternative 2 for the South Hilight Field tract, and 7.1 additional years under Alternative 2 for the West Hilight Field tract. As discussed above, JRCC is projecting that the average yearly employment at the Jacobs Ranch Mine would increase by up to 155 positions under both the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration, and mine life would be extended by up to 22.8 additional years under Alternative 2 for the West Jacobs Ranch tract. As discussed above, PRC is not projecting an increase in average yearly employment at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred tract configuration, for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. Current employment levels would continue for about 7.8 additional years under Alternative 2 for the North Porcupine tract and 3.6 additional years under Alternative 2 for the South Porcupine tract. No additional demands on the existing community facilities or services in the county would be expected because little or no influx of new residents would be needed to fill new jobs. It is likely that the demand for public facilities and services will be satisfied by the existing facilities and services currently in place in Campbell County. 3.17.5.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine coal lease applications would be rejected and the potentially recoverable coal included in an LBA tract under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, would not be mined. Local government facilities and services would not be affected by any additional employment at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch or North Antelope Rochelle mines. Currently approved mining operations and associated employment levels would continue on the existing mine leases for about 10.2 years at the Black Thunder Mine, 10.6 years at the Jacobs Ranch Mine, and 10.9 years at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the LBA lease applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 3-298 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.17.6 Social Setting 3.17.6.1 Affected Environment The social setting for coal development in the PRB, summarized in Section 4.2.12.9, is described in the Task IC Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005c). That report emphasizes Campbell County and its communities as the nucleus for coal development in the PRB. The three applicant mines included in this EIS went into production between 1977 and 1983. These mines and their employees contribute to the social and economic stability of Campbell County, the City of Gillette and the Town of Wright. 3.17.6.2 Environmental Consequences 3.17.6.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 As discussed above, employment at the mines is not anticipated to increase substantially under the Proposed Action or Alternatives 2 and 3. Consequently, little or no change in the social setting of Campbell County or the communities of Gillette and Wright would be anticipated under these alternatives. 3.17.6.2.2 No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action Alternative would result in the eventual loss of approximately 3,104 relatively high paying mining jobs in the PRB, along with numerous support services and other jobs that depend on the mining industry. A majority of those losses would occur in Campbell County and the City of Gillette. Loss of the mine-related economic activity and tax revenues are described in preceding sections. These losses would likely result in a disruption in the social and economic stability of Campbell County and the City of Gillette and some population relocation, unless mine employees were able to find comparable employment within commuting distance of Gillette. Social effects of the No Action Alternative on the Town of Wright would be less substantial, because of the fewer number of employees involved and the potential for those employees to find other jobs in mines and other energy industries in Campbell County. 3.17.7 Environmental Justice 3.17.7.1 Affected Environment Environmental Justice issues are concerned with actions that unequally impact a given segment of society either as a result of physical location, perception, design, noise, or other factors. On February 11, 1994, Executive Order 12898, “Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”, was published in the Federal Register (59 FR 7629). The Executive Order requires federal agencies to Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-299

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations (defined as those living below the poverty level). The Executive Order makes it clear that its provisions apply fully to Native American populations and Native American tribes, specifically to effects on tribal lands, treaty rights, trust responsibilities, and the health and environment of Native American communities. Communities within Campbell County, entities with interests in the area, and individuals with ties to the area all may have concerns about the presence of surface coal mines in the area. Environmental Justice concerns are usually directly associated with impacts on the natural and physical environment, but these impacts are likely to be interrelated with social and economic impacts as well. Native American access to cultural and religious sites may fall under the umbrella of Environmental Justice concerns if the sites are on tribal lands or access to a specific location has been granted by treaty right. Compliance with Executive Order 12898 concerning Environmental Justice was accomplished through opportunities for the public to receive information on this EIS in conjunction with consultation and coordination described in Section 1.6 of this document. This EIS and contributing socioeconomic analysis provide a consideration of the impacts with regard to disproportionately adverse impacts on minority and/or low-income groups, including Native Americans. Campbell County’s population in 2007 was comprised of 94.1 percent white non-Hispanic, 3.5 percent Hispanic, 1.7 percent Native American, 1.3 percent two or more races, and 1.1 percent other races (the total exceeds 100 percent because Hispanics could be counted in other races). In 2007, approximately 7.6 percent of Campbell County’s residents had income below the poverty level and 3.0 percent of the county’s residents had income below 50 percent of the poverty level (City-Data 2009). 3.17.7.2 Environmental Consequences 3.17.7.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 Economic and demographic data indicate that neither minority populations nor people living at or below the poverty level make up a “meaningfully greater increment” of the total population in Gillette, Wright or Campbell County than they do in the state as a whole, or that they would be unequally impacted if North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are leased under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3. Also, the Native American population is smaller than in the state as a whole, and there are no known Native American sacred sites on or near the BLM study areas for the proposed LBA tracts. Consequently, implementation of the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 3-300 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences or 3 would not adversely affect the environmental justice considerations in the area. 3.17.7.2.2 No Action Alternative Economic and demographic data indicate that neither minority populations nor people living at or below the poverty level make up a “meaningfully greater increment” of the total population in Gillette, Wright or Campbell County than they do in the state as a whole, or that they would be unequally impacted if the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracks are leased under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3. Also, the Native American population is smaller than in the state as a whole, and there are no known Native American sacred sites on or near the three existing applicant mines. Consequently, the No Action Alternative would not adversely affect the environmental justice considerations in the area. 3.17.8 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Surface coal mines are required to pay royalty and other taxes and fees as required by federal, state, and local regulations. BLM compares the amount of coal reported as produced with the estimated amount of unmined, in-place coal to verify that the federal coal is efficiently mined and that royalties are paid on all of the coal that is mined. 3.17.9 Residual Impacts No socioeconomic residual impacts are expected. 3.18 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man’s Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity The NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1502.16 require a discussion of the “relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” as part of an EIS. This requirement is duplicated in the BLM NEPA Handbook Chapter V, Section B.2.a.(3) and C.3.h.(2) (BLM 2008). 3.18.1 Local Area If the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are leased, almost all components of the present ecological system that have developed over a long period of time would be modified as the coal is mined. In the long term, the reclaimed land surface contours would resemble the original topography, although it would be slightly lower in elevation and lack some of the original diversity of geomorphic form. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-301

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Mining operations and associated activities would degrade the air quality and visual resources of the area on a short-term basis. Following coal removal, removal of surface facilities, and completion of reclamation, there would be no long-term impact on air quality. The long-term impact on visual resources would be minor. The forage and associated grazing and wildlife habitat that these six LBA tracts currently provide would be temporarily and incrementally disturbed during mining and reclamation. If the LBA tracts are mined, there would be a loss of native vegetation on a total of 32,783.4 acres (total of all Proposed Actions) up to a maximum of 53,773.0 acres (total of all Alternatives 2 and 3) with an accompanying disturbance of grazing land and wildlife habitat. This disturbance would occur incrementally over a period of years. Soils would be replaced and vegetation would be restored, as required by the mining plan (see Sections 3.8 and 3.9). Plant communities may never return to their original compositions, although the reclaimed lands would be returned to equivalent or better forage production capacity for domestic livestock before the performance bond is released. Long-term productivity would depend largely on postmining range management practices, which to a large extent would be controlled by private landowners and the Forest Service. Mining would disturb pronghorn and mule deer habitat. As discussed in Section 3.10.5, potential sage-grouse habitat is scarce throughout the general Wright analysis area. There would be loss and displacement of wildlife in the short term during mining, but based on monitoring of previously reclaimed lands, it is anticipated that the reclaimed habitat would support a diversity of wildlife species similar to premining conditions over the long term. The diversity of species found in undisturbed lands would not be completely restored on the mined lands for an estimated 50 years after the initiation of disturbance. Reestablishment of mature sagebrush habitat, which is crucial for pronghorn and sage-grouse, would be expected to take even longer. If the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are leased and mined, depths to groundwater in the overburden and coal would increase in an area extending further to the west and south of the existing mine areas in the short term. Groundwater flow through the undisturbed aquifers near the backfilled mine pits would be interrupted until saturation levels in the backfill have risen and the rates of recharge to and discharge from the backfill equilibrate. The water levels in the coal aquifer should return to premining levels at some time after mining and CBNG development in the vicinity have ceased because recharge areas would not be disturbed when recovering the coal in the LBA tracts. Groundwater quality in and near the backfilled mine pits would be different from pre-mining conditions after reclamation, although it would remain adequate for livestock and wildlife use. CBNG is currently being recovered from within and near these six LBA tracts, and BLM’s analysis suggests that a large portion of the CBNG resources on the 3-302 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences tracts has been recovered or would be recovered prior to mining. CBNG that is not recovered prior to mining would be vented to the atmosphere during the mining process. CBNG is composed primarily of methane, which is a greenhouse gas. A discussion of methane emissions from coal mining operations in the U.S. is included in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.14. Total U.S. methane emissions attributable to coal mining would not be likely to decrease if these six LBA tracts are not leased at this time. Likewise, it would not be likely that total U.S. methane emissions in the long term would measurably increase if these six LBA tracts are leased at this time. Short-term impacts to recreation values may occur from a reduction in big game populations due to habitat disturbance and reduction in access to some public lands. These changes would primarily impact hunting in the lease areas. However, because reclamation would result in a wildlife habitat similar to that which presently exists and access to any public lands affected by mining would be restored, there should be no long-term adverse impacts on hunting opportunities. Another minor short-term impact to recreation values may occur due to the loss of public access to the Little Thunder Reservoir as a result of leasing and mining the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. Public access to Pronghorn Lake, a postmining final impoundment that is located within an active portion of Black Thunder Mine’s current permit area, will occur once it no longer serves a function (storage for dust suppression water) for the mining operation. The recreational activities provided by Little Thunder Reservoir could be replaced by those provided by Pronghorn Lake; however, the time at which Pronghorn Lake becomes accessible to the general public may not coincide with the time at which Little Thunder Reservoir becomes inaccessible, but there should be no long-term adverse impacts on fishing opportunities. The short- and long-term economy of the region would be enhanced as a result of the Action Alternatives. Leasing and subsequently mining the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract, would extend the life of the existing Black Thunder Mine by up to a total of 14.2 additional years (Tables 2-2, 2-4, and 2-6). Leasing and subsequently mining the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, would extend the life of the existing Jacobs Ranch Mine by up to 22.8 additional years (Table 2-8). Leasing and subsequently mining the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract, would extend the life of the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine by up to a total of 11.4 additional years (Tables 2-10 and 2-12). 3.18.1.1 Human Health Impact Assessment In 2008, public concerns were brought to BLM’s attention in regard to conducting human health impact assessments in the PRB where coal mining activities occur. A health impact assessment (HIA) is a method used in assessing potential impacts of a proposed project on human health. HIAs examine health on a broad scale, including social, emotional, and cultural Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-303

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences impacts as well as physical impacts. HIAs rely on available scientific data, public testimony, and modeling to predict potential health impacts. Public concerns included emissions from coal mining activities like particulate matter and nitrogen oxide exposure and their potential impact on the health of people living in the vicinity of surface coal mines located in the eastern PRB. BLM does not have jurisdiction in regard to conducting human health assessments. However, BLM has invited the Wyoming Department of Health/Environmental Health Section and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention to review and provide comment on the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS. Air pollution is controlled by state and federal air quality regulations and standards established under the federal Clean Air Act Amendments. State implementation plans are in place to ensure proposed actions like coal mining comply with all associated air quality regulations and criteria. The Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) are stricter than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and are enforced by WDEQ. As described in Section 3.4.2.3 of this EIS, the WDEQ/AQD developed a Natural Events Action Plan for the coal mines of the PRB. The plan, based on EPA Natural Event Policy guidance, identifies potential control measures for protecting public health and minimizing exceedences of the PM10 NAAQS. All mines are required to conduct air quality modeling to show that their proposed operations will comply with the WAAQS and NAAQS, and they are required to monitor to demonstrate that their actual air emissions do not exceed the standards. The WDEQ/AQD coal mining permit process requires air quality modeling of the primary air pollutants PM10 and NO2. Sections 3.4.2.3 and 3.4.3.3 in this EIS addresses air quality mitigation measures that WDEQ/AQD implemented in order to prevent exceedences of the WAAQS and NAAQS by PRB surface coal mines. As stated above and as discussed in Section 3.4, mining operations and associated activities would effectively degrade the air quality in the vicinity on a short-term basis. Following coal removal, removal of all surface facilities, and completion of reclamation, there would be no long-term impact on air quality. 3.18.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions There has been, and continues to be, considerable scientific investigation and discussion as to the causes of recent historic rise in global mean temperatures and whether a warming trend will continue. This section will address greenhouse gas emissions as specifically related to the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines, the applicant mines adjacent to the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. 3-304 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Greenhouse gases (GHGs) have been raised as a concern due to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a theory that certain gases in the atmosphere absorb thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and trap heat within the atmosphere like glass in a greenhouse. GHGs currently include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapor, ozone (O3), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PRCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). GHGs are not currently regulated, but there is a consensus in the international community that the global mean surface temperature is increasing and that most of the warming trend is likely due to the increase in anthropogenic (man-made) GHG concentrations. If the coal in the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts is leased and mined, additional GHGs would be released into the atmosphere. As discussed in Chapter 1, BLM does not authorize mining through the issuance of a federal coal lease. WDEQ, with oversight from OSM, has regulatory authority in issuing permits to mine coal in Wyoming. However, BLM considers the impacts of mining coal in this EIS because it is a logical consequence of issuing a maintenance lease to an existing coal mine. The use of the coal after it is mined is not determined at the time of leasing. However, almost all coal that is currently being mined in the Wyoming PRB is being used to generate electricity by coal-fired power plants. A discussion of emissions and by-products that are generated by burning coal to produce electricity is included in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.14, and a more complete discussion of the current status of global climate change and cumulative considerations is included Section 4.2.14.1. As discussed in Chapter 2, under Black Thunder Mine’s currently approved mining plan, which represents the No Action Alternative, TBCC anticipates that the mine would produce its remaining estimated 1,236.4 million tons of recoverable coal reserves in 10.2 years at an average annual production rate (post-2008) of approximately 135 million tons. Leasing and subsequently mining the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, each under the Proposed Action at an average annual production rate of 135 million tons, TBCC estimates that the life of the mine would be extended by about 2.0, 1.6, and 2.8 additional years, respectively. Leasing and subsequently mining the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts at the same average annual production rate under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract, TBCC estimates the life of the mine would be extended by 4.8, 2.3, and 7.1 years, respectively. As discussed in Chapter 2, under Jacobs Ranch Mine’s currently approved mining plan, which represents the No Action Alternative, JRCC anticipates that the mine would produce its remaining estimated 423.0 million tons of recoverable coal reserves in 10.6 years at an average annual production rate (post-2008) of approximately 40 million tons. Leasing and subsequently mining the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under the Proposed Action, JRCC Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-305

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences estimates that the life of the mine would be extended by about 16.7 additional years at an average annual production rate of 40 million tons. Leasing and subsequently mining the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, JRCC estimates the life of the mine would be extended by 22.8 years at the same average annual production rate. As discussed in Chapter 2, under North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s currently approved mining plan, which represents the No Action Alternative, PRC anticipates that the mine would produce its remaining estimated 1,013.4 million tons of recoverable coal reserves in 10.9 years at an average annual production rate (post-2008) of approximately 95 million tons. Leasing and subsequently mining the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, each under the Proposed Action at an average annual production rate of 95 million tons, PRC estimates that the life of the mine would be extended by about 6.3 and 3.3 additional years, respectively. Leasing and subsequently mining the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts at the same average annual production rate under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract, PRC estimates the life of the mine would be extended by 7.8 and 3.6 years, respectively. Some PRB surface coal mines have completed GHG emissions inventories. Not all three applicant mines have completed a GHG emissions inventory, although mines both within and outside the general Wright analysis area conducted inventories of expected GHG emissions that occurred in 2007. These mines also projected emissions for a typical year of operations if additional lands are leased and mined. Emissions are measured as metric tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2e), which is the amount of gas emitted, multiplied by its warming potential relative to CO2. The inventories included emissions from all sources, including all types of carbon fuels used in the mining operations, electricity used on site (i.e., lighting for facilities, roads, and operations and electrically powered equipment and conveyors) and mining processes (i.e., blasting, coal fires caused by spontaneous combustion and methane released from exposed coal seams). An additional category contributing to CO2e emissions, which was not included in CO2e emissions estimates for the three applicant mines due to a lack of information, includes rail transport, both on-site and in moving coal to the buyers. The expected CO2e emissions that occurred in 2007 for the mines that have not completed emissions inventories were estimated by assuming the CO2e emission ratios (CO2e/million tons of coal produced, CO2e/million bank cubic yards of overburden moved, and CO2e/acres of disturbance) for the mines that completed emissions inventories would be equivalent to those mines that have not. The correlations were based on the 2007 coal production, overburden production, and disturbance acres (facilities plus active pit acres) for three source types (fuel, electricity, and mining process) at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines (WWC 2009). Since the combined CO2e emission estimates for the three applicant mines are based on limited information, the estimated values are tentative. For the purpose of this analysis, these combined total values are only included here as a means of 3-306 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences obtaining a representation of potential CO2e emissions, should the six LBA tracts be leased and mined. CO2e emissions are projected to increase at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle mines if the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are added to the mining operations (Table 3-24). The increase in CO2e emissions are expected to result from the additional fuels (especially diesel) that would be used in consideration of the increased coal and overburden haul distances, as well as increased use of electricity and explosives related to increasing overburden thicknesses. The incremental changes with the addition of these six LBA tracts to the applicant mines’ operations represent the estimated CO2e emissions for the Proposed Actions as well as Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract. Estimates assume that the combined annual production rate from these three mines is 270 million tons. Table 3-24. Estimated Annual Equivalent CO2 Emissions1 at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mines.
2007 577,463 465,908 201,871 1,245,241 With LBA Tracts 1,429,582 777,141 296,166 2,502,889

Source Fuel Electricity Mining Process Total of Three Sources
1

CO2e in tonnes Source: WWC 2009

The Center for Climate Strategies estimates that activities in Wyoming will account for approximately 60.3 million metric tons (tonnes) of gross CO2e emissions in 2010 and 69.4 million tonnes in 2020 (Center for Climate Strategies 2007). Using those projections, the 2007 emissions from the three applicant mines total (Table 3-23) represents 2.22 percent of the 2010 state wide emissions. With the addition of the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, the estimated total emissions at the three applicant mines would represent 3.61 percent of the projected 2020 state-wide emissions. As mentioned above, the CO2e estimates for the combined North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts in Table 3-23 include projected methane emissions vented from exposed unmined coal. The estimated annual amount of CO2e emissions from vented methane was approximately 483,600 metric tons, or about 19.3 percent of the estimated total annual CO2e emissions from mining the six tracts (WWC 2009). The total methane emissions from anthropogenic sources in the U.S. in 2007 was 699.9 million metric tons (USDOE 2007a). Based on 2007 production from the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines, the estimated annual methane emissions vented from exposed unmined coal was 0.484 million metric tons Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-307

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences CO2e (WWC 2009), or about 0.07 percent of the total 2007 U.S. methane emissions from anthropogenic sources. Please see Section 4.2.14 for an assessment of cumulative impacts related to GHGs, and how the Action Alternatives considered in this EIS contribute. 3.19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources The major commitment of resources would be the mining and consumption of 2,435.4 million tons (Proposed Action for all six LBA tracts) up to a maximum of 3,910.6 million tons (Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative, for all six LBA tracts) of coal to be used for electrical power generation. CBNG that is not recovered prior to mining would also be irreversibly and irretrievably lost (see additional discussion of the impacts of venting CBNG to the atmosphere in Sections 3.18 and 4.2.14). It is estimated that 1 to 2 percent of the energy produced would be required to mine the coal, and this energy would also be irretrievably lost. The characteristics of topsoil on approximately 32,783 acres (total for all six LBA tracts, each under the Proposed Action) up to a maximum of approximately 50,773 acres (total for all six LBA tracts, each under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative) would be irreversibly changed. Soil formation processes, although continuing, would be irreversibly altered during miningrelated activities. Newly formed soil material would be similar but not identical to that in the natural landscape. Direct and indirect wildlife deaths caused by mining operations or associated activity would be an irreversible loss. No T&E species (animal or plant) that are listed for Campbell County are known to occur on the BLM study area for each of the six LBA tracts, therefore none would be lost as a result of the Proposed Actions or alternatives. The black-tailed prairie dog is the most common sensitive species in the area and it therefore has the most potential to be affected (killed or injured) by activities in or near their colonies, and habitat would be lost until reclamation takes place. Any activities that jeopardize prairie dogs and their habitat would also affect those sensitive species that are strongly associated with them, namely the mountain plover, burrowing owl, chestnut-collared longspur, and McCown’s longspur. Despite their strong association with prairie dogs, these avian species can all utilize short-grass habitats other than prairie dog colonies; however, they would benefit from the presence of undisturbed prairie dog colonies. Direct and indirect deaths of other sensitive species that occur on the LBA tracts (refer to Appendix H) caused by mining operations or associated activity would be an irreversible loss. Loss of human life may conceivably occur due to the mining operations and vehicular and train traffic. On the basis of surface coal mine accident rates in Wyoming as determined by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) (1997) for the 10-year period 1987-1996, fatal accidents (excluding contractors) 3-308 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences occur at the rate of 0.003 per 200,000 man-hours worked. Disabling (lost time) injuries occur at the rate of 1.46 per 200,000 man-hours worked. Any injury or loss of life would be an irretrievable commitment of human resources. Disturbance of all known historic and prehistoric cultural sites eligible for the NRHP on the mine areas would be mitigated to the maximum extent possible. However, accidental destruction of presently unknown archeological or paleontological values would be irreversible.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

3-309

BLM

DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications
Volume 2 of 2
Chapters 4 - 8 and Appendices

Wyoming State Office – High Plains District

West Loadout Facilities Black Thunder Mine, Wyoming

Elk on Reclaimed Rangeland Jacobs Ranch Mine, Wyoming

Elk on Reclaimed Rangeland Black Thunder Mine, Wyoming

Loadout Facilities in Porcupine Creek Valley North Antelope Rochelle Mine, Wyoming

June 2009

BLM/WY/PL-09/026+1320

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 4.0 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impacts of an action added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who is responsible for such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions occurring over time. This section summarizes the cumulative impacts that are occurring as a result of existing development in the Powder River Basin (PRB1) and considers how those impacts would change if other projected development in the area occurs and if the six LBA tracts in the general Wright analysis area are leased and mined. BLM completed three regional Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) evaluating the potential cumulative impacts of surface coal development in the 1970s and early 1980s (BLM 1974, 1979, and 1981). A draft document for a fourth regional EIS was prepared and released in 1984 (BLM 1984). Since those regional EISs were prepared, BLM has prepared a number of NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) analyses evaluating coal leasing actions and oil and gas development in the PRB. Each of these NEPA analyses includes an analysis of cumulative impacts in the Wyoming PRB. Currently, the BLM is completing a regional technical study, called the PRB Coal Review, to help evaluate the cumulative impacts of coal and other mineral development in the PRB. The PRB Coal Review consists of three tasks:
•

Task 1 identifies existing resource conditions in the PRB for the baseline year (2003) and, for applicable resources, updates the BLM's 1996 status check for coal development in the PRB. Task 2 defines the past and present development activities in the PRB and their associated development levels as of 2003 and develops a forecast of reasonably foreseeable development in the PRB through 2020. The reasonably foreseeable activities fall into three broad categories: coal development (coal mine and coal-related), oil and gas development (conventional oil and gas, coal bed natural gas, and major transportation pipelines), and other development, which includes development that is not energy-related as well as other energy-related development. Task 3 predicts the cumulative impacts that could be expected to occur to air, water, socioeconomic, and other resources if the development occurs as projected in the forecast developed under Task 2.

•

A series of reports have been prepared to present the results of the PRB Coal Review task studies. The Task 1, 2, and 3 reports represent components of a technical study of cumulative development in the PRB; they do not evaluate
1

Refer to page xxvi for a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this document.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-1

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences specific proposed projects, but they provide information that BLM is using to evaluate the cumulative impacts that would be expected to occur if specific projects or applications, such as the six LBA tracts in the general Wright analysis area, are approved. The Task 1 reports, which include air quality conditions, water resources conditions, social/economic conditions, and other resource conditions, and the Task 2 Report have been completed. The Task 3 reports for air quality conditions, social/economic conditions, and other resource conditions have been completed. The Task 3A Cumulative Air Quality Effects has been updated and the new data and analysis have been included in this document to project air quality effects for 2015. The Task 3 evaluation of water resource conditions is in progress, with the surface water effects complete and available. The information in these reports is summarized later in this chapter, and the completed reports are available for viewing at the BLM offices in Casper and Cheyenne and on the Wyoming BLM website at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/ prbdocs.html. The PRB includes portions of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana. The Wyoming portion of the PRB is the primary focus of the PRB Coal Review reports. The Montana portion of the PRB is included in the Task 2 Report and in the Task 1 and 3 air resources studies. For the majority of resources in the Task 1 reports and for the Task 2 Report, the Wyoming portion of the PRB Coal Review study area encompasses all of Campbell County, all of Sheridan and Johnson counties outside of the Bighorn National Forest, and the northern portion of Converse County (Figure 4-1). For some components of the Task 2 Report and for the Task 1 and 3 air resource studies, the Montana PRB Coal Review study area includes portions of Big Horn, Custer, Powder River, Rosebud, and Treasure counties. For several resources, the Task 1 and Task 3 study areas include only potentially affected portions of the Wyoming PRB Coal Review study area; for other resources, the study area extends outside of Wyoming and Montana because the impacts would extend beyond the PRB. For example, the groundwater drawdown is evaluated in the area surrounding and extending west of the mines, because that is the area where surface coal mining operations would impact groundwater resources; but air quality impacts are evaluated over a multi-state area because they would be expected to extend beyond the PRB. Section 4.1 summarizes the information presented in the PRB Coal Review Task 1 and Task 2 reports. Section 4.2 summarizes the predicted cumulative impacts to air, water, socioeconomic, and other resources presented in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 reports. 4.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Wyoming PRB are considered in the Task 1 and Task 2 reports for the PRB Coal Review. The Task 1 reports describe the existing situation as of the end of 2003, which reflects the past and present levels of development. The Task 2 Report defines the past and present development activities in the PRB as of the end of 2003 and projects 4-2 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences

PSO Ash Creek Mine Big Horn Mine

SHERIDAN COUNTY
R .R .F

SHERIDAN

CAMPBELL COUNTY

Arvada

Hartzog

WRIGHT

Two Elk Unit 1

3
SCALE: 1"= 20 MILES

LEGEND
Federal Coal Lease Areas Railroads Existing and Proposed Power Plants Former Surface Coal Mine Sites Task 1 and 2 Study Boundary COAL MINE SUBREGIONS Buckskin, Dry Fork, Eagle Butte, 1 Subregion 1 - Rawhide, and Wyodak Mines Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal Creek, and 2 Subregion 2 - Cordero-Rojo Mines

CONVERSE
COUNTY

Dave
Johnston
Mine

3
Figure 4-1.

Antelope, North Rochelle/Black Subregion 3 - Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope/Rochelle Mines

Dave Johnston

Wyoming Study Area for PRB Coal Review Studies Evaluating Current and Projected Levels of Development.

B.N.S.F. & U.P. RR

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

N B.

Dry Fork

BUFFALO

GILLETTE

Wygen 1
Wygen 2
Wyodak Neil Simpson 1
Neil Simpson 2

N B. .S R .R .F

Barber Creek

JOHNSON
COUNTY

4-3

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences reasonably foreseeable development in the Wyoming PRB through 2020. The PRB Coal Review will be updated when more current development information is available. 4.1.1 Coal Development 4.1.1.1 Coal Mine Development The Powder River Federal Coal Region was decertified as a federal coal production region by the Powder River Regional Coal Team (PRRCT) in 1990. Decertification of the region allows leasing to take place on an application basis, as discussed in the regulations at 43 CFR 3425.1-5. Between 1990 and January 2009, the BLM’s Wyoming State Office held 25 competitive coal lease sales and issued 20 new federal coal leases containing almost 5.8 billion tons of coal using the LBA process. The lease sales are listed in Table 1-1, and the leased tracts are shown in Figure 1-1. This leasing process has undergone the scrutiny of two appeals to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) and one audit by the General Accounting Office (GAO). As can be seen in Figure 4-2, leasing activity has generally paralleled production since decertification. This is consistent with the PRRCT’s objective at the time of decertification, which was to use the LBA process to lease tracts of federal coal to maintain production at existing mines. The pending applications in the Wyoming PRB are shown in Table 1-2. BLM has also completed three exchanges involving federal coal resources in the Wyoming PRB since decertification:


Belco Exchange – an exchange of lease rights for a portion of the former Hay Creek federal coal tract for lease rights to coal near Buffalo, Wyoming, which became unmineable when Interstate 90 was constructed. This exchange was authorized by Public Law 95-554 and completed in 2000. Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company (P&M) Exchange – an exchange of federal coal in Sheridan County, Wyoming, for land and mineral rights in Lincoln, Carbon, and Sheridan counties, Wyoming, completed in 2004. Powder River Coal Company AVF Exchange – an exchange of lease rights underlying an AVF at the Caballo Mine, which cannot be mined, for lease rights of equal value adjacent to existing federal leases at Powder River Coal Company’s North Antelope Rochelle Mine, completed in 2006.



Table 4-1 provides information about the status, ownership and production levels for the existing surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB in 2003 and their status as of 2007. In 2003, which was the baseline year for the PRB Coal Review Task 1 and Task 2 studies, there were 12 active surface coal mines and one inactive mine. Since 2003, the inactive mine (Coal Creek) has resumed 4-4 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Figure 4-2.

6,000,000,000

Powder River Basin Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming

5,000,000,000

4,000,000,000

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications
Cumulative Tons Federal Coal Leased by Year Cumulative Tons Federal Coal Mined by Year
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Tons

3,000,000,000

2,000,000,000

Tons of Federal Coal Leased Versus Tons of Federal Coal Mined Since 1990.

1,000,000,000

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Year

4-5

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-1. Status and Ownership of Wyoming PRB Coal Mines for 2003, the PRB Coal Review Baseline Year, and for 2007.
2007 Permitted Coal Production Production Level (mm Tons)2 2007 Mine Owner (mm Tons)1 SUBREGION 1 (North Gillette) Kiewit Mining 25.3 42.0 Properties
WFA Foundation Coal West Peabody Holding Co. Wyodak Resources 5.3 15.0

2003 Mine Buckskin Dry Fork Eagle Butte Rawhide Wyodak Total Belle Ayr Caballo Cordero Rojo Coal Creek Total Antelope Black Thunder Jacobs Ranch N. Antelope Rochelle N. Rochelle

1994 Mine Owner SMC (Zeigler) Phillips/WFA &
Fort Union Ltd Cyprus-Amax Carter (Exxon) Wyodak Resources

Status and Additional Comments Active Active (includes former Fort Union Mine) Active Active Active (includes former Clovis Point Mine)

Cyprus-Amax Carter (Exxon) & Western Energy Kennecott & Drummond ARCO

25.0 35.0 17.1 24.0 5.0 12.0 77.7 128.0 SUBREGION 2 (South Gillette) Foundation Coal West 26.6 45.0 Peabody Holding Co. Rio Tinto Energy America3 Arch Coal Inc. 31.2 40.5 50.0 65.0

Active Active (includes Rocky Butte and West Rocky Butte leases) Active (consolidation of former Cordero and Caballo Rojo Mines) Inactive in 2003, operations resumed in 2006

10.2 25.0 108.5 185.0 SUBREGION 3 (Wright) 34.5 65.3 38.1 91.5 20.9 36.0 100.0 55.0 99.0 35.0

Kennecott ARCO Kerr-McGee Peabody SMC (Zeigler)

Rio Tinto Energy America3 Arch Coal Inc. Rio Tinto Energy America3 Peabody Holding Co. Arch Coal Inc.

Active Active Active Active (consolidation of former North Antelope and Rochelle Mines) Inactive since 2005, leases split between Black Thunder and North Antelope Rochelle Mines

Total 250.3 325.0 TOTAL FOR 3 MINE GROUPS 436.5 638.0 1 Wyoming State Inspector of Mines (2007a) and Shamley (2008)
2 WDEQ 2007 permitting levels (Shamley 2008).
3 Kennecott Energy Company changed its name to Rio Tinto Energy America in 2006.

4-6

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences operations and the North Rochelle Mine has been incorporated into the Black Thunder Mine following its purchase by the operator of the Black Thunder Mine. The North Rochelle Mine leases were divided between Black Thunder and North Antelope Rochelle Mine in 2006. Peabody has deferred startup of their new mine, the School Creek Mine, which is located between the Black Thunder and North Antelope Rochelle mines, until 2009 or later. These mines are all located in Campbell and Converse counties, just west of the outcrop of the Wyodak coal, where the coal is at the shallowest depth (Figure 1-1). As indicated in Table 4-1, there have been numerous changes in mine ownership since decertification, which have resulted in mine consolidations and mine closings within the PRB. Two recently active surface coal mines in Sheridan County (the Big Horn Coal Mine) and southern Converse County (the Dave Johnston Mine) have ended mining operations, relinquished their federal coal leases, and are reclaiming areas of disturbance. The lands within the Dave Johnston Mine permit boundary are owned by PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp requested a change in post mining land use from livestock/wildlife grazing to Industrial for the areas that would be affected by a wind project right-of-way. Some of the area was on full reclamation bond release and some area included was on pre-law lands. LQD approved this change of land use in three stages between September of 2007 and May of 2008. The Glenrock Wind Energy Project development is underway and slatted to go on line in 2009. There are existing permits for other surface coal mining-related operations in the PRB. These include the Ash Creek and Welch Mine permits in Sheridan County and the Izita Mine permit in Campbell County. Operations at these sites are completed and the disturbed areas have been reclaimed, but monitoring of the reclaimed areas is no longer ongoing. The KFx Mine, located north of Gillette on privately owned coal, has stopped mining coal for processing at the KFx coal enhancement plant, which is discussed in Section 4.1.1.2.4. The Fort Union plant was idled down in March 2008, until further notice. The active mines in the Wyoming PRB are geographically grouped into three subregions (Figure 4-1). For purposes of this cumulative impact discussion, these subregions are called the North Gillette, South Gillette, and Wright subregions. Table 4-1 lists the mines included in each subregion. A fourth subregion includes former and proposed mines in Sheridan County, Wyoming, and existing mines just north of Sheridan County, in Montana. There are currently no active mines in the Wyoming portion of the fourth subregion. However, the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report projected that a new mine would be developed by P&M near Sheridan by 2010. In April, 2007, P&M and CONSOL Energy Inc. announced that they have formed a new company, Youngs Creek Mining Company, LLC, and entered into a joint agreement to develop a new mine in Wyoming north of Sheridan (Reuters 2007). According to the announcement, engineering, environmental and permitting work are in progress, but actual mine construction will not start until the joint venture has enough coal sales Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-7

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences under contract to justify the investment. project are all privately owned. The coal reserves included in this

The surface coal mines listed in Table 4-1 currently produce over 96 percent of the coal produced in Wyoming each year. Since 1989, coal production in the PRB has increased by an average of six percent per year. The increasing production is primarily due to increasing sales of low-sulfur, low-cost PRB coal to electric utilities who must comply with the Phase I requirements of Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Electric utilities account for 97 percent of Wyoming’s coal sales. In 2003 (the baseline year for the PRB Coal Review), more than 35 percent of the coal mined in the United States came from the Wyoming PRB. By 2007, about 38 percent of the coal mined in the United States came from the Wyoming PRB (USDOE 2008a). BLM estimates that the surface coal mines listed in Table 4-1 currently have about 125,180 acres of federal coal leased in Campbell and Converse counties. This represents approximately 4.1 percent of Campbell County, where the majority of the leases are located. Task 2 of the PRB Coal Review projected coal development into the future for the years 2010, 2015, and 2020. Due to the variables associated with future coal production, two projected coal production scenarios (representing an upper and a lower production level) were developed to bracket the most likely foreseeable regional coal production level. The basis for the projected production levels included: 1) an analysis of historic PRB production levels in comparison to the gross domestic product and national coal demand; 2) an analysis of PRB coal market forecasts that model the impact of gross domestic product growth, potential regulatory changes affecting coal-fired power plants, and mining and transportation costs on PRB coal demand; 3) the availability, projected production cost, and quality of future minespecific coal reserves within the PRB region; and 4) the availability of adequate infrastructure for coal transportation. The projected upper and lower production levels subsequently were allocated to the Wyoming PRB subregions, discussed above, and to individual mines based on past market shares. Individual mine production levels were reviewed relative to potential future production constraints (e.g., loadout capacities), permitted production levels, mining costs, and coal quality. Then the projected future production was aggregated on a subregion basis. The actual 2003 and 2005 production levels and the two projected coal production scenarios for those years are shown on Figure 4-3. The two projected production levels for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown on Figure 4-3 and in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The actual 2007 production level is also shown on Figure 4-3 as a reference. 4-8 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Lower Production Scenerio

Upper Production Scenario

Actual Production

600,000,000

500,000,000

400,000,000

300,000,000

200,000,000

Figure 4-3.

Projected Total Coal Production from Campbell and Converse Counties Under the Lower and Upper Production Scenarios.

Tons/ Year

100,000,000

2003

2005

2007

Year
4-9

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

2010

2015

2020

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-2. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine Development, Lower Coal Production Scenario.
Cumulative Permanently Reclaimed Area (acres) Cumulative Active Mining Area and Unreclaimed Mined Area (acres) Cumulative Area Disturbed and Unavailable For Reclamation1 (acres)

Subregion

Annual Production (million tons)

Cumulative Disturbed Area (acres)

Total Mine Employment

Annual Water Consumption (mmgpy)

Annual Water Production (acre-ft)

Baseline year (2003) North Gillette Subregion South Gillette Subregion Wright Subregion Total for 2003 55 77 231 363 12,047 21,249 35,498 68,794 3,054 6,783 11,401 21,238 3,360 6,107 13,992 23,459 5,633 8,359 10,105 24,097 746 1,174 3,090 5,010 387 544 1,709 2,640 586
1,373
2,295
4,254

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2010 North Gillette Subregion South Gillette Subregion Wright Subregion Total for 2010 62 95 254 411 15,231 28,021 55,410 98,662 5,004 12,183 27,751 44,938 3,968 6,830 16,588 27,386 6,260 9,008 11,070 26,338 787 1,323 3,153 5,263 441 656 1,874 2,971 505 2,072 4,354 6,931

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2015 North Gillette Subregion South Gillette Subregion Wright Subregion Total for 2015 74 112 281 467 17,457 32,356 67,423 117,236 6,654 15,683 38,851 61,188 4,202 7,314 16,983 28,499 6,601 9,359 11,589 27,549 830 1,369 3,186 5,405 543 764 2,077 3,384 505 2,072 4,354 6,931

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2020 North Gillette Subregion South Gillette Subregion Wright Subregion Total for 2020
1

78 126 291 495

19,729 36,994 80,720 137,443

8,429 19,683 51,351 79,463

4,350 7,589 17,243 29,182

6,950 9,723 12,124 28,797

840 1,476 3,215 5,531

569 845 2,157 3,571

505 2,072 4,354 6,931

Area unavailable for reclamation includes disturbed areas occupied by permanent or long-term facilities such as buildings, roads, topsoil stockpiles, etc. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005a)

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-3. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine Development, Upper Coal Production Scenario.
Cumulative Active Mining Area and Unreclaimed Mined Area (acres) Baseline Year (2003) North Gillette Subregion South Gillette Subregion Wright Subregion Total for 2003 55 77 232 363 12,047 21,249 35,498 68,794 3,054 6,783 11,401 21,238 3,360 6,107 13,992 23,459 5,633 8,359 10,105 24,097 746 1,174 3,090 5,010 387 544 1,709 2,640 586 1,373 2,295 4,254 Cumulative Area Disturbed and Unavailable For Reclamation1 (acres)

Subregion

Annual Production (million tons)

Cumulative Disturbed Area (acres)

Cumulative Permanently Reclaimed Area (acres)

Total Mine Employment

Annual Water Consumption (mmgpy)

Annual Water Production (acre-ft)

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2010 North Gillette Subregion South Gillette Subregion Wright Subregion Total for 2010 78 117 284 479 15,911 29,279 57,258 102,448 5,404 13,416 27,951 46,771 4,217 7,536 18,236 29,989 6,290 8,328 11,070 25,688 811 1,375 3,153 5,339 570 807 2,101 3,478 505 2,072 4,354 6,931

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2015 North Gillette Subregion South Gillette Subregion Wright Subregion Total for 2015 104 138 301 543 18,490 35,624 70,431 124,545 7,329 18,616 39,451 65,396 4,500 8,248 19,391 32,139 6,660 8,760 11,589 27,009 905 1,431 3,186 5,522 785 952 1,834 3,571 505 2,072 4,354 6,931

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2020 North Gillette Subregion South Gillette Subregion Wright Subregion Total for 2020
1

121 148 307 576

21,311 42,981 84,797 149,089

9,529 25,016 51,651 86,196

4,766 8,758 21,021 34,545

7,013 9,206 12,124 28,345

1,019 1,444 3,215 5,678

935 1,018 2,279 4,232

505 2,072 4,354 6,931

Area Unavailable for reclamation includes disturbed areas occupied by permanent or long-term facilities such as buildings, roads, topsoil stockpiles, etc. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005a)

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-11

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Tables 4-2 and 4-3 show the cumulative coal mining disturbance as of the baseline year and the cumulative coal mine disturbance projected for the future years for the upper and lower coal production scenarios. In these tables, the baseline year and cumulative projected disturbance areas are broken down into three categories:
 

areas which are or projected to be permanently reclaimed; areas which are or projected to be undergoing active mining or which have been mined but are not yet reclaimed; and, areas which are or projected to be occupied by mine facilities, haul roads, stockpiles, and other long-term structures, and which are therefore unavailable for reclamation until mining operations are completed.



The two tables also include estimates of baseline year and projected future coal mining employment, water consumption, and water production. The six LBA tracts in the general Wright analysis area are associated with three of the four currently operating mines (Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope) in the southern-most group of mines in the eastern PRB (Figure 1-1). Each of these four operating mines has a least one LBA pending (Table 1-2). The analysis assumes that if the LBAs are offered and if the applicant becomes the lessee, each mine will increase current production to a level where the four mines collectively will produce at an aggregate production level midway between the low and high projected coal production scenarios for 2015 and 2020 shown on Figure 4-3 and in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The coal development levels and associated disturbance shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 include production at the four Wright area mines during the baseline year (2003) and projected production at the mines for 2010, 2015, and 2020. As discussed above, the projected development levels shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 are based on projected demand and coal market forecasts, which are not affected by a decision to lease or not to lease the six LBA tracts in the general Wright analysis area. The reserves in these six LBA tracts, if offered, and if the applicants become the lessees, would add to the mine life of each of the three Wright area coal mines. As discussed in Sections 1.1 and 2.1, Ark Land Company (ALC) estimates that there were 1,236.4 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on the existing Black Thunder Mine at the end of 2007. In 2007, the mine produced approximately 65.3 million tons and the currently approved (by WDEQ/AQD) air quality permit allows mining of up to 135 million tons of coal per year (mmtpy). If the mine produces at the estimated average of 135 million tons per year, the remaining recoverable reserves would be depleted in about 10 years (2017). ALC estimates that the North Hilight Field LBA Tract includes approximately 263.4 million tons of recoverable coal as applied for. Based on that estimate, acquisition of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would increase the recoverable reserves at the 4-12 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Black Thunder Mine by about 21 percent. At the estimated future production level (135 mmtpy), mine life would be extended by about 2 years. However, if WDEQ/AQD approves a higher annual rate of production, the coal would be recovered more quickly. ALC estimates that the South Hilight Field LBA Tract includes approximately 213.6 million tons of recoverable coal as applied for. Based on that estimate, acquisition of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract would increase the recoverable reserves at the Black Thunder Mine by about 17 percent. At the estimated future production level (135 mmtpy), mine life would be extended by about 1.6 years. However, if WDEQ/AQD approves a higher annual rate of production, the coal would be recovered more quickly. ALC estimates that the West Hilight Field LBA Tract includes approximately 377.9 million tons of recoverable coal as applied for. Based on that estimate, acquisition of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would increase the recoverable reserves at the Black Thunder Mine by nearly 31 percent. At the estimated future production level (135 mmtpy), mine life would be extended by about 2.8 years. However, if Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD) approves a higher annual rate of production, the coal would be recovered more quickly. As discussed in Sections 1.1 and 2.1, Jacobs Ranch Coal Company (JRCC) estimates that there were 423.0 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on the existing Jacobs Ranch Mine at the end of 2007. In 2007, the mine produced approximately 38.1 million tons and the currently approved (by WDEQ/AQD) air quality permit allows mining of up to 55 mmtpy. If the mine produces at the estimated average of 40 million tons per year, the remaining recoverable reserves would be depleted in about 10.6 years (2018). JRCC estimates that the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract includes approximately 669.6 million tons of recoverable coal as applied for. Based on that estimate, acquisition of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would increase the recoverable reserves at the Jacobs Ranch Mine by about 158 percent. At the estimated future production level (40 mmtpy), mine life would be extended by about 16.7 years. However, if production levels increase to the currently permitted level (55 mmtpy) or if WDEQ/AQD approves a higher annual rate of production, the coal would be recovered more quickly. As discussed in Sections 1.1 and 2.1, BTU Western Resources, Inc. (BTU) estimates that there were 1,031.4 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine at the end of 2007. In 2007, the mine produced approximately 91.5 million tons and the currently approved (by WDEQ/AQD) air quality permit allows mining of up to 105 mmtpy. If the mine produces at the estimated average of 95 million tons per year, the remaining recoverable reserves would be depleted in about 10.9 years (2018). BTU estimates that the North Porcupine LBA Tract includes approximately 601.2 million tons of recoverable coal as applied for. Based on that estimate, acquisition of the North Porcupine LBA Tract would increase the recoverable reserves at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine by about 58 percent. At the estimated future production level (95 mmtpy), mine life would be extended by about 6.3 years. However, if production levels increase to the currently Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-13

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences permitted level (105 mmtpy) or if WDEQ/AQD approves a higher annual rate of production, the coal would be recovered more quickly. BTU estimates that the South Porcupine LBA Tract includes approximately 309.7 million tons of recoverable coal as applied for. Based on that estimate, acquisition of the South Porcupine LBA Tract would increase the recoverable reserves at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine by about 30 percent. At the estimated future production level (95 mmtpy), mine life would be extended by about 3.3 years. However, if production levels increase to the currently permitted level (105 mmtpy) or if WDEQ/AQD approves a higher annual rate of production, the coal would be recovered more quickly. 4.1.1.2 Coal-Related Development Coal-related development as defined for this analysis includes railroads, coalfired power plants, major (230-kV) transmission lines, and coal technology projects. Table 4-4 summarizes the estimated disturbance associated with coalrelated development activities for the baseline year and the projected disturbance through 2020. The subsequent paragraphs summarize the existing coal-related development in the Wyoming PRB and the reasonably foreseeable development considered in the PRB Coal Review. Table 4-4. Baseline Year and Projected Development Scenario. 2003 4,891 Wyoming 2010 4,966 PRB Coal-Related 2020 5,911

Coal-Related Disturbance (Acres)

2015 5,911

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005a)

4.1.1.2.1 Coal Transportation As discussed above, electric utilities account for about 97 percent of Wyoming’s coal sales. Most of the coal sold to electric utilities is transported to power plants by rail. A small part, about two percent in 2007, of national coal production is exported abroad, but data are not published as to where this export coal is produced. The coal mines in the South Gillette and Wright subregions are served by a joint Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific (BNSF & UP) rail line. For the baseline year of 2003, the existing capacity of the line was estimated at approximately 350 mmtpy. For that same year, the existing capacity of the BNSF line, which services the North Gillette subregion, was estimated at 250 mmtpy. Expansion work was completed by 2008 that increased capacity to approximately 450 mmtpy, and plans have been announced to raise capacity to 500 mmtpy by 2012 (BNSF 2008, CANAC 2007). The PRB Coal Review projected that two coal transportation projects would be developed prior to 2020 in Wyoming: expansion of the BNSF & UP rail facilities south of Gillette and the construction of the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation (DM&E) rail line in Wyoming and South Dakota. A third 4-14 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences project proposed by the Tongue River Rail Company would be built between Decker and Miles City Montana. BNSF & UP completed work to improve sections of the existing joint rail line and had increased capacity from 350 mmtpy to 450 mmtpy by 2008 with plans to improve additional sections of the existing joint rail line and to further increase capacity to 500 mmtpy by 2012. This work includes construction of third and fourth main line track segments where needed. The increased capacity would accommodate the projected upper and lower production rates at the southern mines, which are projected to produce 439 mmtpy and 455 mmtpy by 2020. The remaining planned expansion projects are considered highly likely to occur. The proposed DM&E rail line would include new rail construction in South Dakota and Wyoming (approximately 15 and 265 miles, respectively) and 600 miles of rail line rehabilitation in South Dakota and Minnesota. Approximately 78 miles of the new rail construction would occur in the PRB study area, where the project would provide new rail spur services to the mines in the South Gillette and Wright subregions. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) released a final supplemental EIS for this project on December 30, 2005 and granted final approval to construct the rail line on February 15, 2006. The supplemental EIS, which addressed issues that were successfully appealed after an EIS was completed in 2001, was also appealed. The supplemental EIS was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in December 2006. In 2007, Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (CP) acquired DM&E and plans to integrate DM&E’s operations into Canadian Pacific Railway’s operations. The STB approved CP’s acquisition of DM&E on September 30, 2008 (AllBusiness 2008). The expansion into the PRB would require a substantial financial commitment and CP is concentrating on the acquisition of DM&E before making a decision on the expansion project. The STB recently announced approval of the final stretch of the rail line proposed by the Tongue River Railroad Company. The company must acquire necessary federal and state permits and ROWs through private and public property before constructing the line. If it is constructed, it would provide a shorter route for some of the mines in the North Gillette subregion, which ship coal on the existing BNSF rail line (Billings Gazette 2007a). For the purposes of the PRB Coal Review, it was projected that the DM&E line would be constructed when the total rail haulage requirement from the eastern Wyoming PRB reaches 450 to 500 million tons per year and would potentially be operational by 2015. The construction of this rail line is considered moderately likely to occur. The PRB Coal Review assigned a low likelihood of development by 2010 under the upper coal production scenario, and projected the construction of the Tongue River Railroad Company line would not occur unless the Otter Creek Mine is developed. In 2007, a request was submitted to lease two tracts of state coal at Otter Creek (Billings Gazette 2007). In July 2008, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) initiated Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-15

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences an appraisal of the Otter Creek lease tracts, which may be offered for lease in 2009. 4.1.1.2.2 Electric Power Generation Currently, there are five coal-fired power plants in the Wyoming PRB study area for Tasks 1 and 2 (Figure 4-1). Black Hills Power Corporation owns and operates the Neal Simpson Units 1 and 2 (21.7-MW and 80-MW, respectively), Wygen I and II (80-MW and 95-MW, respectively), and Wyodak (330-MW) power plants, all of which are located approximately five miles east of Gillette, Wyoming. Pacific Power and Light’s Dave Johnston Power Plant is located near Glenrock, Wyoming, outside of but adjacent to the study area. There are also three separate interconnected gas-fired power plants (Hartzog, Arvada, and Barber Creek) located near Gillette, Wyoming (Figure 4-1). Each contains three separate 5-MW-rated turbines that provide electric power to Basin Electric and its customers. In winter, the maximum capacity can reach 22.6-MW from each site. All units are in operating condition, although they do not operate at maximum capacity. Several additional power plants are projected to be built prior to 2020. The PRB Coal Review assumed that proposed coal-fired power plants that plan to initiate operation by 2010 would have to have been undergoing air permit review by 2003 in order to obtain the required construction permits and complete construction by 2010. The following two identified projects are considered likely for development by 2010:
•

North American Power Group has permitted a coal-fired power plant (Two Elk Unit 1) at a 40-acre site located approximately 15 miles southeast of Wright, Wyoming. As originally permitted, the project also would include installation of a gas-fired turbine. The unit would be dry-cooled, requiring very little water. The state has approved several hundred million dollars in tax-exempt bonds for the power plant and North American Power Group is completing financing for the remaining cost of the plant. The company recently announced that it has signed a transmissions agreement with Pacificorp and is planning to have the 320-MW plant in operation by October 2011 (Gillette News Record 2007b, 2007c). The air permit originally was issued in August 2002, then revoked temporarily and restored by DEQ in 2007. In 2008, the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council (WEQC) denied a request by the Sierra Club for a new hearing on the air quality permit allowing construction of the facility. The Sierra Club filed a law suit in District Court in Cheyenne to reverse the DEQ decision (Gillette News Record 2008a). Basin Electric Power Cooperative obtained permits from the Wyoming Industrial Siting Council in June, 2006, and WDEQ/AQD in October, 2007, to construct and operate the Dry Fork Station Power Plant. As proposed, the Dry Fork Station would be a coal-based, mine-mouth 385 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

•

4-16

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences MW power plant located near the Dry Fork Mine, north of Gillette, Wyoming. The issuance of the air permit allowed construction to start at the Dry Fork Station. Construction on the plant started in November, 2007. In late October, 2007, several environmental groups filed an appeal of the air permit issued by WDEQ. The WEQC denied requests to suspend construction. After due process, on November 20, 2008 the WEQC approved orders to dismiss the issues before it and terminated the appeal. The orders were signed on December 12, 2008. The environmental groups announced intent to appeal in Wyoming District Court.
•

Basin Electric estimates that the plant will be operational by 2011 (WDEQ/ISD 2007). At the time of the PRB Coal Review study it was estimated that 1.2 million tons of coal per year would be required to fuel the facility. Construction and operation of this facility as scheduled is considered moderately likely.

The PRB Coal Review assumes that, under the upper coal production scenario, a maximum of one additional 700-MW coal-fired power plant would be constructed by 2020 in the Gillette area or near one or more of the operating coal mines. North American Power Group (NAPG) submitted an application in September 2007, for a 750-MW coal-fired power plant, Two Elk 2, to be located at the same site as the proposed Two Elk plant, which is discussed above. Black Hills Power Corporation has also announced plans to construct the Wygen III power plant, sized at 100-MW, which is planned to be similar in design to the Wygen II plant. As of November 5, 2008 the project was on schedule. The air permit for this facility was issued in March 2007 with construction planned starting in 2008. (SourceWatch 2007) The study assumes that all existing power plants in the PRB region would remain operational through 2020. 4.1.1.2.3 Transmission Lines Major transmission lines in the Wyoming PRB study area that support the regional distribution system 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, and their associated permanent disturbance is minimal. Distribution power lines associated with conventional oil and gas and coal bed natural gas (CBNG) development also occur within the study area. For the PRB Coal Review, these lines were included by factoring them in proportionally on a per well basis. The PRB Coal Review estimated 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 power plants discussed in the previous section. Six specific proposals for these transmission Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-17

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences lines have been identified by the PRB Coal Review analysis update. There is currently insufficient information to analyze or assign likelihood of development by 2020. The governors of California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to encourage development of a high voltage power transmission line, the Frontier Line, connecting those states in April, 2005. Since that time, no specific plans have been announced as to the location or timing of the Frontier Line. The 345-kV Wyoming-Colorado Intertie, as well as the Trans West and Gateway West and South projects have been proposed in Wyoming, in order to move power from Wyoming to growing Idaho and Nevada and other western U.S. load demand areas (Casper Star Tribune 2007b) (PRB Coal Review analysis update). The TransWestern Express proposes to move electric power from Wyoming to Arizona through Colorado or Utah. The High Plains Express is proposed to move power from Wyoming to New Mexico and Arizona. 4.1.1.2.4 Coal Conversion Technology With rising energy prices, there has been considerable interest in either enhancing the quality of PRB coal and/or converting the coal to other fuels. Test facilities were previously constructed by KFx at the Fort Union Mine (now part of the Dry Fork Mine), by AMAX (predecessor to Foundation Coal West, Inc.) at the Belle Ayr Mine, and by ENCOAL at the Buckskin Mine, but no commercial production occurred and these facilities have either been dismantled or are no longer in use. Although several coal conversion projects have been proposed, as discussed below, only one (the KFx Coal Beneficiation Project) was considered to have a high enough likelihood of proceeding to include it in the PRB Coal Review, based on its status and available information. The KFx (now Evergreen Energy, Inc.) coal beneficiation plant, located near the Dry Fork Mine, north of Gillette, was operational but did not reach full capacity. KFx reported making its first production run and shipping coal to two customers for test burns in late December, 2005. In August, 2006, KFx reported that a trainload of enhanced coal had been loaded and sent to a customer in Ohio. Commercially viable product was produced through 2007 until the plant was idled down in 2008. It was predicted that the plant would eventually produce approximately 750,000 tons of enhanced coal per year. This operation had a high likelihood of proceeding with production given the technology being used and the forecast market conditions in the PRB. Evergreen Energy, Inc. and its strategic partner, Bechtel Power Cooperation, enhanced the pilot plant’s design with efficiency and production improvements and have decided to relocate their improved K-fuel refineries to different locations with a greater market. The company has suggested that up to five additional units will be built, some perhaps in the PRB, but the likelihood for development of additional units is not known (Evergreen 2009). As a result, the potential development of additional units was not analyzed in the PRB Coal Review. 4-18 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences The following coal conversion projects have been proposed, but were not included in the PRB Coal Review analysis because the likelihood of their occurrence was not known when the coal review analysis was conducted:
•

Medicine Bow Fuel and Power, a subsidiary of DKRW Advanced Fuels, LLC, has announced that it plans to build a coal-to-liquids plant with an in-service year of 2013 in northern Carbon County, Wyoming. GE Energy and Rentech Clean Energy Solutions are also involved in the project, which would obtain coal from Saddleback Hills Mine facility. Both the plant and mine are located outside of the PRB. The primary product would be ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel produced from sub-bituminous coal. The company is in the process of permitting the plant and expects to begin initial site work in 2010, with completion planned for 2011 (Casper Star Tribune 2007c, DKRW 2009). Coal gasification development projects are being actively pursued by several groups, including the Wyoming Business Council, Campbell County Economic Development Corporation (CCEDC), and Converse Area New Development Organization (CANDO). Specifically, CANDO is pursuing the development of coal gasification leading to production of pure hydrogen with carbon dioxide (CO2) as a by-product within 5 to 8 years. While there appears to be substantial interest in these opportunities, it is unknown whether large-scale operations would be developed within the 2010 to 2020 timeframe, given permitting, engineering, and construction time requirements. When the PRB Coal Review was prepared, a project proponent with adequate financing to pursue a project that would utilize PRB coal had not been identified, and one has not been identified since.

•

A summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable coal mines, coal-related facilities, coal production, coal mine employment, and coal and coal-related disturbance in the Wyoming PRB is presented in Table 4-5. 4.1.2 Oil and Gas Development The following information on existing conventional and CBNG development is summarized from the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005a). The information reported is for 2003, which was the baseline year for the coal review. 4.1.2.1 Conventional Oil and Gas Conventional oil and gas development includes all non-CBNG development activity. Approximately 1,500 conventional oil and gas wells, including producing, non-producing and injection wells, were drilled between 1990 and 2003 (IHS 2004) in the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Study Area. Of those, 60 percent were development wells, drilled in established producing areas. The remaining 40 percent were classified as wildcat wells, which are wells that are drilled in non-producing areas or drilled to evaluate untested prospective zones Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-19

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-5. Past, Present, and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine and CoalRelated Development Scenario.
Number of Number of Active Active Coal Direct Coal Power Conversion Mine Plants Facilities2 Employment Past and Present 18 3 1 2,862 19 4 1 3,177 12 4 2 3,335 12 4 0 5,010 Projected Development - Lower Coal Production Scenario 7 12 5,263 131 1 7 12 5,405 13 7 12 5,531 131 Projected Development - Upper Coal Production Scenario 131 7 12 5,339 1 7 12 5,522 13 131 8 12 5,678 Number of Active Coal Mines1 Total Coal Disturbance (acres)3 na na na 73,685 103,628 123,147 143,354 107,414 130,456 155,000

Year
1990 1995 2000 2003 2010 2015 2020 2010 2015 2020
1

Coal Production (mmtpy) 163 247 323 363 411 467 495 479 543 576

Mines have consolidated and may in the future. Also, new mines may be permitted to better access the coal reserves projected for mining by 2020. 2 Several coal conversion facilities currently are being evaluated; however, there is only one for which the likelihood of future development currently can be assessed. 3 Disturbance area includes coal mine and coal-related disturbance areas. Source: Annual Report of the Wyoming State Mine Inspector (Wyoming Department of Employment 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2003) and PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005a)

in producing areas. Approximately 75 percent of the wildcat wells were plugged and abandoned. By 2003, the successful new field wildcat wells had resulted in the discovery of 61 new fields that produced 719,000 barrels of oil and 1.45 billion cubic feet (bcf) of non-CBNG (WOGCC 2004). As of the end of 2003, there were approximately 3,500 producing conventional oil and gas wells in the Wyoming PRB study area plus 1,386 seasonally active wells (IHS 2004). The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) reported that these wells produced approximately 13 million barrels of oil and 40 bcf of conventional gas in 2003 (WOGCC 2004). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that the mean undiscovered non-coal bed hydrocarbon resource in the PRB (including Montana) is 1.8 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) (USGS 2002a). Most of Wyoming’s current oil production is from old oil fields with declining production and the level of exploration drilling to discover new fields has been low (WSGS 2002). This situation is reflected in the PRB where, over the 10-year period from 1992 through 2002, oil production from conventional oil and gas wells in Campbell and Converse counties decreased approximately 60.4 percent (from 32.8 million barrels in 1992 to 13.0 million barrels in 2002). Oil prices have been increasing, which is reversing projections of a continuing decline in oil and gas production; production is now expected to increase in the PRB, with a peak around 2010 of approximately 15.7 million barrels (WSO-RMG 2005). Oil production in the short term may also be bolstered by some planned CO2 flood 4-20 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences projects in the PRB (WSGS 2003). This projected temporary upward trend in conventional oil and gas development is reflected in the PRB Coal Review projections (Table 4-6). The active wells identified in Table 4-6 include wells that produce year-round, seasonally producing wells, and service wells (mainly injection wells.) It is estimated that there are approximately 2,000 idle conventional oil and gas wells in the PRB study area (WOGCC 2005); however, the number of idle wells gradually would be reduced in the future through plugging programs, and the idle well locations (once the wells are abandoned) would be reclaimed and no longer represent a disturbance. Table 4-6. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Conventional Oil and Gas Development Scenario.
Existing 2003 2003 Task 1 Task 3 Study Area Study Area 39.9 12.9 36.3 11.4 Projected for Task 3 Study Area

Category Annual Gas Production (bcf)1 Annual Oil Production (mmbo) Active and Seasonably Active Wells
1

2010 33.8 13.8

2015 30.9 12.5

2020 28.0 11.2

5,067

3,890

5,603

5,115

4,625

Future gas production per well was estimated based on 2003 production levels per subwatershed. A greater number of future well sites were assumed to occur in locations with historically lower production rates, so the projected future conventional gas production varies within the cumulative effects study area relative to the number of projected producing wells. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005a)

4.1.2.2 CBNG Development Natural gas production has been increasing in Wyoming. In the PRB, this is due to the development of shallow CBNG resources. Commercial development of these resources began in limited areas west of and adjacent to the northernmost surface coal mines in the late 1980s. Since that time, CBNG development has spread south and west into other parts of the PRB Coal Review Task 1 and Task 2 study area. On private and state oil and gas leases, the WOGCC and the Wyoming State Engineers Office (SEO) authorize CBNG drilling. On federal oil and gas leases, BLM must analyze the individual and cumulative environmental impacts of all drilling (federal, state, and private), as required by NEPA, before CBNG drilling can be authorized. BLM does not authorize drilling on state or private leases but must consider the impacts from those wells in their NEPA analyses. In many areas of the PRB, the coal estate is federally owned, but the oil and gas estate is privately owned. A June 7, 1999 Supreme Court decision (98-830) assigned the rights to develop CBNG on a piece of land to the owner of the oil and gas estate. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-21

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Annual CBNG production increased rapidly in the PRB between 1999 and 2003 but has leveled off somewhat since then. At the end of 2003, there were 14,758 producing CBNG wells in the study area (IHS 2004), and total production for 2003 was 346 bcf, or 88 percent of the total gas production from the basin (WOGCC 2004). Total production for 2006 was 377 bcf (WOGCC 2007a). Average daily CBNG production was 900 mmcfpd in 2003 (Holcomb 2003) and it is estimated that it will average 1,150 million cubic feet of gas per day (mmcfpd) (1.15 bcfpd) for 2007 (WOGCC 2007b). From 1987 to 2003, the total cumulative gas production from PRB coals was over 1.2 trillion cubic feet. The total water production for the same time period was approximately 2.3 billion barrels (96,600 million gallons). Water production in 2003 amounted to more than 500 million barrels (21,000 million gallons), or about 1.4 million barrels per day. According to the WOGCC website, water production in the PRB associated with CBNG production has varied between just over 1.4 million barrels per day and about 2.2 million barrels per day since December 2003. Since the early 1990s, the Wyoming BLM has completed numerous Environmental Assessments (EAs) and two EISs analyzing CBNG projects. The most recent of these is the four-volume Final EIS and Proposed Plan Amendment for the PRB Oil and Gas Project, which was completed in January 2003 (BLM 2003). The level of CBNG development since 2003 appears to be lower than was forecast in that document. New CBNG well numbers fell from a high of slightly more than 4,600 in 2001 to approximately 2,000 in 2004. The PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report discusses the uncertain trends for future CBNG activity in recent years. The methodology used to project future activity is detailed in Appendix E of that report. Table 4-7 shows the 2003 and projected 2010, 2015, and 2020 levels of CBNG development levels used to evaluate projected cumulative environmental impacts in the PRB Coal Review. Table 4-7. Baseline Year and Projected CBNG Development Scenario for the Wyoming PRB.
Existing 2003 2003 Task 1 Task 3 Study Area Study Area 338 14,758 284 12,152 Projected to Task 3 Study Area

Category Annual Production (bcf) Active Wells

2010 480 20,899

2015 500 21,831

2020 443 19,366

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005a)

4.1.2.3 Oil and Gas Related Development Oil and gas related development activities considered in the PRB Coal Review include major transportation pipelines and refineries. Table 4-8 summarizes the net disturbance, reclamation, and water production associated with oil and gas activity (conventional oil and gas, CBNG, and major transportation pipelines) for 2003 (baseline year) and projects disturbance, reclamation, and water production for future years. 4-22 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 4.1.2.3.1 Pipelines The availability of pipeline capacity for the transport of oil and gas to outside markets is a key factor in the development of CBNG and conventional oil and gas resources in the Wyoming PRB. In 2003, the baseline year for the PRB coal Review, there were 13 major transportation pipeline systems in the PRB that transport gas resources to markets outside of the basin (Flores et al. 2001). The 2003 capacity of these pipeline systems was 1.9 bcf per day. The combined natural gas production (CBNG and conventional gas) in the Wyoming PRB Coal Review Task 1 and Task 2 study area was approximately 1.03 bcf per day. Table 4-8. Wyoming PRB Conventional Oil and Gas, CBNG, and Related Development Disturbance and Water Production.
Existing1 2003 2003 Task 1 Task 3 Study Area Study Area 187,761 148,602 Projected for Task 3 Study Area1

Category Cumulative Disturbed Area (Acres)2 Cumulative Permanently Reclaimed Area (Acres) Cumulative Unreclaimed Area (Acres) Annual Water Production (mmgpy)
1 2

2010 237,883

2015 304,543

2020 361,331

115,045

90,548

160,175

225,426

288,536

72,715

58,053

77,707

79,108

72,794

26,405

21,204

39,108

41,484

37,350

Minor discrepancies in total acreages are the result of number rounding. Inclusive of conventional oil and gas and CBNG activities and major transportation pipelines. Disturbance associated with ancillary facilities (including gathering lines and distribution power lines has been factored in a per well basis. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005a)

Major transportation pipelines also provide for transport of CO2 to conventional oil fields for EOR. Increased recovery of crude oil also may depend somewhat on the availability of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects, as well as the availability of pipelines to transport oil to refineries for processing. Gathering lines and power lines associated with conventional oil and gas and CBNG development also occur within the study area; disturbance from these ancillary facilities were factored into the PRB Coal Review analysis on a per well basis. A 315-mile-long pipeline project, the Bison Pipeline Project, was originally proposed in 2004 to move natural gas northward, directly out of the PRB and into the Northern Border Pipeline system. Approximately 53 miles of the proposed route is within the Wyoming PRB Coal Review study area. If it is Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-23

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences constructed, it would have a 240 mmcfpd capacity as proposed. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) received an application for the 302-mile Bison project proposal in April 2009 (FERC 2009). The following two proposed pipeline projects in the PRB were listed on the Wyoming Pipeline Authority webpage (http://www.wyopipeline.com) as of October 2007: the MDU Resources Group, Inc. Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline ‘Grasslands Pipeline’ Expansion and the ONEOK Cantera Gas Holdings Fort Union Gas Gathering Expansion. These are both expansion projects which involve adding capacity to an existing pipeline. Information on pipeline projects proposed in Wyoming can also be found in the “For Citizens” section of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission website at http://www.ferc.gov. The amount of available pipeline capacity could limit the amount of future CBNG development. In 2003, it was estimated that growth of Wyoming PRB CBNG production could rise from the 2003 level of 900 mmcfpd up to 3 to 4 bcf per day around 2007 and remain at or above those levels until 2015 (Holcomb 2003). If CBNG production levels reach 3 to 4 bcf per day, it is reasonable to assume that several pipeline projects with up to 1.0 bcf per day capacity each could be built in the PRB. However, as discussed previously, the actual average production for 2007 is currently projected to be 1.15 bcfpd and, based on the assumptions in Appendix E of the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report, the basinwide CBNG production is projected to reach approximately 1.7 bcf per day in 2020. New pipeline construction projects were not considered in the PRB Coal Review analysis because the likelihood for additional new pipeline construction was unknown when the PRB Coal Review was prepared. The CO2 pipeline from Bairoil, Wyoming, to Salt Creek, Wyoming, may be extended into the PRB Coal Review study area to the Sussex Field to support additional EOR activity. Although it took many years for a CO2 source to reach the Wyoming PRB, it is very likely that several pipelines could be built in the study area in the near future to provide additional gas for EOR projects. However, no pipeline projects were identified that would transport CO2 beyond Salt Creek and the likelihood for construction of additional CO2 pipelines was unknown when the PRB Coal Review analysis was prepared, and they were not considered. 4.1.2.3.2 Refineries Construction of a new refinery was completed in the Wyoming PRB study area in 2008. The NorthCut Refinery, owned and operated by Interline Resources, is located in Converse County, approximately 20 miles north of the town of Douglas, Wyoming. Construction of the refinery, which was a conversion of the previously existing Well Draw Gas Plant, included installation of a crude oil pipeline between the company’s existing crude gathering system and the refinery.

4-24

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences The NorthCut Refinery is a crude oil topping plant, specifically engineered to process 4,000 barrels per day of sweet crude produced in the PRB. Output from the refinery will include naptha, off-road diesel, and reduced crude oil. The markets for the products include ethanol manufacturers, mines, and other refineries. The company-owned crude oil pipeline and third-party tanker trucks will be used for delivery of crude stocks. Tanker trucks also will be used to transport finished products from the facility (Interline Resources 2008). The refinery is adjacent to and east of State Highway 59, with the joint BNSF&UP rail line located just to the west of the highway. The site previously had been the location of the Well Draw Gas Plant (approximately 20 acres), which shut down in 2002 following a fire. Interline has acquired an additional 12 acres bordering the original site for administrative, maintenance, and transportation-related uses (Interline Resources 2008). The level and composition of outputs from the existing NorthCut Refinery would respond to various markets, potentially resulting in the construction of additional infrastructure and/or facilities in the future. Any future changes and associated disturbances would occur within the property currently owned by Interline Resources at the NorthCut site (Williams 2008). No specific plans for expansion currently have been identified. As a result, the likelihood for project expansion currently is considered speculative. Therefore, it has been eliminated from further analysis in this study. No other reasonably foreseeable plans for construction and operation of new petroleum refineries in the Wyoming portion of the PRB have been identified. 4.1.3 Other Development Activity 4.1.3.1 Other Mining Uranium, sand, gravel, bentonite, and clinker (or scoria) have been and are being mined in the Wyoming PRB study area. There are three defined uranium districts in the PRB: Pumpkin Buttes, Southern Powder River, and Kaycee (BLM 2003). Numerous mined out or uneconomic uranium mining sites are present in these districts. Uranium is currently produced in the Southern Powder River District using the in-situ leach method. There is one operating in-situ uranium recovery site in the PRB, the Smith Ranch-Highland Mine in Converse County, but the recent increase in interest in uranium for power plants here and abroad is generating interest in new development in the PRB. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission website (http://www.nrc.gov), interest has been expressed in restarting in-situ operations at the Christianson Ranch Site in Johnson County, Wyoming, and an application has been received from Energy Metals Corporation to construct and operate an in-situ uranium recovery facility at Moore Ranch in Campbell County, Wyoming. Based on commodity forecasts and uranium activity as of June 2004, the likelihood and potential timing of new uranium Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-25

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences mining operations in the PRB was not known, and additional development was not projected in the PRB Coal Review analysis. In the original Task 2 report (BLM 2005a), reasonably foreseeable uranium development was eliminated from further consideration because: 1) there were no specific projects with pending applications and 2) no development was anticipated, based on market conditions. Due to increased overall demand for energy in recent years, uranium prices have increased from a low of $7 a pound in 2001 to over $138 a pound in 2007 (Barry 2008). The price fell precipitously after that, but appears to be stabilizing at approximately $75 per pound. In response to the increased price of uranium, a number of uranium mine developments currently are proposed in the Wyoming PRB study area (Table 4 9). These include seven new proposed developments, two proposed expansions, and one proposed restart, all of which would use in situ recovery. Most of the proposed developments are in the Pumpkin Buttes uranium district in southwestern Campbell County. The actual number of the proposed developments that would become operational would depend on several factors including price and approval of permits. Bentonite is weathered volcanic ash that is used in a variety of products, including drilling mud and kitty litter, because of its absorbent properties. There are three major bentonite producing districts in and around the PRB: the Colony District in the Northern Black Hills, the Clay Spur District in the Southern Black Hills, and the Kaycee District west of Kaycee, Wyoming. Within the PRB Coal Review study area, bentonite is mined at Kaycee (WMA 2006). The PRB Coal Review assumed that bentonite mining would continue throughout the study period and that production would continue at existing active mines, with no new mines developed through 2020. Aggregate, which is sand, gravel, and stone, is used for construction purposes. In the PRB, the more important aggregate mining localities are in Johnson and Sheridan counties (WSGS 2004). The largest identified aggregate operation is located in northern Converse County. It has an associated total disturbance area of approximately 67 acres, of which four acres have been reclaimed. Scoria or clinker (which is formed when coal beds burn and the adjacent rocks become baked) is used as aggregate where alluvial terrace gravel or in-place granite/igneous rock is not available. Scoria generally is mined in the Converse and Campbell counties portion of the Wyoming PRB study area. Increased sand, gravel, and scoria production and associated surface disturbance are anticipated in the Wyoming PRB study area in the future because aggregate would be required for road maintenance and new construction activities as other primary resources, such as coal and oil and gas, continue to be developed. New operations and increased production from existing operations can be expected. These operations would vary in size based on the immediate need from the primary industries, but there is no specific 4-26 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-9. U.S. Nuclear Resources Commission Applications for In-Situ Recovery Uranium Projects in the Wyoming PRB Study Area.
Project/ Company Location T41-42N, R74-75W; Moore Ranch/Uranium Campbell and Converse counties. One (formerly Energy Metals Corporation) Nichols RanchHank Unit/ Uranerz Nichols Ranch: T43N, R76W; Campbell and Johnson counties. Hank Unit: T43-44N, R75W; Campbell County. T44N, R76W; Johnson County. Type Watershed/Mining Likelihood/ Application District Rationale New Antelope Creek, Upper Moderate for 2010. Powder River/Pumpkin Application filed with U.S. Nuclear Buttes District Regulatory Commission (USNRC) October 2007. New Upper Powder River/Pumpkin Buttes District Moderate for 2010. Applications filed with USNRC and WDEQ.

Christensen Ranch/Cogema

Restart

Upper Powder River/Pumpkin Buttes District Middle North Platte River/South Powder

Moderate for 2010. USNRC application pending, received April 2007. Moderate for 2015. Expansion of existing facility, letter of intent March 2008, application expected 2009. Moderate for 2015. Letter of intent to USNRC March 2008, application expected 2009. Moderate for 2015. Letter of intent to USNRC March 2008, application expected 2009. Moderate for 2015. Letter of intent to USNRC March 2008, application expected 2009. Moderate for 2015. Letter of intent to USNRC March 2008, application expected 2009. Moderate for 2015. Letter of intent to USNRC March 2008, application expected 2010.

Smith Ranch/Cameco (Power Resources)

T36N, R74W; Converse County.

Expansion

North Butte/Cameco

T44N, R76W; Campbell County.

Expansion

Upper Powder River/Pumpkin Buttes District

Collins Draw/Uranerz

T42N, T43N, R76W; Campbell County.

New

Upper Powder River/Pumpkin Buttes District

LudemanAllemand Ross/Uranium One Ruby Ranch/Cameco

Converse County

New

Antelope Creek

T43N, R75W; Campbell County.

New

Upper Belle Fourche River/Pumpkin Buttes District

Reno Creek/ Strathmore Minerals Corporation

T43N, R73; Campbell County.

New

Upper Belle Fourche River, Antelope Creek/Pumpkin Buttes District

Southwest Reno T42-43N, R73-74W Creek/ Strathmore Minerals Corporation

New

Speculative. Antelope Creek/Pumpkin Buttes No information on applications available. District

Sources: Strathmore Minerals Corporation (2008), USNRC (2008a, 2008b, 2008c); World Information Service on Energy (2007)

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-27

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences information about these projected operations. As a result, new sand, gravel, or scoria operations were not analyzed in detail in the PRB Coal Review. 4.1.3.2 Industrial Manufacturing There are a number of existing industrial manufacturing establishments located in the Wyoming PRB Coal Review study area. Most are relatively small with fewer than 25 employees; they predominately serve regional and local markets, and most are directly or indirectly related to energy resource development and production. Over the years, some of these firms have expanded such that they now support activities and serve markets outside of the region, but those operations remain dependent upon the local and regional markets to sustain their existing operations. The PRB Coal Review anticipates that increased coal production would result in an increased demand for fuels and explosives. This increased demand could result in the need for the development of new off-site chemical feedstock plants in the study area. Project-specific information is not available, however, and the potential development of new chemical feedstock plants was not considered in the PRB Coal Review. Local economic development organizations, including CCEDC and CANDO, are continually engaged in efforts to recruit or assist new business formation in the PRB study area. For example, CANDO has pursued development of long-term potential projects; however, the outcomes of those projects are uncertain and little information and detail are available. As a result, they were not considered in the PRB Coal Review. 4.1.3.3 Wind Power Wind power facilities have been proposed at various sites in Wyoming, including the Powder River Basin region. There is potential in the Wyoming sites for wind power, and these facilities can contribute to meeting forecasted electric power demands, however they are dependent on available transmission capacity to send power to users. The transmission capability is a constraining factor (Gillette News Record 2008b). Wyoming ranks in seventh place in terms of wind energy potential with a current production in 14th place with 459 megawatts. Although many Wyoming locations having the highest potential are in the southern portion of the state, areas in both Converse and Campbell counties offer sufficient potential to support commercial-scale wind generation projects.


One such project currently is under development in the Wyoming PRB study area, and another is in the planning stages. PacifiCorp is constructing a three-phase project in Converse County, approximately 15 miles north of the existing Dave Johnston Power Plant, on and near the site of the former Dave Johnson Mine. The first two phases, known as the Glenrock Wind Energy Project and the Rolling Hills Wind Energy Project, are scheduled for completion in 2008. The third, currently unnamed Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-28

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences phase is anticipated to be constructed between 2009 and 2011, depending on market demands and the performance of the first two phases. Each phase would consist of 66 wind turbine generators (each rated at 1.5 MW [99-MW total]) mounted on 80-meter-tall tubular towers, plus ancillary support facilities (PacifiCorp 2007). This project is considered highly likely.


Third Planet Windpower is in the initial development phase of a wind generating project in the Pumpkin Buttes area of southwestern Campbell County. Third Planet Windpower has acquired 13,000 acres of land leases for the project, installed meteorological towers on site, and is currently doing environmental and feasibility studies. Contingent upon the meteorological data and other results, the company could install up to 167, 1.5-MW towers, yielding a total capacity of 250 MW, if fully constructed (Gartrell 2008). The site for the Reno Junction wind farm is close to the Black Hills Power substation and the companies are seeking an agreement for interconnection. Third Planet Windpower plans to start construction in June of 2010 with an online date in the end of 2010. Duke Energy’s Campbell Hill Windpower Project is in the final site permitting stage, with construction anticipated to start in early 2009. The Campbell Hill Wind Power Project is to be located approximately 15 miles northeast of Casper, WY and will consist of 66 wind turbines generating 99 Megawatts per year. The facility is scheduled to come online in late 2009. Chevron Global Power Company is in the site planning stages of a wind energy project north of Evansville, WY, at the site of the Old Texaco Refinery currently owned by Chevron. The project plans for 13 turbines generating 20 megawatts of power. There is no projected online date at this time although Chevron Global Gas – Global Power is seeking to hire the Wind Farm Operations and Maintenance Manager.



4.1.3.4 Solar Power Although Wyoming has been given a rating of very good for Annual Solar Potential for Flat Plate Collectors, there currently are no utility scale solar power collection facilities on federal, state, or privet lands in the State of Wyoming. Furthermore, no applications for the development of utility scale solar energy projects have been filed as of January 1, 2009. The BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) are jointly preparing a solar energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) which could facilitate future solar energy development application processes. Wyoming is not covered in the PEIS but still may be affected by it. Information on the PEIS can be found at: http://solareis.anl.gov. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy project proposals on a case by case basis.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-29

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Solar energy utilization in Wyoming is, as of January 1, 2009, limited to private residences and private commercial establishments. Current Wyoming solar energy incentives include a sales tax rebate on industrial or commercial solar energy generation equipment, a one time grant of up to $3,000 offered thru lottery from the Wyoming Business Council, and the utility buy back of unused electricity at the wholesale price. Solar energy production equipment and installation at residential, commercial, and utility sites is expensive. Currently, the electric utility costs in Wyoming are such that, the cost of installation does not favor solar energy development over existing forms of energy development. 4.1.3.5 Reservoirs Currently, there are five key water storage reservoirs in the Wyoming PRB Coal Review study area (Healy, Lake DeSmet, Muddy Guard No. 2, Gillette, and Betty No. 1) (HKM Engineering et al. 2002a and 2002b). The total disturbance associated with these five key water storage areas is 3,263 acres. Based on the applicable water plans prepared for the Wyoming Water Development Commission for its Basin Planning Program (HKM Engineering et al. 2002a and 2002b), there are long range projections for development of additional reservoirs in the Wyoming PRB study area. However, none of these reservoirs have reached the planning stage; therefore, there was not enough information to analyze them in the PRB Coal Review. 4.1.3.6 Other Non-Energy Development In addition to the specific projects and developments described above, a network of public and private physical infrastructure, private enterprises, and public activities has been developed in the PRB over time. Examples of infrastructure include the highway and road networks, airports, government offices, hospitals, public schools, municipal water systems, and extensive residential and commercial real estate development. Private enterprises include local retail and service establishments, newspaper publishing, and transportation and distribution firms. The construction, maintenance, and continuing operations associated with this network of development represent an extensive series of public and private investments, as well as changes in land use, surface disturbances, water consumption, and the factors that characterize local air quality. Those investments and changes have occurred over a period of time and in response to many different influences. Some of the identified and anticipated plans or proposals for future investment in public, private, and commercial infrastructure in the PRB are summarized below:


The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) State Transportation Improvement Program for 2004 includes anticipated 2005 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-30

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences through 2009 construction costs of approximately $215.4 million for highway and airport maintenance, reconstruction, and improvement projects in the PRB Coal Review Study area. No construction of new highways is scheduled and no new airports are proposed between now and 2009.


The 2008 annual State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes planned construction for the 2008 fiscal year and preliminary engineering estimates for projects with anticipated construction dates through 2013. In general, Wyoming transportation projects scheduled over the next 6 years include maintenance, reconstruction, and improvement projects. Airport improvement plans consist primarily of pavement rehabilitation and overlays, with some minor expansion of taxiways, aprons, and parking. No construction of new highways is scheduled, and no new airports are proposed. In addition to highway projects included in the STIP 2008, the Eagle Butte Mine has received approval from WYDOT to relocate a portion of U.S. Highway 14/16 in the vicinity of the Gillette/Campbell County Airport, north of the City of Gillette. The relocation is proposed to facilitate the recovery of approximately 40 million tons of additional coal recently acquired by the mine through the West Eagle Butte LBA Tract coal sale. Three alternative alignments, involving the construction of up to 6.8 centerline miles of new roadway, were identified and a preferred alternative was subsequently chosen and approved by WYDOT. Construction of the new highway segment is anticipated in 2011/2012 (WYDOT and Foundation Coal Company 2008). A $10.7 million expansion and renovation of the Campbell County Courthouse was completed in late 2005, and a new public health building was completed in 2007. Expansion of the Campbell County’s detention center and remodeling of the Sheriff’s Office were undertaken in 2007. Expansion of the CAM-PLEX conference and multi-event center facility in Gillette was approved in a special election in May 2005. The 2005 approved master plans for Wyoming public school facilities spending included a total of $72.3 million in new capital construction for the seven school districts that are completely or partially in the Wyoming PRB study area (WSFC 2005). Construction and maintenance projects for the City of Gillette include a recently completed project to renovate and expand the waste water treatment plant.



Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-31

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences


Commercial development includes recently completed construction of a Home Depot store and expansion of the Wal-Mart store in Gillette. A new $10 million headquarters for the Campbell County Fire Department providing administrative, training, and storage space in addition to multiple parking bays for firefighting apparatus. A $55 million county recreation center is being planned, with opening expected in 2010. The city completed construction of a new Health Sciences Center at Gillette College. The facility will house the school’s nursing program, providing classrooms, labs, faculty offices, and other spaces. The nursing program functions in conjunction with the Campbell County Memorial Hospital. The county, city, and Gillette College are partnering on a Campus Housing Complex and Industrial Technical Education Center. These facilities are part of a long-range master plan for the college that is designed to provide a broad college-level curriculum and provide more focused education and training to support local business and industry. Campbell County Memorial Hospital is in the planning stage for a major expansion and renovation project (City of Gillette 2008a).



A capital facilities tax ballot question in Campbell County in the 2004 election asking voters to approve the imposition of a $0.01 sales and use tax (to be used for updated and expanded diesel mechanic and welding programs at the Gillette Campus of the Northern Wyoming Community College (now Gillette College) and for two community development projects in Wright) and an increase in the lodging tax were defeated in 2004. A renewed attempt to get the lodging tax on the ballot for the 2006 primary election failed to gain the approval of the Campbell County Board of Commissioners. In their 2007 session, the Wyoming Legislature committed to pay half of the cost of a technical education center at Gillette College that will house diesel technology, welding and industrial electrician programs. The Campbell County Board of Commissioners has approved a tax increase to pay for the other half of the cost of the project. Given the timing, scale, year-to-year variability, relatively short construction timetables associated with such investments, the existence of a relatively large and diversified construction industry in the region and nearby areas, and the limited potential for these projects to alter long-term conditions in the PRB, they are not included in the PRB Coal Review analysis. However, one or more of these and similar projects could warrant consideration in a cumulative analysis for a site-specific project due to proximity or coincidental project schedules and timetables.

4-32

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 4.2 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Section 4.1 of this chapter discusses existing and projected levels of development in the Wyoming PRB, and includes summaries of the results of PRB Coal Review Task 2 studies. This section summarizes the existing conditions resulting from baseline year (2003) development and the cumulative environmental consequences of the projected development for 2010, 2015, and 2020 based on the results of the analyses conducted for PRB Coal Review Task 1 and 3 reports, respectively. As discussed in Section 4.1, the Wyoming portion of the PRB is the primary focus of the PRB Coal Review analyses. For the majority of resources in the Task 1 analysis, the Wyoming PRB Coal Review study area encompasses all of Campbell County, all of Sheridan and Johnson counties outside of the Bighorn National Forest, and the northern portion of Converse County (Figure 4-1). The study areas for the Task 3 analyses are different. For the majority of the resources considered in the PRB Coal Review, the Task 3 study area is based on watershed boundaries in the PRB and includes the portions of the Upper Powder River, Little Powder River, Upper Belle Fourche River, Upper Cheyenne River, Antelope Creek, and Dry Fork Cheyenne River subwatersheds that lie within Sheridan, Johnson, Campbell and northern Converse counties (Figure 4-4). This study area includes over 4 million acres. Table 4-10 summarizes the total disturbance and reclamation acreages for the baseline year of 2003 and the total projected disturbance and reclamation acreages for 2010, 2015, and 2020 within the Task 3 study area described above. Table 4-10. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Total Development Scenario – Task 3 Study Area.
Year 2003 2010 2015 2020 2010 2015 2020
1 2

Total Acres Disturbed1

Acres Acres Unavailable for Unreclaimed1 Reclamation2 Baseline Year 220,688 111,786 108,901 27,073 Projected Development - Lower Coal Production Scenario 339,912 205,113 134,799 29,389 426,084 286,614 139,472 31,546 503,085 367,999 135,085 32,794 Projected Development - Upper Coal Production Scenario 343,698 206,946 136,752 28,739 433,392 290,822 142,570 31,006 514,732 374,732 139,998 32,342 Acres Reclaimed1

Acres Affected by Coal Mining 68,794 98,662 117,236 137,443 102,448 124,545 149,089

Minor discrepancies in total acreages are the result of number rounding. Includes coal mine and coal-related disturbance. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005a)

A total of approximately 220,688 acres of this land area had been disturbed by development activities as of 2003, which represents about 5.6 percent of the Task 3 study area. This is projected to increase to as much as 514,732 acres in 2020 under the upper coal production scenario which would represent approximately 13.1 percent of the Task 3 study area. This projected disturbance Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-33

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Dog Cre ek

PSO ASH CREEK MINE BIG HORN MINE
ue River T on g

r tte Bi

Lit tle

Pr a irie

SHERIDAN COUNTY
k ee

er wd Po

Riv

k ee Cr

Powder

Big

ea r

SHERIDAN k C re e se oo
se Cr ee k

Sp ot te

Riv

d
H se or

Go o

P iney

Cre e k

M iddle Pron g Hors W e C re e ild k
W ild

tle

Lit

ild

Cat C

CAMPBELL COUNTY

re ek

Little Powder
River

k ee
Ho

tto Co

Riv er wd Po

d oo nw

L ittle

Creek

k ee Cr rse

Ro ck

Cre

k ee Cr

BUFFALO

Crazy

Upper
Powder
River

GILLETTE

North F o rk

T im

r be Cre e k

Wo ma nC re e k

az Cr
Fourmile Creek

an y W om ek Cre

P umpk

Po wd er Riv er

South
Fork
razy C

Upper
Belle
Fourche River
urc Fo
Bell e

Cab a Cre llo ek

r H orse Creek F ou

ry ing D T ra b k Cre e

k ee Cr

JOHNSON COUNTY
Powder
Ri v er

Riv

co Ba

No rth

ck Bla

ree

rk Fo

d Fork
er wd Po

Dry

Fo rk

ow der Ri ve r

ar Be

p Tra

Creek

Po wd er
River

WRIGHT

Th u n de rC

Upper
L ittle

ree k

r Rive

Middle F ork Po

er wd

r ve Ri

Po r cu pin e

Cr ee k

Thunde r

River
Creek

rk P

Salt

lo Buffa k Cre e

Cre

S outh

SCALE: 1"= 20 MILES

Antelope
Creek

Antelope

LEGEND
Federal Coal Lease Areas Subwatersheds in the Environmental Consequence Study Area Groundwater Model Domain Railroads Former Surface Coal Mine Sites COAL MINE SUBREGIONS Buckskin, Dry Fork, Eagle Butte, Subregion 1 - Rawhide, and Wyodak Mines

Creek

N orth

Dry

F ork

Cheye

nne

Ri ve r

CONVERSE COUNTYrk
Fo

k ee Cr
ar Be

Dry Creek

Dry Fork Cheyenne River

DAVE JOHNSTON MINE

Sa ge

ee Cr k

2 Subregion 2 - Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal Creek, and Cordero-Rojo Mines 3 Subregion 3 - Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North
Antelope/Rochelle Mines Antelope, North Rochelle/Black

Figure 4-4.

Wyoming Task 3 Study Area for PRB Coal Review Studies Evaluating Projected Environmental Consequences.

4-34

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences includes coal mining, coal-related development, and oil and gas and related development disturbance in the Task 3 study area. Areas reclaimed during each future time period shown in Table 4-10 reflect how much of the disturbed acreage is projected to be permanently reclaimed by that point in time. The acres of unreclaimed disturbance would be reclaimed incrementally or following a project’s completion, depending on the type of development activity and permit requirements. The acres currently not available for reclamation are occupied by long-term facilities that are needed to conduct mining operations or coal-related activities. These areas would be reclaimed near the end of each mine or facility’s life. Adjustments were made to the study area described above and shown in Figure 4-4 for several resources as described below:


The potential air quality impacts were evaluated over a multi-state area (including most of Wyoming, southeastern Montana, southwestern North Dakota, western South Dakota, and northwestern Nebraska) because they would be expected to extend beyond the Wyoming and Montana PRB study area that was used to identify emissions sources for the air quality analysis. The socioeconomic impact analysis focused on Campbell County, but also considered Converse, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan, and Weston counties as directly affected and Niobrara and Natrona counties as indirectly affected.



The groundwater drawdown was evaluated in the area surrounding and extending west of the surface coal mines, shown in Figure 4-4, because that is the area where groundwater drawdown related to surface coal mining operations and CBNG production operations would overlap. 4.2.1 Topography and Physiography The PRB is located within the Upper Missouri Basin Broken Lands physiographic subprovince that includes northeastern Wyoming and eastern Montana to the Canadian border. The topography generally is of low to moderate relief with occasional buttes and mesas. The general topographic gradient slopes down gently from southwest to northeast with elevations ranging from 5,000 to 6,000 feet above sea level on the southern and western portions of the basin to less than 4,000 feet above sea level on the north and northeast along the Montana state line. The major drainages in the basin are the Tongue, Powder, Belle Fourche, and Cheyenne rivers. Most of the drainages in the area are intermittent and have flows during high precipitation events or during periods of snowmelt. The drainages are part of the upper Missouri River Valley drainage basin. The disturbance associated with the majority of the past, present, and projected activities have resulted in or would result in the alteration of the surface topography. Surface coal mining, which is projected to continue in the area of Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-35

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences the existing coal mines shown in Figure 4-4, permanently alters the topography by removing the overburden and coal and then replacing the overburden. Recontouring during reclamation to match approximate original contours, as required by regulation, reduces the long-term impact to topography. After mined-out areas are reclaimed, the restored land surfaces are typically gentler, with more uniform slopes and restored basic drainage networks. Oil and gas exploration and development has occurred and is projected to continue throughout most of the Task 3 study area. It also results in the alteration of topography to accommodate facilities (e.g., well pads, power plants, etc.) and roads, but the disturbance tends to occur in smaller, more discrete areas than coal mining and the development is spread out over a larger area. The disturbance and reclamation acreages associated with all existing and projected development in the Task 3 study area for the years 2003, 2010, 2015, and 2020 are given in Table 4-10. 4.2.2 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology The cumulative effects study area for geology, mineral resources, and paleontology is the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area (Figure 4-4). The PRB is one of a number of structural basins in Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain area that were formed during the Laramide Orogeny. The basin is asymmetric with a structural axis that generally trends northwest to southeast along the western side of the basin (Flores et al. 1999). Natural earthquakes, landsides, and subsidence do not present a hazard in the PRB based on the lack of active faults in the study area (USGS 2004); the low risk of ground shaking in the region if a maximum credible earthquake were to occur (Frankel et al. 1997); and the absence of evidence of subsidence, landslides, or other geologic hazards in association with CBNG production. USGS monitors the magnitude of blasting activity in the PRB under the Routine Mining Seismicity Earthquake Hazards Program (USGS 2008). Coal mine blasting operations induced seismic activity does occur throughout the PRB and has reached a USGS local magnitude rating of 3.6 (USGS 2004). 4.2.2.1 Coal Most of the coal resources of the basin are found in the Fort Union and Wasatch Formations. Although coals are present in the Wasatch, they are thinner and less continuous than the coals in the Fort Union and, therefore, they are not as economically important as the coals in the Fort Union for either coal mining or CBNG development. Projected levels of coal production and disturbance under the lower and upper coal production scenarios are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. In the coal mine areas, the overburden and coal would be removed and the overburden replaced, resulting in a permanent change in the geology of the area and a permanent reduction of coal resources. 4-36 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 4.2.2.2 Oil and Gas Drilling for conventional oil and gas in the Wyoming PRB has declined considerably in the last 15 years. However, as discussed above, increasing prices have led to increased interest in drilling and there remains potential for finding and developing these resources in the deeper formations of the basin. Conversely, CBNG production increased rapidly from 1999 through 2002 but began to level off in 2003. Projected production rates for conventional oil and gas and CBNG in 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-6 and 4-7. Oil and gas and related development accounts for most of the projected mineral disturbance outside of the coal mining areas. It generally would result in only shallow, discrete areas of surface disturbance, as discussed above. The acreages over which these impacts were occurring (as of 2003) and are projected to occur in the years 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-10. 4.2.2.3 Other Mineral Resources As discussed in Section 4.1.3.1, other mineral resources that are being mined in the Wyoming PRB include uranium, bentonite, clinker, and aggregate. Production of uranium and bentonite is not likely to be affected by development of coal or CBNG in the PRB. Aggregate and clinker production levels are more likely to be affected by other mineral development levels because these resources would be used in construction projects related to other mineral development. 4.2.2.4 Paleontology Scientifically significant paleontological resources, including vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, are known to occur in many of the geologic formations within the Wyoming PRB. These fossils are documented in the scientific literature, in museum records, and are known by paleontologists and land managers familiar with the area. The Wasatch Formation is the most geographically widespread unit exposed on the surface over most of the Task 3 study area. It is underlain by the Fort Union Formation. The fossiliferous Morrison and Lance Formations crop out in the western portion of the basin but occur at depth in the vicinity of the coal mines and CBNG activity in the eastern portion of the basin. Within the Task 3 study area, the highly fossiliferous White River Formation occurs only on Pumpkin Buttes in southwestern Campbell County. As of 2003, no significant or unique paleontological localities had been recorded on federal lands in the PRB. However, the lack of localities in the PRB does not mean that scientifically significant fossils are not present, as much of the area within and surrounding the PRB has not been adequately explored for paleontological resources. As a result, development activities in the Task 3 study area have the potential to adversely affect scientifically significant fossils, if they are present in or adjacent to disturbance areas. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-37

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences The potential for impacts to scientifically significant fossils would be greatest in areas where Class 4 or 5 formations are present (see Section 3.3.3.1). The Wasatch Formation is classified as a Class 5 formation. The Fort Union Formation is classified as a Class 3 formation, which means that fossil content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence. The greatest potential impact to surface and subsurface fossils would result from disturbance of surface sediments and shallow bedrock during construction and/or operations, depending on the type of project. Potential subsurface disturbance of paleontological resources (e.g., during drilling operations) would not be visible or verifiable. The areas over which these impacts occurred as of 2003 and are projected to occur as a result of all projected development in the years 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-10. As only portions of the Task 3 study area have been evaluated for the occurrence of paleontological resources, and discrete locations for development activities cannot be determined at this time, no accurate estimate can be made as to the number of paleontological sites that may be affected by cumulative development activities. Development activities which involve federally owned surface and/or minerals are subject to federal guidelines and regulations protecting paleontological resources. Protection measures, permit conditions of approval, and/or mitigation measures would be determined on a project-specific basis at the time of permitting to minimize potential impacts to paleontological resources as a result of these activities. 4.2.3 Air Quality There is substantial scientific evidence that increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) and land use changes are contributing to an increase in average global temperature. However since these gases are not regulated pollutants, a discussion of this subject has been included in section 4.2.14. The Task 1A Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005b) 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. Results were provided for both Wyoming and Montana at the individual receptor areas. The Task 2 Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005a) identifies reasonably foreseeable development activities for the years 2010, 2015, and 2020. The Task 3A Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2006b) evaluates the impacts on air quality and air quality-related values for the year 2010 using the development levels projected for 2010 and the same model and meteorological data that were used for the baseline year study in the Task 1A Report. BLM 4-38 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences updated the model and conducted impact analysis for the year 2015 (BLM 2008h) The updated Task 3A report for the PRB Coal Review Cumulative Air Quality Effects for 2015 uses a revised baseline year of 2004 with revised projected 2015 scenarios. Impacts for 2015 and 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. The revised baseline year emissions inventory was developed using 2004 actual emissions data or emissions estimates and has incorporated the recent analyses of emissions in Wyoming and Montana, which were not available when the 2010 modeling study was done. Existing and projected emissions sources for the baseline year (2004) and 2015 analyses were identified within a study area comprised of the following counties in the PRB in Wyoming and Montana:
•

Campbell County, all of Sheridan and Johnson counties except the Bighorn National Forest lands to the west of the PRB, and the northern portion of Converse County, Wyoming. Rosebud, Custer, Powder River, Big Horn, and Treasure counties, Montana.

•

A state-of-the-art, guideline dispersion model was used to evaluate impacts of the existing and projected source emissions on several source groups, as follows:
•

Near-field receptors in Wyoming and Montana covering the PRB Coal Review Task 1A and 3A study area in each state. Overall, the near-field receptor grid points were spaced at one kilometer intervals over the study area; Receptors in nearby federally designated pristine or “Class I” areas; and Receptors at other sensitive areas (Class II sensitive areas).

• •

The EPA guideline CALPUFF model system version 5.8 (Scire et al. 1999a) was used for this study, which differs from the version used in the Task 1A and original Task 3A studies. The impacts for the baseline year (2004) and for 2015 lower and upper coal production scenarios were directly modeled. As discussed above, the modeling domain extends over most of Wyoming, southeastern Montana, southwestern North Dakota, western South Dakota, and western Nebraska. An interagency group participated in developing the modeling protocol and related domain that were used for this analysis. The modeling approach for the updated Task 3A Report used actual emissions from existing sources representative of 2004 operations and projected those emissions for the expected level of development in 2015. Year 2004 emission inventory data were previously developed for the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. No specific emissions data Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-39

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences were available for the projected levels of development. The baseline year emissions data were gathered from a variety of sources, but mainly relied on data collected by the WDEQ/AQD and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Only actual emission sources inside the study area described above were included in the modeling. Key major sources were included, such as the coal-fired power plants, gas-fired power plants, and sources that were included in the Title V (operating permit) program. The Dave Johnston power plant, which is located outside of but adjacent to the study area in Converse County, was included in the baseline year study and in the projected emissions. Some operational adjustments were made to accommodate small sources with air permits that were presumed to be operating at less than full capacity. Emissions from other sources, including estimated constructionrelated fugitive dust emissions, were computed based on EPA emission factors and on input data from WDEQ/AQD. The existing regional air quality conditions generally are very good in the PRB Coal Review Task 1A and Task 3A study area. There are limited air pollution emissions sources (few industrial facilities, including the surface coal mines, and few residential emissions in relatively small communities and isolated ranches) and good atmospheric dispersion conditions. The available data show that the region is in compliance with the ambient air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). There have been no monitored exceedances of the annual particulates (PM10) standard in the Wyoming PRB. Air quality modeling indicates the projected mine activities at the three Wright area applicant 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 equal to or below the mines’ current air quality permit levels. Visibility data collected around the region indicate that, although there are some days with notable impacts at Class I areas, the general trend in the region shows little change in visibility impacts at Badlands National Park and at the Jim Bridger Wilderness area over the period from 1989 to 2005 (Figure 3-19). Predicted impacts from baseline year (2004) and projected 2015 emissions were modeled for four air quality criteria pollutants (NO2, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10), along with changes in air quality-related values at Class I areas and at identified sensitive areas. For regulatory purposes, the Class I PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) evaluations are not directly comparable to the air quality permitting requirements, because the modeling effort does not identify or separately evaluate increment consuming sources that would need to be evaluated under the PSD program. The cumulative impact analysis focuses on changes in cumulative impacts, but not on a comparison to PSD-related evaluations, which would apply to specific sources. Table 4-11 presents the modeled impacts on ambient air quality at the near-field receptors in Montana and Wyoming. Results indicate the maximum impacts at 4-40 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-11. Projected Maximum Potential Near-field Impacts (µg/m3).
Base Year (2004) Impacts 31.3 15.3 112.3 462.0 13.4 87.6 38.4 250.4 3.3 409.0 1.6 16.1 65.0 162.9 1.0 10.2 2.8 29.1 2015 Lower 2015 Upper Coal Coal Development Development Scenario Scenario Impacts Impacts Wyoming Near-field 46.7 47.4 16.2 119.6 814.1 18.7 179.5 53.5 512.8 16.2 119.6 814.1 21.4 179.5 PSD Class II Increments 25 20 91 512 ----17 30

Pollutant NO2 SO2

Averaging Time Annual Annual 24-hour 3-hour Annual 24-hour Annual 24-hour Annual 1-hour Annual 24-hour 3-hour 1-hour Annual 24-hour Annual 24-hour

NAAQS 100 80 365 1,300 15 35 --150 100 --150 80 365 1,300 --15 35 --150

Wyoming AAQS 100 60 260 1,300 15 35 50

Montana AAQS --1 -- -- -- ------ -- 100 564 80 365 25 1,300 1,300 1520 35 50 150

PM2.5

PM10

NO2

61.0 512.9 Montana Near-field 6.5 6.5 826.3 826.4 1.7 16.5 66.5 166.6 1.8 15.4 5.2 44.0 1.7 16.6 66.5 166.6 1.9 20.6 5.3 58.5

-- -- -- -- -- -- ------ --

---

SO2

91 512 ------17 30

PM2.5

PM10

1 No standard or increment
Value units are microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3)
Bold values indicate projected exceedance of AAQS
Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2008h)

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-41

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences any point in each receptor group, and data are provided for the baseline year (2004) analysis and for both coal production scenarios for 2015. Based on the modeling results, the baseline year (2004) maximum impacts on ambient air quality were well below the ambient air quality standards for NO2 and SO2. The Annual PM2.5 and PM10 impacts in Wyoming are predicted to be over the Wyoming Annual Air Quality Standard (AAQS) for the 2015 lower and upper development scenarios. The 2004 maximum modeled 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 levels in Montana are also well below the state and national AAQS; however, the 2004 maximum modeled 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 levels are greater than the 150 µg/m3 and 35 µg/m3 AAQS, respectively, for some near-field receptors near PRB sources in Wyoming. The modeling also indicated that visibility impacts in the surrounding Class I and Class II areas for the modeled year 2015 showed some increase in visibility impacts. For the Montana near-field receptors, the modeling for the 24-hour and annual PM10 and PM2.5 levels projects a maximum impact below the state and national AAQS for both coal production scenarios for 2015. The upper coal production scenario shows an increase in the impact of roughly 100 percent above the baseline year for these two parameters. Projected impacts for SO2 and annual NO2 show compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and Montana AAQS. The 1-hour NO2 projected levels for the lower and upper development scenarios are above the Montana AAQS. For the Montana receptors, modeling for the NO2 and SO2 levels were projected to be essentially equal for both coal development scenarios for 2015. 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 above 150 µg/m3 for several relatively small areas surrounding coal mines and CBNG operations in the Wyoming PRB. As shown in Table 4-11, the maximum modeled PM10 impacts from all sources for both the 2015 lower and upper coal development scenarios are over three times the 24-hour Wyoming AAQS standard. The maximum modeled PM2.5 impacts from all sources for both the 2015 lower and upper coal development scenarios are over five times the 24-hour Wyoming AAQS 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 “Best Available Work Practice” mitigation measures in all coal mine permits. The monitored exceedances at surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB and the measures that WDEQ/AQD has 4-42 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 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. The maximum modeled impacts on the annual PM2.5 and PM10 levels are projected to be above the standards (15 µg/m3 and 50 µg/m3, respectively) at near-field receptors in Wyoming for the 2015 lower and upper coal production scenarios. EPA has revoked the annual PM10 standard of 50 µg/m3, but until Wyoming enters into rule making to revise the WAAQS, that standard is still effective. It should be noted that WDEQ/AQD issues permits to mine coal. AQD cannot issue any permit that violates Ambient Air Quality Standards. Impacts of NO2 and SO2 emissions are predicted to be below the NAAQS and Wyoming AAQS at all Wyoming near-field receptors. A large portion of the impacts for all scenarios would be associated with coal-related sources, although non-coal sources would contribute a notable portion of the impact. Table 4-12 lists the three Class I areas and two Class II areas where the modeled impacts are the greatest. Table 4-12 includes a comparison to ambient air quality standards and PSD increments; however, it must be noted that this modeling analysis did not separate PSD increment-consuming sources from those that do not consume increment. The PSD-increment comparison is provided for informational purposes only and cannot be directly related to a regulatory interpretation of PSD increment consumption. For the Class I Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, modeled impacts for the baseline year (2004) and the two coal production scenarios for 2015 are less than the annual SO2 PSD Class I and Class II increment; below the PSD Class I and Class II increment levels for annual PM10, 24-hour SO2, and 3-hour SO2. The levels for 24-hour PM10 are above the Class I and Class II PSD increment levels in the base line year of 2004 and show potential exceedences in both the lower and upper development scenarios. For annual NO2, the modeled impacts for the Northern Cheyenne Reservations are less than the annual increment for the baseline year and lower and upper coal production scenarios. In the other two Class I areas, only the 24-hour PM10 impacts are higher than the comparison to the PSD increment levels for the baseline year and both coal production scenarios. In the sensitive Class II areas, all modeled impacts are well below the Class II PSD increment for the lower coal production scenario. The modeled 24-hour PM10 in both of the Class II areas indicates potential exceedences in the upper coal production scenario. The projected modeled visibility impacts for the baseline year (2004) and for the lower and upper coal production scenarios for 2015 for all analyzed Class I and sensitive Class II areas are listed in Table 4-13. For the baseline year, the maximum visibility impacts at Class I areas were determined to be at the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation in Montana and at Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks in South Dakota. For these locations, modeling showed more than 200 days of impacts with a change of 10 percent or more in extinction. A 10 percent change in extinction corresponds to 1.0 deciview (dv).

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-43

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-12. Maximum Predicted PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Area Impacts (µg/m3)1.
Base Year (2004) Averaging Period Impacts Class I Areas Annual 0.4 Annual 0.5 24-hour 3.1 3-hour 9.4 Annual 0.3 24-hour 3.4 Annual 0.9 24-hour 9.6 Annual 0.0 Annual 0.2 24-hour 3.0 3-hour 6.3 Annual 0.1 24-hour 1.6 Annual 0.2 24-hour 4.5 Annual 0.2 Annual 0.7 24-hour 3.7 3-hour 7.0 Annual 0.4 24-hour 3.8 Annual 1.0 24-hour 10.9 Sensitive Class II Areas Annual 0.6 Annual 0.5 24-hour 3.6 3-hour 14.3 Annual 0.5 24-hour 5.9 Annual 1.4 24-hour 16.9 Annual 0.9 Annual 2.3 24-hour 14.4 3-hour 76.8 Annual 0.8 24-hour 7.2 Annual 2.2 24-hour 20.5 2015 Lower Coal Development Scenario 0.6 0.6 3.4 9.6 0.5 5.1 1.5 14.4 0.0 0.2 3.1 6.3 0.1 1.6 0.2 4.6 0.3 0.8 4.1 7.4 0.5 4.6 1.3 13.3 0.6 0.6 3.7 14.3 0.5 7.8 1.6 22.3 1.4 2.3 14.6 77.0 1.0 9.4 2.9 26.9 2015 Upper Coal Development Production Scenario 0.9 0.7 3.4 9.6 0.5 5.1 1.5 14.6 0.0 0.2 3.1 6.3 0.1 1.6 0.2 4.7 0.3 0.8 4.1 7.4 0.5 4.7 1.4 13.6 0.7 0.6 4.0 14.3 0.7 11.9 2.1 34.1 1.7 2.3 14.6 77.0 1.4 14.3 4.1 40.7 PSD Class I/II Increments 2.5 2 5 25 ---2 -- 4 8 2.5 2 5 25 -- -- 4 8 2.5 2 5 25 -- -- 4 8 25 20 91 512 -- -- 17 30 25 20 91 512 -- -- 17 30

Location

Pollutant NO2 SO2

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation

PM2.5 PM10 NO2 SO2

Washakie Wilderness Area

PM2.5 PM10 NO2 SO2

Wind Cave National Park

PM2.5 PM10 NO2 SO2

Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area

PM2.5 PM10 NO2 SO2

Crow Indian Reservation

PM2.5 PM10

1 µg/m3 2 No

= microgram per cubic meter.
standard or increment.
Bold values indicate exceedance of PSD Class I or II standards.
Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2008h)

-44

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-13. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas.
Base Year (2004) No. of Days >10% 2015 Lower Coal Development Scenario Change in No. of Days >10% 2015 Upper Coal Development Scenario Change in No. of Days >10%

Sensitive Class II Areas

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-45

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences To provide a basis for discussing the modeled visibility impacts resulting from the projected increased production under the lower and upper coal production scenarios for 2015, the modeled visibility impacts for 2004 were subtracted from the model results for 2015. Table 4-13 shows the number of additional days that the projected impacts were greater than 1.0 dv (10 percent in extinction) for each site for the upper and lower coal production scenarios. Using Badlands Park as an example, the modeling analysis showed 218 days with impacts greater than 1.0 dv in 2004. Under the 2015 lower coal production scenario, the modeling analysis projects an additional 26 days with impacts greater than 1.0 dv, or a total of 244 days with impacts greater than 1.0 dv. For acid deposition, all predicted impacts are below the deposition threshold values for both nitrogen and sulfur compounds. There are substantial percentage increases in deposition under the lower and upper coal production scenarios for 2015; however, impacts remain well below the nitrogen and sulfur levels of concern (1.5 and 5.0 kilograms per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr), respectively). The acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) of sensitive lakes also was analyzed, and results are summarized in Table 4-14. The base year study indicated that none of the lakes had predicted significant impacts except Upper Frozen Lake; however, the lower and upper development scenarios for 2015 show an increased impact at Florence Lake, leading to an impact that is above the 10 percent acid neutralizing capacity. The study also modeled impacts of selected hazardous air pollutant emissions (benzene, ethyl benzene, formaldehyde, n-hexane, toluene, and xylene) on the receptors with the highest ambient impacts. The near-field receptors in Wyoming and Montana were analyzed for annual (chronic) and 1-hour (acute) impacts. Model results for the base year (2004) and 2015 development scenarios show that impacts are predicted to be well below the acute Reference Exposure Levels, non-carcinogenic Reference Concentrations for Chronic Inhalation, and carcinogenic risk threshold for all hazardous air pollutants. The maximally exposed individual’s carcinogenic risk factor due to benzene exposure is predicted to increase 50 percent as a result of projected PRB development, but even with this substantial increase the predicted risk is well below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) carcinogenic risk thresholds. For 2020, the PRB Coal Review updated Task 3A Report includes a qualitative analysis of potential air quality impacts and the impacts from individual source groups, based on the projected changes from 2004 to 2015 for the respective coal production scenarios. The production from conventional oil and gas activities is projected to peak at 2010, with slight declines predicted over the following decade. The production from CBNG activities is projected to peak at 2015, with slight declines predicted over the following decade. Therefore, from these sources, expected impacts would decrease slightly from 2015 to 2020. The coal mining sources would be the major contributors to PM10 and PM2.5 impacts in the near-field between 2015 and 2020, and these impacts would result from the proximity of the receptors to the coal mining operations. If coal mines expand or relocate, those impacts likely would follow that development; however, 4-46 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-14. Predicted Total Cumulative Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity of Sensitive Lakes.
Background ANC (µeq/L) 67.0 Base Year 2004 Change (percent) 4.00 2015 Lower Coal Development Scenario Change (percent) 4.11 2015 Upper Coal Development Scenario Change (percent) 4.11

Location

Lake Black Joe

Area (hectares) 890

Thresholds (percent) 10

Bridger Wilderness Area

Deep

60.0

205

4.70

4.82

Hobbs Upper Frozen Emerald Florence

70.0 5.0 55.3 32.7

293 64.8 293 417

3.95 2.42 5.24 9.09

4.03 2.47 5.97 10.41

4.03 2.48 6.02 10.48

10 11 10 10

Cloud Peak Wilderness Area

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area Popo Agie Wilderness Area

Ross

53.5

4,455

2.72

2.79

Lower Saddlebag

55.5

155

6.28

6.42

6.43

1 Data for Upper Frozen Lake presented in changes in µeq/L rather than percent change. (For lakes with less than 25 µeq/L background ANC.) Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2008h)

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-47

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences the specific impacts would need to be addressed with a more refined modeling effort. Power plants currently are the major contributors to all SO2 impacts in the nearfield in both states. However, the projected impacts are well below any ambient standard or PSD increment. According to the PRB Coal Review Air Quality modeling analysis, predicted future expansion modeled to the year 2020 should not jeopardize the attainment of those standards. Impacts on NO2 concentrations are the result of emissions from all the source groups. No one source group dominates the NO2 impacts in the near-field. A pattern that is similar to the near-field receptors holds true for the Class I and sensitive Class II receptor groups. Essentially, the mine operations would continue to dominate the PM10 and PM2.5 impacts, the power plants would continue to dominate the SO2 impacts (although they would continue to be below the standards), and the overall source groups would continue to contribute to NO2 impacts. Impacts should remain below the annual NO2 standard for 2015 and 2020 in Wyoming and Montana. The 1-hour NO2 Montana near-field impacts indicate potential exceedences. Based on modeling results, one of lakes (Florence) in the Cloud Peak Class I area and one lake (Upper Frozen Lake) in the Bridger Class I area, exceeded the acid deposition thresholds for both the lower and upper coal production scenarios for 2015. With the exception of Florence and Upper Frozen lakes, the projected increases in coal development (and power plants) are not expected to raise the deposition levels above the thresholds, extended into 2020. The model results showed that the increased deposition, largely from SO2 emissions from power plants, exceeded the thresholds of significance for the ANC at sensitive (high alpine) lakes. The results indicate that with increased growth in power plant operations, the reduced ANC of the sensitive lakes would need to be addressed carefully for each proposed major development project. WDEQ/AQD and WDEQ/LQD mitigation and monitoring requirements for coal mine emissions are discussed in Sections 3.4.2.3 and 3.4.3.3. The discussion in these sections includes the operational control measures that are currently in place and would be required for mining operations on LBAs that are issued in the future, as well as measures that may be required to avoid future exceedances of the WAAQS and NAAQS and/or future mine-related impacts to the public. 4.2.4 Water Resources Surface and groundwater are used extensively throughout the PRB for agricultural water supply, municipal water supply, and both domestic and industrial water supply. Surface water use is limited to major perennial drainages and agricultural areas within the basin are found mainly along these drainages. Municipal water supply comes from a combination of surface and 4-48 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences groundwater. groundwater. Domestic and industrial water supply primarily is from

The PRB Coal Review Task 1B Report (BLM 2006c) describes the existing water resource conditions in the PRB Task 1 study area (Figure 4-1). The Task 3B Report (BLM 2006d) provides an assessment of the cumulative impact to surface and ground water resources associated with future projected levels of coal mining, coal mine dewatering, CBNG groundwater withdrawal and surface disposal, and coal mine and conventional oil and gas surface disposal of groundwater in the Task 3 study area (Figure 4-4). The groundwater portion of the impact analysis has not yet been completed. The surface water analysis addresses the cumulative impacts to surface water quality and channel stability as a result of surface discharge of groundwater by CBNG development and coal mine dewatering. The surface water quality portion of this analysis has been completed, but the channel stability portion is not yet complete. The following discussion includes a summary of the results of the Task 1B Report and the Task 3B surface water quality impact analysis, including a recent channel stability study. The Task 3B groundwater impact analysis will be incorporated into future EIS analyses when completed. 4.2.4.1 Groundwater There are five main aquifers in the PRB Coal Review Task 1 study area (Figure 4 1) that can be used for water supply:
    

Madison Aquifer System; Dakota Aquifer System; Fox Hills/Lance Aquifer System; Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System; and Quaternary Alluvial Aquifer System.

The Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System includes the coal and overburden aquifers that are directly affected by surface coal mining and CBNG development. It is also a major source of local water supply for domestic and stock water use. Table 4-15 shows the recoverable groundwater in the components of the Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System. The volumes of recoverable groundwater from the sandstones within the Wasatch/Tongue River Aquifer, the Lebo Confining Layer, and the Tullock Aquifer were determined from the volume of sandstone in each of these units multiplied by the 13 percent specific yield value for sandstone. Similarly, the volume of recoverable groundwater from the coals within the Wasatch/Tongue River was calculated from the volume of coal multiplied by the 0.4 percent specific yield value for coal. As a result of statutory requirements and concerns, several studies and a number of modeling analyses have been conducted to help predict the impacts of surface coal mining on groundwater resources in the Wyoming portion of the PRB. Some of these studies and modeling analyses are discussed below. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-49

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-15. Recoverable Groundwater in the Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System.
Specific Yield (percent) Percentage of Sand/Coal Average Formation Thickness (ft) Average Sand/Coal Thickness (ft) Recoverable Groundwater (acre-feet)1 743,169,695 2,514,392 227,270,193 447,182,224 Surface Area (acres) 5,615,609 4,988,873 6,992,929 7,999,682

Hydrogeologic Unit Wasatch-Tongue River Aquifer Sandstones Wasatch-Tongue River Aquifer Coals Lebo Confining Layer Sandstones Tullock Aquifer Sandstones
1

2,035 2,035 1,009 1,110

50.0 6.2 33.0 52.0

1,018 126 250 430

13.0 0.4 13.0 13.0

Calculated by multiplying Surface Area  Average Sand/Coal Thickness  Specific Yield. These numbers vary slightly from the numbers presented in Table 3-5 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the PRB Oil and Gas Project. Source: BLM 2003

In 1987, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the WDEQ and OSM, conducted a study of the hydrology of the eastern PRB. The resulting description of the cumulative hydrologic effects of all current and anticipated surface coal mining (as of 1987) was published in 1988 in the USGS WaterResources Investigation Report entitled “Cumulative Potential Hydrologic Impacts of Surface Coal Mining in the Eastern Powder River Structural Basin, Northeastern Wyoming”, also known as the “USGS CHIA” (Martin et al. 1988). This report evaluates the potential cumulative groundwater impacts of surface coal mining in the area and is incorporated by reference into this EIS. The USGS CHIA analysis considered the proposed mining at the Antelope Mine. It did not evaluate potential groundwater impacts related to additional coal leasing in this area and it did not consider the potential for overlapping groundwater impacts from coal mining and CBNG development. Each mine must assess the probable hydrologic consequences of mining as part of the mine permitting process. The WDEQ/LQD must evaluate the cumulative hydrologic impacts associated with each proposed mining operation before approving the mining and reclamation plan for each mine, and they must find that the cumulative hydrologic impacts of all anticipated mining would not cause material damage to the hydrologic balance outside of the permit area for each mine. As a result of these requirements, each existing approved mining permit includes an analysis of the hydrologic impacts of the surface coal mining proposed at that mine. If major amendments to mining and reclamation permits are proposed, then the potential cumulative impacts of the revisions must also be evaluated. If the six Wright Area Coal LBA tracts are leased to the respective applicants, the existing mining and reclamation permits for each current mine must be revised and approved to include the new lease before it can be mined. 4-50 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences The PRB Oil and Gas Project FEIS (BLM 2003) includes a modeling analysis of the groundwater impacts if an additional 39,000 new CBNG wells are drilled in the PRB by the end of 2011. The project area for this EIS, which covers all of Campbell, Sheridan, and Johnson counties, as well as the northern portion of Converse County, is similar to the study area for the PRB Coal Review Task 1 and Task 2 study area (Figure 4-1). Another source of data on the impacts of surface coal mining on groundwater is the monitoring that is required by WDEQ/LQD and administered by the mining operators. Each mine is required to monitor groundwater levels and quality in the coal and in the shallower aquifers in the area surrounding their operations. Monitoring wells are also required to record water levels and water quality in reclaimed areas. The coal mine groundwater monitoring data are published each year by the Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization (GAGMO), a voluntary group formed in 1980. Members of GAGMO include most of the companies with operating or proposed mines in the Wyoming PRB, WDEQ, the Wyoming SEO, BLM, USGS, and OSM. GAGMO contracts with an independent firm each year to publish the annual monitoring results. GAGMO also periodically publishes reports summarizing the water monitoring data collected since 1980 in the Wyoming PRB (e.g., Hydro-Engineering 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2007). The major groundwater issues related to surface coal mining that have been identified are:


the effect of the removal of the coal aquifer and any overburden aquifers within the mine area and replacement of these aquifers with backfill material; the extent of the temporary lowering of static water levels in the aquifers around the mine due to dewatering associated with removal of these aquifers within the mine boundaries; the effects of the use of water from the subcoal Fort Union Formation by the mines; changes in water quality as a result of mining; and potential overlapping drawdown due to proximity of coal mining and CBNG development.



 

The impacts of large scale surface coal mining on a cumulative basis for each of these issues are discussed in the following paragraphs. The effect of replacing the coal and overburden with backfill is the first major groundwater concern. The following discussion of recharge, movement, and Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-51

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences discharge of water in the backfill aquifer is excerpted from the USGS CHIA (Martin et al. 1988): Postmining recharge, movement, and discharge of groundwater in the Wasatch aquifer and Wyodak coal aquifer will probably not be substantially different from premining conditions. Recharge rates and mechanisms will not change substantially. Hydraulic conductivity of the spoil aquifer will be approximately the same as in the Wyodak coal aquifer allowing groundwater to move from recharge areas where clinker is present east of mine areas through the spoil aquifer to the undisturbed Wasatch aquifer and Wyodak coal aquifer to the west. Monitoring data verify that recharge has occurred and is continuing in the backfill (Hydro-Engineering 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2007). The water monitoring summary reports prepared each year by GAGMO list current water levels in the monitoring wells completed in the backfill and compare them with the 1980 water levels, as estimated from the 1980 coal water-level contour maps. In the 1991 GAGMO 10-year report, some recharge had occurred in 88 percent of the 51 backfill wells reported at that time (Hydro-Engineering 1991). In the GAGMO 20-year report, 79 percent of the 82 backfill wells measured contained water (Hydro-Engineering 2001). In the GAGMO 25-year report, 8.6 percent of the 101 backfill wells measured contained water (Hydro-Engineering 2007). Coal companies are required by state and federal law to mitigate any water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by mining. The cumulative size of the backfill area in the PRB and the duration of mining activity would be increased by mining the currently pending LBA tracts, including the six Wright Area Coal LBA tracts. Because the mined-out areas are being backfilled and the monitoring data demonstrate that recharge of the backfill is occurring, substantial additional impacts are not anticipated as a result of the pending leasing actions. Scoria or clinker, the baked and fused rock formed by prehistoric burning of the Wyodak-Anderson coal seam, occurs all along the coal outcrop area (Figure 4-5) and is believed to be the major recharge source for the backfill aquifer, just as it is for the coal. However, not all clinker is saturated. Some scoria is mined for road-surfacing material, but saturated clinker is not generally mined since abundant clinker exists above the water table and does not present the mining problems that would result from mining saturated clinker. Therefore, the major recharge source for the backfill aquifer is not being disturbed by current mining. Scoria occurs in very localized areas on only the North Hilight Field and North Porcupine LBA Tracts evaluated under Alternative 2, BLM preferred alternative tract configuration for each tract. The second major groundwater issue is the extent of water level drawdown in the coal and shallower aquifers in the area surrounding the mines. In general, the saturated sand aquifers in the Wasatch Formation overburden have limited 4-52 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences extent and, as a result, the drawdowns in the Wasatch Formation are much smaller and cover much less area than the coal drawdowns. In this EIS, assessment of cumulative impacts to groundwater related to surface coal mining is based on impact predictions made by the Wright Area coal mines Those drawdowns are extrapolated to evaluate the potential impacts of mining of the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, North Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. Figure 4-5 depicts the extrapolated extent of the 5-feet cumulative drawdown contour within the Wyodak coal aquifer resulting from the four mines (Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope) in the Wright subregion. The extent of the 5-feet drawdown contour is used by WDEQ/LQD to assess the cumulative extent of the impact to the groundwater system caused by mining operations. The GAGMO 25-year report provides actual groundwater drawdown information after 25 years of mining (Hydro-Engineering 2007). Of the 530 monitoring wells included in the GAGMO 25-year report, 195 are completed in the coal beds and 193 are completed in the overlying sediments (which includes sand channels) or interburden between the coal beds at 16 active and proposed mine sites. The balance of the monitoring wells are completed in local alluvial aquifers or in strata below the lowest coal seam mined. Since 1996, some BLM monitor wells have been included in the GAGMO reports. The USGS CHIA predicted the approximate area of 5 feet or more water level decline in the Wyodak coal aquifer which would result from “all anticipated coal mining”. “All anticipated coal mining” included 16 surface coal mines operating at the time the report was prepared and six additional mines proposed at that time. All of the currently producing mines, including the South Gillette and Wright Area coal mines, were considered in the USGS CHIA analysis (Martin et al. 1988). The study predicted that water supply wells completed in the coal may be affected as far away as 8 miles from mine pits, although the effects at that distance were predicted to be minimal. As drawdown propagates to the west, available drawdown in the coal aquifer increases. Available drawdown is defined as the elevation difference between the potentiometric surface (elevation to which water will rise in a well bore) and the bottom of the aquifer. Proceeding west, the coal depth increases faster than the potentiometric surface declines, so available drawdown in the coal increases. Since the depth to coal increases, most stock and domestic wells are completed in units above the coal. Consequently, with the exception of CBNG wells, few wells are completed in the coal in the areas west of the mines. Those wells completed in the coal have considerable available drawdown, so it is unlikely that surface coal mining would cause adverse impacts to wells outside the immediate mine area. Wells in the Wasatch Formation were predicted to be impacted by drawdown only if they were within 2,000 feet of a mine pit (Martin et al. 1988). Drawdown occurs farther from the mine pits in the coal than in the shallower aquifers Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-53

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences
R. 75 W. T. 46 N. R. 74 W. R. 73 W. R. 72 W.
59

R. 71 W.
H oadley Road

R. 70 W.

R. 69 W. T. 46 N.

Highway

5
Savageton Road

Wagensen Road

State

Lawver Road

Mills Road

BNSF & UP RR

T. 45 N.

Breen Road

Lawver Road

T. 45 N.

Keeline

Clarkelen Road

Campbell County
Mackey Road

Weston County

Ro ad

T. 44 N.
Mo

or e

d Roa

TOWN OF
WRIGHT

T. 44 N.

Jacobs Road

State Highway 50

Todd Road

ner C os

ad C ounty Ro

Hilight Road

T. 43 N.

e at St

87 y3 wa gh Hi

State Highway 450

T. 43 N.

Matheson Road

Antelope Road

T. 42 N.
te H Sta

Edwards
Road

Reno Road

7 y 38 wa ig h

T. 42 N.

State

H ig h way 59
Matheson Road

T. 41 N.

Campbell County
Converse County

T. 41 N.

T. 40 N.

e elop Ant d R oa

T. 40 N.

T. 39 N.

5
R. 75 W. R. 74 W. R. 73 W. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

T. 39 N.

LEGEND

Extent of WDEQ's Cumulative and Extrapolated Life of Mine Drawdown (5 feet) with Wright Area Coal LBA Tracts Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure 4-5. Extrapolated Extent of Life of Mine Cumulative Drawdown Within the Wyodak Coal Aquifer With the Addition of Wright Area Coal LBA Tracts.

4-54

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences because the coal is a confined aquifer that is areally extensive. The area in which the shallower aquifers (Wasatch Formation, alluvium, and clinker) experience a 5-feet drawdown would be much smaller than the area of drawdown in the coal because the shallower aquifers are generally discontinuous, of limited areal extent, and often unconfined. When the USGS CHIA was prepared, there were about 1,200 water supply wells within the maximum impact area defined in that study. Of those wells, about 580 were completed in Wasatch aquifers, about 100 in the Wyodak coal aquifer, and about 280 in strata below the coal. There were no completion data available for the remainder of the wells (about 240) at the time the USGS CHIA was prepared. If the six Wright Area Coal LBA Tracts are leased and mined, the groundwater drawdown would be extended into the area surrounding the proposed new leases. When a lease is issued to an existing mine for a maintenance tract, the mine must revise its existing mining permit to include the new tract in its mine and reclamation plans. In order to do that, the lessee would be required to conduct a detailed groundwater analysis to predict the extent of drawdown in the coal and overburden aquifers caused by mining the new lease. WDEQ/LQD would use the revised drawdown predictions to update their cumulative hydrologic impact analysis (WDEQ CHIA) for this portion of the PRB. The applicant has installed monitoring wells that would be used to confirm or refute drawdown predicted by analysis. This analysis would be required as part of the WDEQ mine permitting procedure, which is discussed in Chapter 1 of this EIS. Potential water-level decline in the subcoal Fort Union Formation is the third major groundwater issue. Water level declines in the Tullock Aquifer have been documented in the Gillette area. According to Crist (1991), these declines are most likely attributable to pumpage for municipal use by Gillette and for use at subdivisions and trailer parks in and near the City of Gillette. Most of the waterlevel declines in the subcoal Fort Union wells occur within one mile of the pumped wells (Crist 1991, Martin et al. 1988). Most of the mines have water supply wells completed in zones below the lowest coal seam mined (e.g., subcoal Fort Union Formation and the underlying Lance-Fox Hills aquifer), but the mine facilities in the PRB are separated by a distance of one mile or more, so little interference between mine supply wells would be expected (refer to Section 3.5.1.2). In response to concerns voiced by regulatory personnel, several mines have conducted impact studies of the subcoal Fort Union Formation. The OSM also commissioned a cumulative impact study of the subcoal Fort Union Formation to address the effects of mine facility wells on this aquifer (OSM 1984). Conclusions from these studies are similar and may be summarized as follows:


Because of the discontinuous nature of the sands in this formation and because most large-yield wells are completed in several different sands, it is difficult to correlate completion intervals between wells. 4-55

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences


In the Gillette area, water levels in this aquifer have probably declined because the City of Gillette and several subdivisions have utilized water from the formation (Crist 1991). (Note: Gillette is mixing Fort Union Formation water with water from wells completed in the Madison Formation. Also, because drawdown has occurred, some operators are able to dispose of CBNG water by injecting it into the subcoal Fort Union Formation near the City of Gillette.) Because large saturated thicknesses are available (locally) in this aquifer unit, generally 500 feet or more, a drawdown of 100 to 200 feet in the vicinity of a pumped well would not dewater the aquifer.



Most of the existing coal mines in the PRB have permits from the Wyoming SEO for subcoal Fort Union Formation water supply wells. Four industrial water supply wells are completed in the Fort Union Formation and one industrial supply well is completed in the underlying Lance-Fox Hills aquifer within Black Thunder Mine’s existing permit area. The Jacobs Ranch Mine uses five wells completed in the subcoal Fort Union Formation for industrial water supply. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine uses four wells completed in the subcoal Fort Union Formation and one well completed in the Lance-Fox Hills aquifer for industrial water supply. Locations of the three applicant mines’ water supply wells are shown on Figures 3-20, 3-21, and 3-22, respectively. Extending the life of the three Wright Area coal mines by issuing new leases would result in additional water being withdrawn from the subcoal Fort Union Formation and Lance-Fox Hills aquifer systems, but no new subcoal water supply wells would be required. The additional water withdrawal would not be expected to extend the area of water level drawdown over a substantially larger area due to the discontinuous nature of the sands in the Tullock Member and the fact that drawdown and yield reach equilibrium in a well due to recharge effects. Due to the distances separating subcoal Fort Union Formation and Lance-Fox Hills aquifer wells used for mine water supply, these wells have not experienced interference and are not likely to in the future. Water requirements and sources for proposed power plants are not currently known, however, there are no proposed power plants in the immediate vicinity of the three Wright Area coal mines. The Wyoming SEO is discouraging further development of the lower Fort Union Formation aquifers, so the most likely groundwater source for future power plants is the Lance-Fox Hills aquifer system. This would reduce the chances that the power plants would add to cumulative hydrologic impacts of mining and CBNG production. The fourth issue of concern with respect to groundwater is the effect of mining on water quality. Specifically, what effect does mining have on the water quality in the surrounding area, and what are the potential water quality problems in the backfill aquifer following mining? In a regional study of the cumulative impacts of coal mining, the median concentrations of dissolved solids and sulfates were found to be higher in water 4-56 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences from backfill aquifers than in water from either the Wasatch Formation overburden or the Wyodak coal aquifer (Martin et al. 1988). This is expected because blasting and movement of the overburden materials exposes more surface area to water, increasing dissolution of soluble materials, particularly from the overburden materials that were situated above the saturated zone in the premining environment. One pore volume of water is the volume of water that would be required to saturate the backfill following reclamation. The time required for one pore volume of water to pass through the backfill aquifer is greater than the time required for the postmining groundwater system to reestablish equilibrium. According to the USGS CHIA, estimates of the time required to reestablish equilibrium range from tens to hundreds of years (Martin et al. 1988). The major current use of water from the aquifers being replaced by the backfill (the Wasatch Formation overburden and Wyodak coal aquifers) is for livestock because these aquifers are typically too high in dissolved solids for domestic use and well yields are typically too low for irrigation (Martin et al. 1988). Chemical analyses of 336 samples collected between 1981 and 1986 from 45 wells completed in backfill aquifers at 10 mines indicated that the quality of water in the backfill will, in general, meet the state standard for livestock use of 5,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for total dissolved solids (TDS) when recharge occurs (Martin et al. 1988). The 2000 Annual GAGMO report (Hydro-Engineering 2001) evaluated samples from 48 backfill wells in 1999 and found that the TDS in 75 percent were less than 5,000 mg/L, TDS in 23 percent were between 5,000 and 10,000 mg/L, and TDS in one well was above 10,000 mg/L. An analysis of about 2,000 samples collected from 95 backfill monitoring wells between 1986 and 2002 found that the water quality in 75 percent of the wells were within the acceptable range for the Wyoming livestock standard, with 25 percent exceeding that standard (Ogle 2004). WDEQ/LQD calculated a median TDS concentration of 3,293 mg/L for the backfill aquifer in the east-central area of the PRB, which includes the four mines located immediately south of Gillette, based on 1,384 samples (Ogle et al. 2005). These results suggest that the TDS in the backfill aquifer in the middle group of mines meets the requirements for livestock use and is similar to TDS found in the undisturbed Wasatch Formation overburden but typically larger than TDS found in the Wyodak coal aquifer. The 2005 Annual GAGMO report (Hydro-Engineering 2006) indicates that TDS concentrations in 2005 ranged from 656 mg/L at well RW2804 (at the Belle Ayr Mine) to 12,409 mg/L at well SP-4-NA (at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine). The GAGMO 25-Year Report (Hydro-Engineering 2007) reported samples collected from 57 backfill monitoring wells, and of the last samples that were collected from those wells in 2005, the TDS concentrations ranged from a low of 656 mg/L to and high of 12,409 mg/L, with an average of 3,800 mg/L and a median of 3,670 mg/L. WDEQ/LQD calculated a median TDS concentration of 3,670 mg/L based on 869 samples Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-57

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences collected from monitoring wells with at least 15 years of data that are completed in the backfill at the three applicant mines included in this analysis, and concluded that the recovered concentrations will be suitable for post-mining land use (Ogle and Calle 2006). The incremental effect on groundwater quality due to leasing and mining the six Wright Area Coal LBA Tracts would be to increase the total volume of backfill and, thus, the time for equilibrium to reestablish. The fifth area of concern is the potential for cumulative impacts to groundwater resources due to the proximity of coal mining and CBNG development. The Wyodak coal is being developed by mining and CBNG production in the same general area. Dewatering activities associated with CBNG development have overlapped with and expanded the area of groundwater drawdown in the coal aquifer in the PRB over what would occur due to coal mining development alone, and this would be expected to continue. Numerical groundwater flow modeling was used to predict the impacts of the cumulative stresses imposed by mining and CBNG development on the Fort Union Formation coal aquifer in the PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS (BLM 2003). Modeling was necessary because of the large areal extent, variability, and cumulative stresses imposed by mining and CBNG development on the Fort Union coal aquifers. Information from earlier studies was incorporated into the modeling effort for this analysis. As expected, the modeling indicated that the groundwater impacts from CBNG development and surface coal mining would be additive in nature and that the addition of CBNG development would extend the area experiencing a loss in hydraulic head to the west of the mining area. The GAGMO 25-year Report stated that drawdowns in all areas have greatly increased due to the water production from the Wyodak coal aquifer by CBNG producers (HydroEngineering 2007). Drawdowns in the coal caused by CBNG development would be expected to reduce the need for dewatering in advance of mining, which would be beneficial for mining operations. Wells completed in the coal may also experience increased methane emissions in areas of significant aquifer depressurization. There is a potential for conflicts to occur over who (coal mining or CBNG operators) is responsible for replacing or repairing private wells that are adversely affected by the drawdowns; however, the number of potentially affected wells completed in the coal is not large. As discussed previously, coal companies are required by state and federal law to mitigate any water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by coal mining. In response to concerns about the potential impacts of CBNG development on water rights, a group of CBNG operators and local landowners developed a standard water well monitoring and mitigation agreement that can be used on a case-by-case basis as development proceeds. All CBNG operators 4-58 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences on federal oil and gas leases are required to offer this water well agreement to the surface landowners (BLM 2003). After CBNG development and coal mining projects are completed, it will take longer for groundwater levels to recover due to the overlapping drawdown impacts caused by the dewatering and depressuring of the coal aquifer by both operations. 4.2.4.2 Surface Water For the PRB Coal Review Task 1B Report, which describes the baseline year (2003) water resource conditions including surface water use and surface water availability, the Wyoming PRB is divided into two major water planning areas: the Powder/Tongue River Basin and the Northeast Wyoming River Basins. The main rivers in the Powder/Tongue River Basin are the Tongue River and the Powder River. The Powder/Tongue River Basin receives substantial surface water runoff from the Big Horn Mountains, leading to major agricultural development along drainages in the Tongue River and Powder River basins. Reservoirs are used throughout the basin for agricultural water supply and for municipal water supply in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. Water use in the Powder/Tongue River Basin as of 2002 is summarized in Table 4-16. Table 4-16. Water Use as of 2002 in the Powder/Tongue River Basins.
Dry Year Water Use Categories Agricultural Municipal Domestic Industrial1 Recreation Environmental Evaporation Total
1

Surface Water 178,000 2,700 -----

Groundwater 200 500 4,400 68,000

11,300 192,000

- 73,100

Normal Year (acre-feet per year) Surface GroundWater water 184,000 200 2,700 500 --4,400 --68,000 Non-consumptive Non-consumptive 11,300 - 198,000 73,100

Wet Year Surface Water 194,000 2,700 ----Groundwater 300 500 4,400 68,000

11,300 208,000

- 73,200

Includes conventional oil and gas production water and CBNG production water. Source: HKM Engineering et. al. 2002a

The Little Bighorn River, Tongue River, Powder River, Crazy Woman Creek, and Piney Creek carry the largest natural flows in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. Many of the other major drainages are affected by irrigation practices to the extent that their flows are not natural (HKM Engineering et al. 2002a). Water availability in the major sub-basins of the Powder/Tongue River Basin is summarized in Table 4-17. This table presents the amount of surface water in acre-feet that is physically available above and beyond allocated surface water in these drainages. As a result of the Yellowstone River Compact, Wyoming must share some of the physically available surface water in the Powder/Tongue River Basin with Montana. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-59

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-17. Surface Water Availability in the Powder/Tongue River Basins.
Sub-basin Little Bighorn River Tongue River Clear Creek Crazy Woman Creek Powder River Little Powder River Total Wet Years 152,000 473,000 213,000 69,000 547,000 48,000 1,502,000 Surface Water Availability (acre-feet per year) Normal Years 113,000 326,000 124,000 32,000 324,000 12,000 931,000 Dry Years 81,000 218,000 80,000 16,000 16,000 3,000 414,000

Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002a

The main rivers in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins are the Belle Fourche in Campbell and Crook counties and the Cheyenne River in Converse, Weston, and Niobrara counties. Water in these rivers and their tributaries comes from groundwater baseline flow and from precipitation, especially from heavy storms during the summer months. Water use in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins as of 2002 is summarized in Table 4-18. Table 4-18. Water Use as of 2002 in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins.
Dry Year Water Use Categories Agricultural Municipal Domestic Industrial (Oil and Gas)1 Industrial (Other) 2 Recreation Environmental Evaporation (Key Reservoirs) Evaporation (Stock Ponds) Surface Water 65,000 --------Groundwater 11,000 9,100 3,600 46,000 4,700 Normal Year (acre-feet per year) Surface Water 69,000 --------Groundwater 17,000 9,100 3,600 46,000 4,700 Wet Year Surface Water 71,000 --------Ground-
water
17,000 9,100 3,600 46,000 4,700

Non-consumptive Non-consumptive 14,000 --14,000 --14,000 ---

6,300 --6,300 --6,300 --Total 85,300 74,400 89,300 80,400 91,300 80,400 1 Includes conventional oil and gas production water and CBNG production water.
2 Includes electricity generation, coal mining, and oil refining.
Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002b

Stream flow in the major drainages of the Northeast much less than in the Powder/Tongue River Basin, major mountain range to provide snow melt runoff. major sub-basins of the Northeast Wyoming Rivers Table 4-19. 4-60

Wyoming River Basins is due to the absence of a Water availability in the Basin is summarized in

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-19. Surface Water Availability in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins.
Sub-basin Redwater Creek Beaver Creek Cheyenne River Belle Fourche River Total
Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002b

Wet Years 34,000 30,000 103,000 151,000 318,000

Surface Water Availability (acre-feet per year) Normal Years 26,000 20,000 31,000 71,000 148,000

Dry Years 17,000 14,000 5,000 13,000 49,000

The portions of the PRB Coal Review Task 3B Report (BLM 2008i) that have been completed evaluate cumulative impacts to surface water quality as a result of CBNG, conventional oil and gas, and surface coal mining development in 2003, and projected development in 2010, 2015, and 2020 in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area (Figure 4-4). The surface water resources in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area consist primarily of intermittent and ephemeral streams and scattered ponds and reservoirs. A major impact of the projected development activities would be direct surface disturbance of these surface water features. Table 4-10 summarizes the cumulative baseline (2003) and projected (in 2010, 2015, and 2020) acres of surface disturbance and reclamation. The projected activities would result in surface disturbance in each of the six Task 3 study area subwatersheds (Figure 4-4). Discrete locations for development disturbance and reclamation areas cannot be determined based on existing information. However, the projected disturbance would primarily involve the construction of additional linear facilities, product gathering lines, and road systems associated with conventional oil and gas and CBNG activities, plus additional disturbance associated with extending coal mining operations onto lands adjacent to the existing mines. Surface disturbing activities can result in sediment input to water bodies, which affects water quality parameters such as turbidity and bottom substrate composition. Contaminants also can be introduced into water bodies through chemical characteristics of the sediment. Studies have shown that TDS levels in streams near reclaimed coal mine areas have increased from one percent to seven percent (Martin et al. 1988). Typically, sedimentation effects are shortterm in duration and localized in terms of the affected area. Suspended sediment concentrations would stabilize and return to typical background concentrations after construction or development activities have been completed. It is anticipated that sediment input associated with development disturbance areas would be minimized by implementation of appropriate erosion control measures, as would be determined during future permitting. Future coal mining could remove intermittent or ephemeral streams and stock ponds in the Little Powder River, Upper Belle Fourche River, Upper Cheyenne River, and Antelope Creek subwatersheds. As discussed in Section 3.5.2, the Wright Area coal mines are in the Cheyenne River subwatershed. Coal mine Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-61

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences permits provide for removal of first- through fourth-order drainages. During reclamation, third- and fourth-order drainages must be restored; first- and second-order drainages often are not replaced (Martin et al. 1988). Coal mining-related surface water would be discharged into intermittent and ephemeral streams in four subwatersheds (Antelope Creek, Little Powder River, Upper Belle Fourche River, and Upper Cheyenne River). Based on current trends, it is assumed that most, if not all, of the coal mine-produced water would be consumed during operation. As discussed in Section 3.5.2.2, changes in surface runoff would occur as a result of the destruction and reconstruction of drainage channels as mining progresses. Sediment control structures would be used to manage discharges of surface water from the mine permit areas. State and federal regulations require treatment of surface runoff from mined lands to meet effluent standards. The PRB Coal Review assumes that future permitting would allow a portion of CBNG-produced water to be discharged to intermittent and ephemeral drainages as is currently allowed in the six subwatersheds in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area (Figure 4-4). It is estimated that up to 39,108, 41,899, and 37,390 mmgpy of water would be produced in 2010, 2015, and 2020, respectively. The PRB Coal Review Task 3B surface water quality impact analysis utilizes the surface water model described in the Surface Water Quality Analysis Technical Report (Greystone 2003), which was prepared in support of the PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS (BLM 2003), to evaluate the cumulative impacts to surface water resources from surface discharge of CBNG development. Based on past monitoring in receiving streams, most CBNG discharge water either infiltrates or evaporates within a few miles of the discharge points and generally is not recorded at USGS Stream gauging stations. Impacts to surface water flow and quality are therefore generally limited to within a few miles of the discharge point. In view of this, the PRB Coal Review Task 3B water quality impact analysis assumes a conveyance loss of 70 percent for the water quality assessment and modeling analysis. Key water quality parameters for predicting the potential effects of CBNG development in the surface water quality impact analysis focused on the suitability of surface water for irrigated agriculture. Sodium adsorption ratio, or SAR, and salinity, measured by electrical conductivity or EC, were utilized for this prediction. Most restrictive (MRPL) and least restrictive (LRPL) regulatory standards for EC and SAR applicable to the subwatersheds were developed and used in the analysis. The limits presented in Table 4-20 were used during the comparison of EC and SAR valued for resulting mixtures of existing streamflows and discharges from CBNG wells under various flow conditions and the CBNG water discharge projections for 2010, 2015, and 2020. The impacts to water quality on the receiving drainages assumed two hydrologic conditions: dry year conditions and normal year conditions. The impact analysis, conducted using monthly flows, comparatively evaluated the water 4-62 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-20. Summary of Proposed Limits for SAR and EC.
Most Restrictive Proposed Limit (MRPL) SAR EC (µS/cm) 5 2,000 2 2,000 6 2,000 Least Restrictive Proposed Limit (LRPL) SAR EC (µS/cm) 9.75 2,500 9.75 2,500 10 2,500 2,500

Subwatershed Little Powder Powder Belle Fourche Cheyenne, 10 2,000 10 Antelope Creek Source: Wyoming DEQ, Montana DEQ, and South Dakota Legislative Council

quality parameters (SAR and EC) of the receiving drainage before and after mixing with discharge water generated by the CBNG wells within that drainage. In general, the water discharged from the CBNG wells reflected increased levels of SAR and reduced levels of EC compared to the water quality of the receiving drainages. Impacts to water quality are likely to be maximized during the low flow months; consequently, the comparative evaluation of water quality also focused on the minimum monthly flow associated with the dry year and normal year conditions. The water quality impact analysis made several observations regarding the overall effects of mixing CBNG well production water with surface water in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. These general observations are summarized below. Before mixing, the surface water in the Upper Powder River exceeds the MRPL for both EC and SAR throughout the majority of the year. Levels of SAR are less than the LRPL while EC values generally exceed the LRPL from July through December. After mixing, a minimal reduction in EC and a minor increase in SAR are projected, which reflects the relatively small contribution of CBNG well production water to the much larger flows in the Upper Powder River. Projected SAR values exceed the MRPL throughout the year while meeting the LRPL. Projected EC values exceed the MRPL throughout the majority of the year and the LRPL from July through December. For Antelope Creek and the Dry Fork Cheyenne River under the before mixing scenario, the SAR values are relatively low and do not exceed the MRPL. The EC values exceed the MRPL during the low-flow months, but are typically less than the LRPL all year. After mixing, SAR levels increase but are projected to continue to meet the MRPL and a reduction in EC is projected that meets the MRPL throughout the year. This is a reflection of the lack of surface water in these streams combined with the relatively low values for EC and SAR in the CBNG well production water. Before mixing, the surface water in the Little Powder River exceeds the MRPL for EC and SAR throughout the majority of the year. SAR levels remain below the LRPL throughout the year, but EC levels exceed the LRPL during the low flow months. After mixing, the projected SAR values exceed the MRPL throughout the year and exceed the LRPL from one month (in 2003) to five months (in 2010 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-63

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences and 2015) of the year. The projected EC exceeds the MRPL for four months of the year but meets the LRPL throughout the year. For the Upper Cheyenne River before mixing, the SAR levels do not exceed the MRPL and the EC levels exceed the MRPL for eleven months of the year and the LRPL for nine months of the year. After mixing, the projected SAR levels continue to meet the MRPL throughout the year and the projected EC levels exceed the MRPL for 10 or more months of the year and the LRPL for six or more months of the year. Before mixing, the surface water in the Upper Belle Fourche River exceeds the MRPL for SAR from November through January while meeting the LRPL throughout the year. The EC levels exceed the MRPL from September through January and exceed the LRPL from November through January. After mixing, the projected SAR values exceed the MRPL six or more months of the year while continuing to meet the LRPL throughout the year. The projected EC values meet the MRPL throughout the year. The suitability of the mixed water for irrigation purposed is related to EC and SAR. In general, the water most suitable for irrigation has a relatively low SAR and a relatively high EC. Elevated SAR values may reduce permeability in clayey soils, which reduces the rate of water infiltration. As discussed above, the water discharged from the CBNG wells is generally characterized by higher levels of SAR and reduced levels of EC compared to the water quality of the receiving drainages. In those cases where mixing results in a significant increase in SAR and the EC is moderately low, the water was considered unsuitable. For Antelope Creek, the Dry Fork Cheyenne River, the Little Powder River and the Upper Belle Fourche River, the projected water quality after mixing demonstrated adequate suitability for irrigation during normal year conditions and unsuitability for irrigation during some to all of the irrigation season during dry year conditions. In general, for periods where CBNG well production water represents the majority of the flow available for irrigation purposes, there is a reduction in the suitability of the water for irrigation purposes. 4.2.5 Channel Stability A qualitative assessment of the impacts to receiving drainages resulting from the introduction of CBNG well production water was made. The channel of the Belle Fourche River below Moorcroft would change by less than 0.2%, while the channel of the Little Powder River near Weston would change by less than 0.3% (Table 4-21). Given the low increase in mean annual discharge from introduced CBNG water, changes in channel geomorphology (width, depth, gradient, bed material transport and meander wavelength) are considered imperceptible. Discharge of CBNG well production water into ephemeral drainages may start or exacerbate erosion in the channel. Given the potentially greater increase in ephemeral drainages due to a lower natural flow, channel geomorphology is more likely to be perceptible. Monitoring and mitigation for erosion are included 4-64 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-21. Impact of CBNG Production Water on Perennial Streams.
CBNG Discharge Potential Impact [Increased Width]

Location
Little Powder River above Dry Creek near Weston, Wyoming (USGS Gage 06324970) Belle Fourche River below Moorcroft, Wyoming (USGS Gage 06426500)
1

Channel Forming Discharge1 (cfs)
270 to 420

(cfs)
2.2

(%)
0.5% to 0.8%

Estimated Width Existing Combined Conditions Discharge (ft) (ft)
47.3 to 56.3 47.4 to 56.4

(ft)
0.15 to 0.12

(%)
0.3%

652 to 789

3.9

0.5% to 0.6%

66.9 to 72.1

67.0 to 72.2

0.16 to 0.14

0.2%

Discharge associated with the 1.5 to 2 year recurrence interval.

in water management planning for oil and gas drilling approvals. According to the BLM Task 3B Report, a special study was done of the Caballo Creek drainage in the Belle Ayr mine permit area, to see how reclaimed drainages were impacted by increased CBNG discharges. It was determined that CBNG discharge represented less than 1% of the 2-year peak discharge. No active erosion was noted in the natural or diverted portions of the Caballo Creek channel, while an increase in vegetative diversity and density was noted. The minor amount of flow increase would not likely result in increased erosion in streams similar to Caballo Creek. While it is more likely that creeks with smaller drainage areas, like Duck Nest or Bone Pile Creeks may experience more erosion due to relatively larger flow increases due to CBNG discharge, such effects were not observed in the field (BLM 2008i). 4.2.6 Alluvial Valley Floors The identified AVFs for all coal mines in the PRB Coal Review study area are described in the PRB Coal Review Task 1D Report (BLM 2005d), based on individual mine State Decision Documents. Regulatory determinations of AVF occurrence and location are completed as part of the permitting process for coal mining operations, because their presence can restrict mining activities under SMCRA and Wyoming laws. The WDEQ/LQD administers the AVF regulations for coal mining activities in Wyoming. Coal mine-related impacts to designated AVFs generally are not permitted if the AVF is determined to be significant to agriculture. If an AVF is determined not to be significant to agriculture or if the permit to affect the AVF was approved prior to the effective date of SMCRA, the AVF can be disturbed during mining but must be restored to essential hydrologic function during reclamation. The formal AVF designation and related regulatory programs described above are specific to coal mining operations; however, other development-related activities in the study area would potentially impact AVF resources. The Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-65

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences portions of the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area that lie outside of the mine permit areas have generally not been surveyed for the presence of AVFs; therefore, the locations and extent of the AVFs outside of the mine permit areas have not been determined. 4.2.7 Soils The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005e) discusses potential cumulative impacts to soils as a result of projected development activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The area of surface coal mining disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year (2003) and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The area of disturbance and reclamation for all development for the baseline year and the projected cumulative total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-10. Development activities such as increased vehicle traffic, vegetation removal, soil salvage and redistribution, discharge of CBNG produced groundwater, and construction and maintenance of project-specific components (e.g., roads, ROWs, well pads, industrial sites, and associated ancillary facilities) would result in cumulative impacts to soils in the study area. 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 removal and replacement of soil resources at mining sites. Of the types of development projects in the study area, coal mining activities would create the most concentrated cumulative impacts to soils. This is due to the large acreages involved and the tendency of mining operations to occur in contiguous blocks. These factors would encourage widespread accelerated wind and water erosion. Extensive soil handling would cause compaction and a corresponding loss of permeability to water and air; a decline in microbial populations, fertility, and organic matter; and potential mixing of saline and/or alkaline soil zones into seedbeds, which would reduce soil quality. There would be a limited availability of suitable soil resources for reclamation uses in some areas. However, for surface coal mining operations, there are measures that are either routinely required or can be specifically required as necessary to reduce impacts to soil resources and to identify overburden material that may be unsuitable for use in reestablishing vegetation, as discussed in Sections 3.3.1.3, 3.4.2.3, and 3.8.3. As described in Appendix E of the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005a), a variety of CBNG water disposal methods may be employed in the Task 3 study area. The potential impacts to soils would depend on the water treatment method, if any, and the nature of the disposal method. As discussed in the PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005e), due to elevated SAR levels in water 4-66 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences produced from the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone in the Upper Powder River and Little Powder River subwatersheds, land applications of CBNG-produced water in those areas could increase soil alkalinity. As discussed above in Section 4.2.4.2, the SAR values are generally low for the Upper Belle Fourche subwatershed and tend to exceed the MRPL after mixing with discharged CBNG water during six months of the year while meeting the LRPL throughout the year. Land application of CBNG-produced water is not anticipated in this area. The specific approaches to CBNG water discharges, the resource conditions and locations in which they occur, the timing of discharges, and the discharge permit stipulations from regulatory and land management agencies would determine the extent and degree of potential impacts to soils. 4.2.8 Vegetation, Wetlands and Riparian Areas The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005e) discusses potential cumulative impacts to vegetation, wetlands, and riparian areas as a result of projected development activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The area of surface coal mining disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year (2003) and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 related to surface coal mining are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. For all projected development, the baseline year area of disturbance and reclamation and the projected cumulative total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-10. 4.2.8.1 Vegetation The PRB is characterized as a mosaic of general vegetation types, which include prairie grasslands, shrublands, forested areas, and riparian areas. These broad categories often represent several vegetation types that are similar in terms of dominant species and ecological importance. Fourteen vegetation types were identified within the PRB Coal Review Task 1 study area, of which 10 primarily consist of native vegetation and are collectively classified as rangeland. These vegetation types include short-grass prairie, mixed-grass prairie, sagebrush shrubland, other shrubland, coniferous forest, aspen, forested riparian, shrubby riparian, herbaceous riparian, and wet meadow. The remaining vegetation types support limited or non-native vegetation and include cropland, urban/disturbed, barren, and open water. The vegetation types are described in more detail in the Task 1D Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005d). Impacts to vegetation can be classified as short-term and long-term. Potential short-term impacts arise from the removal and disturbance of herbaceous species during a project’s development and operation (e.g., coal mining, CBNG drilling and production, etc.), which would cease upon project completion and successful reclamation in a given area. Reclaimed mine land is defined by WDEQ/LQD as affected land that has been backfilled, graded, topsoiled, and permanently seeded in accordance with the approved practices specified in the reclamation plan (Christensen 2002). Species composition on the reclaimed lands may be different than on the surrounding undisturbed lands. The Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-67

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences removal of woody species would be considered a long-term impact since these species take approximately 25 years or longer to attain a size comparable to woody species present within proposed disturbance areas. Potential long-term impacts would also include permanent loss of vegetation and vegetative productivity in areas that would not be reclaimed in the near term (e.g., power plant sites, etc.). 4.2.8.2 Special Status Plant Species Special status plant species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are federally listed and federally proposed species (species that are protected under the ESA), BLM Sensitive Species, USDA-FS Sensitive Species, and WGFD Species of Special Concern in Wyoming. Further discussions of species that are protected under the ESA, BLM Sensitive Species, and USDA-FS Sensitive Species are included in Appendices H and I of this EIS. One federally listed species (Ute ladies’-tresses orchid) and three USDA-FS sensitive species (Barr’s milkvetch, Rosy palafox, and Lemonscent) are known to occur in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. Three BLM sensitive species [Nelson’s milkvetch and Laramie columbine (Casper Field Office) and William’s wafer-parsnip (Buffalo Field Office) may occur in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. Potential direct impacts to special status plant species in the study area could include the incremental loss or alteration of potential or known habitat, associated with past and projected activities. Direct impacts also could include the direct loss of individual plants within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area, depending on their location in relation to development activities. Indirect impacts could occur due to increased dispersal and establishment of noxious weeds, which may result in the displacement of special status plant species in the long term. 4.2.8.3 Noxious and Invasive Weed Species Once established, invasive and non-native plant species can out-compete and eventually replace native species, thereby reducing forage productivity and the overall vigor and diversity of existing native plant communities. The State of Wyoming has currently designated the following 25 plant species as noxious weeds:
        

Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) Perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) Hoary cress (Cardaria draba) Perennial pepperweed (giant whitetop) (Lepidium latifolium) Ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) Skeletonleaf bursage (Franseria discolor Nutt.) Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-68

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences
               

Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens L.) Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Common burdock (Arctium minus) Plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides) Dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria) Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.) Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa Lam.) Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.) Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) Common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) Common Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.)

Campbell County does not have a declared list of weeds. Development-related construction and operation activities would potentially result in the dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species within and beyond the surface disturbance boundaries, which would result in the displacement of native species and changes in species composition in the long term. The potential for these impacts would be higher in relation to the development of linear facilities (e.g., pipeline ROWs, oil- and gas-related road systems, etc.) than for site facilities (e.g., mines, power plants, etc.) due to the potential for dispersal of noxious weeds over a larger area. Chapter 4, Section 2(d)(xiv) of the WDEQ/LQD rules and regulations requires that surface coal mines address weed control on reclaimed areas as follows: The operator must control and minimize the introduction of noxious weeds in accordance with Federal and State requirements until bond release. Accordingly, the reclamation plans for all surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB include steps to control invasion by weedy (invasive nonnative) plant species. As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.9.4, the Wright Area coal mines work with the Campbell County Weed and Pest Department and conduct an active noxious weed control program on their existing coal leases. Similar measures to identify and control noxious weeds are used at all of the surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB as a result of the WDEQ/LQD regulatory requirements. Mitigation to control invasion by noxious weeds for CBNG developers is determined on a site-specific basis and may include spraying herbicides before entering areas and washing vehicles before leaving infested areas. BLM reviews weed educational material during preconstruction on-site meetings with CBNG operators, subcontractors, and landowners. BLM also attaches this educational Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-69

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences information to approved Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) or Plans of Development (PODs) (BLM 2003). BLM also participates in a collaborative effort with the South Goshen Cooperative Extension Conservation District, the USDANatural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) , private surface owners, WGFD, and the Weed and Pest District in a prevention program that includes a longterm integrated weed management plan, public awareness and prevention programs, and a common inventory (BLM 2003). 4.2.8.4 Wetland and Riparian Species Operations associated with development activities in the study area would result in the use of groundwater. Annually, during 2010-2020, from 30,000-35,000 mmgpy of CBNG-produced water would be discharged to impoundments or intermittent and ephemeral streams or reinjected. The discharge of produced water could result in the creation of wetlands in containment ponds, landscape depressions, and riparian areas along segments of drainages that previously supported upland vegetation. In addition, existing wetlands and riparian areas that would receive additional water would become more extensive and potentially support a greater diversity of wetland species in the long term. Alternately, the discharge of abnormally high flows or water with SARs of 13 or more could impact existing vegetation as discussed in the Task 1D Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005d). For agricultural uses, the current Wyoming water quality standard for SAR is 8.0 (WDEQ/WQD 2009). SARs of 5 to 10 have been observed in discharge waters in the study area (BLM 2003). Once water discharges have peaked and subsequently decrease in the long term, the extent of wetlands and riparian areas and species diversity would decrease accordingly. After the complete cessation of water discharges, artificially-created wetland and riparian areas once again would support upland species and previously existing wetland and riparian areas would decrease in areal extent. 4.2.9 Wildlife and Fisheries The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005e) discusses potential cumulative impacts to wildlife as a result of projected development activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The area of habitat disturbance and reclamation related to surface coal mining for the baseline year (2003) and the projected cumulative areas of habitat disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The baseline year area of total habitat disturbance and reclamation and the projected cumulative total areas of habitat disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-10. Impacts to wildlife can be classified as short-term and long-term. Potential short-term impacts arise from habitat disturbance associated with a project’s development and operation (e.g., coal mines, CBNG wells, etc.) and would cease upon project completion and successful reclamation in a given area. Potential long-term impacts consist of long-term or permanent changes to habitats and the wildlife populations that depend on those habitats, irrespective of 4-70 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences reclamation success, and habitat disturbance related to longer term projects (e.g., power plant facilities, rail lines, etc.). Direct impacts to wildlife populations as a result of development activities in the study area could include direct mortalities, habitat loss or alteration, habitat fragmentation, or animal displacement. Indirect impacts could include increased noise, additional human presence, and the potential for increased vehicle-related mortalities. Habitat fragmentation from activities such as roads, well pads, mines, pipelines, and electrical power lines also can result in the direct loss of potential wildlife habitat. Other habitat fragmentation effects such as increased noise, elevated human presence, dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species, and dust deposition from unpaved road traffic can extend beyond the surface disturbance boundaries. These effects result in overall changes in habitat quality, habitat loss, increased animal displacement, reductions in local wildlife populations, and changes in species composition. However, the severity of these effects on terrestrial wildlife would depend on factors such as sensitivity of the species, seasonal use, type and timing of project activities, and physical parameters (e.g., topography, cover, forage, and climate). 4.2.9.1 Game Species Big game species that are present within the Task 3 study area include pronghorn, white-tailed deer, mule deer, and elk. Potential direct impacts to these species would include the incremental loss or alteration of potential forage and ground cover associated with construction and operation of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development discussed in Section 4.1. Development associated with coal mining, drilling for CBNG, ancillary facilities, agricultural operations, urban areas, and transportation and utility corridors result in vegetation removal. Assuming that adjacent habitats would be at or near carrying capacity and considering the variabilities associated with drought conditions and human activities in the study area, the PRB Coal Review Task 3D study concluded that displacement of wildlife species (e.g., big game) as a result of development activities would create some unquantifiable reduction in wildlife populations. There are a number of big game habitat ranges within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. In Wyoming, the WGFD and the BLM have established habitat classifications based on seasonal use. Classification types include crucial winter, severe winter, winter yearlong, and yearlong. Crucial winter range areas are considered essential in determining a game population’s ability to maintain itself at a certain level over the long term. As discussed in the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report, discrete locations for most of the disturbance related to the projected development could not be determined based on the available information. However, identified future coal reserves were used for the Task 3D Report to provide some level of quantification of potential future impacts to big game ranges. Tables 4-22 through 4-25 summarize the effects on pronghorn, deer, and elk game ranges as a result of the predicted lower and upper levels of coal production through 2020. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-71

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Direct and indirect effects to small game species (i.e., upland game birds, waterfowl, small game mammals) within the Task 3 study area as a result of development activities would be the same as discussed above for big game species. Impacts would result from the incremental surface disturbance of potential wildlife habitat, increased noise levels and human presence, dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species, and dust effects from unpaved road traffic. Operations associated with development activities in the Task 3 study area would result in the use of groundwater. The PRB Coal Review assumes that most, if not all, of the coal mine-produced water would be consumed during operation and anticipates that up to approximately 39,108, 41,484, and 37,350 mmgpy of water would be produced in association with oil and gas production in Table 4-22. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Pronghorn Ranges from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios (acres/percent affected).
Pronghorn Ranges1 Time Period/Scenario 2010/Lower 2010/Upper 2015/Lower 2015 Upper 2020/Lower 2020/Upper
1

Crucial Winter N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Severe Winter 1,472 / 3% 1,472 / 3% 1,460 / 3% 1,460 / 3% 1,422 / 3% 1,422 / 3%

Winter Yearlong 33,196 / 2% 34,760 / 2% 32,649 / 2% 34,177 / 2% 33,637 / 2% 33,580 / 2%

Yearlong 32,099 / 1% 33,172 / 1% 34,828 / 1% 36,999 / 1% 35,714 / 1% 37,437 / 2%

Potential coal mine related impacts to big game ranges were determined based on GIS information as follows: the total acres of a big game range (e.g., crucial winter, severe winter, winter yearlong, and yearlong) within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area was divided by the sum of the potential disturbance acreage for the time period (based on GIS mapping of coal reserves for the lower coal production scenario) and existing (2003) disturbance from coal mine development. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005e)

Table 4-23. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to White-tailed Deer Ranges from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios (acres/percent affected).
White-tailed Deer Ranges1 Time Period/Scenario 2010/Lower 2010/Upper 2015/Lower 2015 Upper 2020/Lower 2020/Upper Crucial Winter N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Severe Winter N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Winter Yearlong N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yearlong 1,411 / 0.6% 1,411 / 0.6% 1,497 / 0.7% 1,495 / 0.7% 1,704 / 0.7% 1,707 / 0.8%

1 Potential coal mine-related impacts to big game ranges were determined based on GIS information as follows: the total acres of a big game range (e.g., crucial winter, severe winter, winter yearlong, and yearlong) within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area was divided by the sum of the potential disturbance acreage for the time period (based on GIS mapping of coal reserves for the lower coal production scenario) and existing (2003) disturbance from coal mine development. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005e)

4-72

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-24. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Mule Deer Ranges from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios (acres/percent affected).
Mule Deer Ranges1 Time Period/Scenario 2010/Lower 2010/Upper 2015/Lower 2015 Upper 2020/Lower 2020/Upper Crucial Winter N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Severe Winter N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Winter Yearlong 6,808 / 0.4% 6,924 / 0.4% 6,956 / 0.4% 7,285 / 0.5% 6,958 / 0.4% 7,413 / 0.5% Yearlong 25,390 / 1% 26,641 / 1% 26,420 / 1% 27,205 / 1% 27,004 / 1% 27,990 / 1%

Table 4-25. Potential Cumulative Disturbance Development Activities—Lower and Scenarios (acres/percent affected).
Time Period/Scenario 2010/Lower 2010/Upper 2015/Lower 2015 Upper 2020/Lower 2020/Upper Crucial Winter 24 / 0.4% 24 / 0.4% 24 / 0.4% 24 / 0.4% 24 / 0.4% 24 / 0.4% Severe Winter N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

to Elk Ranges from Upper Coal Production

Elk Ranges1 Winter Yearlong 375 / 1% 375 / 1% 351 / 1% 351 / 1% 351 / 1% 351 / 1% Yearlong 1,444 / 0.9% 1,444 / 0.9% 1,161 / 0.7% 1,162 / 0.7% 1,121 / 0.7% 1,168 / 0.7%

2010, 2015, and 2020, respectively. The portion of the water that is produced in association with the CBNG and discharged to impoundments or intermittent and ephemeral streams would be available for area wildlife (e.g., waterfowl). Although much of the water would evaporate or infiltrate into the ground, it is anticipated that substantial quantities of water would remain on the surface and would result in the expansion of wetlands, stock ponds, and reservoirs, potentially increasing waterfowl breeding and foraging habitats. The median sodium concentration of CBNG-produced water from the Fort Union Formation is 270 mg/L. If sodium concentrations are maintained below 17,000 mg/L in the evaporation ponds, the potential adverse effects to waterfowl would be minimal.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-73

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 4.2.9.2 Non-game Species Potential direct impacts to non-game species (e.g., small mammals, raptors, passerines, amphibians, and reptiles) would include the incremental loss or alteration of existing or potential foraging and breeding habitats from construction and operation of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development activities (e.g., vegetation removal for coal mines and CBNG wells, ancillary facilities, and transportation and utility corridors). Impacts also could result in mortalities of less mobile species (e.g., small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates), nest or burrow abandonment, and loss of eggs or young in the path of vehicles and heavy equipment. Indirect impacts would include increased noise levels and human presence, dispersal and invasion of noxious weeds, and dust effects from unpaved road traffic. Assuming that adjacent habitats would be at or near carrying capacity, and considering variable factors such as drought conditions and human activities in the study area, the PRB Coal Review concluded that displacement of wildlife species from the Task 3 study area would result in an unquantifiable reduction in wildlife populations. Numerous migratory bird species have been documented within the PRB over the last two to three decades of wildlife monitoring. Development activities that occur during the migratory bird breeding season (April 1 through July 31) could cause the abandonment of a nest site or territory or the loss of eggs or young, resulting in the loss of productivity for the breeding season. Loss of an active nest site, incubating adults, eggs, or young would not comply with the intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and could potentially affect populations of important migratory bird species that may occur in the PRB. Breeding raptor species that occur within the Task 3 study area include the bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, rough-legged hawk, Swainson’s hawk, American kestrel, prairie falcon, northern harrier, great horned owl, short-eared owl, burrowing owl, and long-eared owl (Asio otus). Bald eagles and long-eared owls are rare nesters in the area. One potential direct impact to raptors is habitat (nesting and foraging) loss due to additional surface disturbance within the Task 3 study area. In the event that development activities were to occur during the breeding season (February 1 through July 31), these activities could result in nest or territory abandonment, or loss of eggs or young. Such losses would reduce productivity for the affected species during that breeding season. As discussed above, loss of an active nest site, incubating adults, eggs, or young would not comply with the intent of several laws, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Additional direct impacts could result from construction of new overhead power lines in the region. New power line segments in the study area would incrementally increase the collision and/or electrocution potential for migrating and foraging bird species (e.g., raptors and waterfowl) (APLIC 1994). However, 4-74 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences the potential for avian collisions with overhead power lines is typically dependent on variables such as the location of the structures relative to high-use areas (e.g., nesting, foraging, staging, and roosting habitats), the orientation of the power line to flight patterns and movement corridors, species composition, line visibility, and structure design. In addition, new power lines could pose an electrocution hazard for raptor species attempting to perch on the structure. Configurations greater than 69 kV typically do not present an electrocution potential, based on conductor placement and orientation (APLIC 2006). It is assumed that future permitting for power lines would require the use of appropriate raptor-deterring designs, thereby minimizing potential impacts. For example, SMCRA requires that surface coal mine operators use the best technology available to ensure that electric power lines are designed and constructed to minimize electrocution hazards to raptors. Power line impacts to raptors can be reduced with the increased use of underground power lines wherever possible. Many of the power lines for CBNG development currently are being constructed underground. 4.2.9.3 Fisheries Potential cumulative effects on fisheries as a result of development activities in the Task 3 study area would be closely related to impacts on ground and surface water resources. In general, development activities could affect fish species in the following ways: 1) alteration or loss of habitat as a result of surface disturbance; 2) changes in water quality as a result of surface disturbance or introduction of contaminants into drainages; and 3) changes in available habitat as a result of water withdrawals or discharge. The potential effects of development activities on aquatic communities are discussed below for each of these impact topics. The predominant aquatic habitat type in the Task 3 study area consists of intermittent and ephemeral streams and scattered ponds and reservoirs. In general, perennial streams within the study area are limited to the Little Powder River and Belle Fourche River. Warm water game fish and non-game species are present in some perennial stream segments and numerous scattered reservoirs and ponds. However, the latter features are typically stocked artificially either following construction or annually, depending on the depth of the water body. Due to the lack of constant water in most of the potentially affected streams and static water bodies, existing aquatic communities are mainly limited to invertebrates and algae that can persist in these types of habitats. The removal of stock ponds would eliminate habitat for invertebrates and possibly fish species. This loss would be temporary if the stock ponds are replaced during reclamation. Development activities could result in the loss of aquatic habitat as a result of direct surface disturbance. Table 4-10 summarizes the cumulative acres of surface disturbance and reclamation as of 2003 and projects cumulative acres of surface disturbance and reclamation in 2010, 2015, and 2020. Discrete Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-75

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences locations for development disturbance and reclamation areas cannot be determined based on existing information. However, projected development that could result in the loss of aquatic habitat would involve the construction of additional linear facilities, product gathering lines and road systems associated with conventional oil and gas and CBNG activities, as well as any additional disturbance that would be associated with extending coal mine operations onto lands adjacent to the existing mines. The removal of aquatic habitat eliminates existing and potential habitat for invertebrates and some fish species. This loss would be temporary if such ponds are reconstructed and recharged as part of the reclamation process. Projected activities would result in surface disturbance in each of the six Task 3 study area sub-watersheds. Information relative to the stream crossing locations for the majority of the linear facilities is not available at this time. The initial phases of the proposed Bison Pipeline project commenced in April 2008 and is projected to be completed by November 2010. If the project is constructed as planned, it would cross Cottonwood Creek, a tributary of the Little Powder River. Typically, the associated disturbance corridor would consist of a 100-foot-wide construction ROW; however, site-specific stream crossing methods and reclamation would be determined at the time of project permitting. Future coal mining also could remove intermittent or ephemeral streams and stock ponds in the Antelope Creek, Upper Cheyenne River, Upper Belle Fourche River, and Little Powder River sub-watersheds. Coal mine permits provide for removal of first- through fourth-order drainages. During reclamation, third- and fourth-order drainages must be restored; first- and second-order drainages often are not replaced (Martin et al. 1988). As discussed in Section 3.5.2, the Cheyenne River and its tributaries drain the general Wright analysis area. All streams within the LBA tracts and adjacent applicant mine permit areas are typical for the region, in that flow events are ephemeral. Under natural conditions, aquatic habitat is limited by the ephemeral nature of surface waters in the general Wright analysis area. The results of fish surveys conducted in the Belle Fourche River, Caballo Creek, Antelope Creek, and various area stock ponds during baseline studies for the mines in the South Gillette and Wright subregions that started in the mid-1970s were discussed in Section 3.10.7.1; no uncommon species were documented during those efforts. The PRB Coal Review assumes that surface disturbing activities would not be allowed in perennial stream segments or reservoirs on public lands that contain game fish species. It also assumes that other types of development operations would not occur within stream channels nor would they remove ponds or reservoirs as part of construction or operation and, therefore, would not result in the direct loss of habitat for these species. Water quality parameters such as turbidity and bottom substrate composition can be impacted by surface disturbing activities through erosion of sediment into water bodies. Contaminants can also be introduced into those systems through the chemical characteristics of the eroded sediment. Potential related 4-76 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences effects on aquatic biota could include physiological stress, movement to avoid affected areas, or alterations of spawning or rearing areas (Waters 1995). Studies have shown that TDS levels in streams near reclaimed coal lands have increased from one percent to seven percent (Martin et al. 1988). Typically, sedimentation effects are short-term in duration and localized in terms of the affected area. TDS concentrations would stabilize and return to more typical concentrations after construction or development activities have been completed. The PRB Coal Review anticipated that the use of appropriate erosion and spill control measures during both development and reclamation activities, as determined during the permitting process, would minimize the introduction of additional sediments into the sub-watershed. The removal of streamside vegetation would impact both riparian vegetation and stream parameters in those locations. Loss of vegetation along stream channels would reduce the shade and increase bank erosion, both of which would degrade aquatic habitats. Effects on aquatic habitats from linear projects, such as ROWs, would be limited to a relatively small portion of the stream (generally no more than 100 feet in width), whereas mine-related disturbance could affect considerably larger stretches. Because perennial streams are protected from development by a buffer zone on either side of center, these types of impacts would presumably be limited to intermittent and ephemeral creeks. It is anticipated that reclamation practices to restore riparian vegetation would be required during future project permitting, thereby minimizing such impacts. CBNG and coal mining are the primary types of development activities that use or manage water as part of their operations. Based on current trends, the PRB Coal Review assumes that most, if not all, of the water produced during coal mining would be consumed during operation. As discussed in Section 3.5.2.2, changes in surface runoff characteristics and sediment discharges would occur during surface coal mining as a result of the destruction and reconstruction of drainage channels as mining progresses, and the use of sediment control structures to manage discharges of surface water from the mine permit area. State and federal regulations require treatment of surface runoff from mined lands to meet effluent standards. After treatment, coal mine-related surface water in the region would ultimately be discharged into intermittent and ephemeral streams in four sub-watersheds (Antelope Creek, Upper Cheyenne River, Belle Fourche River, and Little Powder River). The PRB Coal Review projects that up to approximately 39,108, 41,484, and 37,350 million gallons per year (mmgpy) of water would be produced in association with oil and gas production in 2010, 2015, and 2020, respectively, and assumes that a portion of the water that is produced in association with the CBNG would be discharged to intermittent and ephemeral drainages in the general analysis area, much as is currently allowed in the six sub-watersheds in the study area. Based on past monitoring in receiving streams, no change in surface flows would be expected beyond approximately two miles from the discharge points (BLM 2003). Water discharged from CBNG wells has supplied some drainages and water bodies in the PRB nearly continuously for several years. Within the general analysis area, Spring Creek has experienced an influx of CBNG water in recent years, but has Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-77

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences not become perennial. The same is true for other streams elsewhere in the PRB that receive CBNG discharge water. 4.2.9.4 Special Status Species Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are federally listed and federally proposed species (species that are protected under the ESA), BLM Sensitive Species, USFS Sensitive Species, and WGFD Species of Special Concern in Wyoming. Further discussions of species that are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as BLM and USFS Sensitive Species, are included in Appendices G and H, respectively, of this EIS. The USFWS also has a list of Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming, which is discussed in Section 3.10.6. Special status species potentially occurring in the Task 1 study area are identified in Section 2.4.3.5 of the PRB Coal Review Task 1D Report (BLM 2005d). Additional information about the occurrence of these species in the general Wright analysis area can be found in the Annual Wildlife Reports for the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle mines, which are on file with the WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Potential impacts to special status terrestrial species would be similar to those discussed above for non-game wildlife (e.g., small mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles). Potential direct impacts would include the incremental loss or alteration of potential habitat (native vegetation and previously disturbed vegetation) from construction and operation of development activities (e.g., vegetation removal for coal mines and CBNG wells, ancillary facilities, and transportation and utility corridors). Impacts could also result in mortalities of less mobile species (e.g., small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians), nest or burrow abandonment, and loss of eggs or young in the path of vehicles and heavy equipment. Indirect impacts would include increased noise levels and human presence, introduction and dispersal of noxious weeds, and dust effects from unpaved road traffic. In general, direct and indirect impacts to special status species would result in a reduction in habitat suitability and overall carrying capacity for species currently inhabiting the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. Development within potential habitat for special status species likely would decrease its overall suitability, and potentially would reduce or preclude use by some species due to increased activity and noise. Future use by a special status species of habitats subject to development would be strongly influenced by the quality and composition of remaining habitat, with the degree of impact dependent on variables such as breeding phenology, nest and den site preferences, the species’ relative sensitivity to disturbance, and possibly the presence of visual barriers (e.g., topographic shielding) between nesting efforts and disturbance activities. Bird species that have been identified as occurring within the PRB and are on two or more of the special status species lists include common loon, American 4-78 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences bittern, white-faced ibis, trumpeter swan, greater sandhill crane, mountain plover, upland sandpiper, long-billed curlew, black tern, yellow-billed cuckoo, Lewis’ woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, sage thrasher, loggerhead shrike, Baird’s sparrow, sage sparrow, Brewers sparrow, and greater sage-grouse. Any development activities (oil and gas, coal mining, other operations and associated infrastructure) that occur during the breeding season (April 1 through July 31) could result in the abandonment of a nest site or territory, or the loss of eggs or young. As discussed previously, loss of an active nest site, incubating adults, eggs, or young as a result of any of these development activities would not comply with the intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and could potentially impact populations of important migratory bird species that are known to or may occur in the PRB. A number of raptor species have been documented in the PRB and are on two or more of the special status species lists including bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, northern goshawk, merlin, peregrine falcon, western burrowing owl, and shorteared owl. Those species that have been documented in the general Wright analysis area are discussed at length in Appendices G and H of this EIS. Potential direct impacts to raptors would result from the surface disturbance of nesting and foraging habitat, as well as injury or mortalities due to collisions with vehicles and equipment. Breeding raptors in or adjacent to development activities could abandon their nest sites or territories, or lose eggs or young. As previously described, such losses would constitute non-compliance with the intent of several laws including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and could potentially affect populations of important migratory bird species that are known to or may occur within the region. Incremental construction of new overhead power lines in the area to support energy industries would increase risks of electrocution and collision for perching, migrating, and foraging bird species such as the larger raptors. Use of current APLIC guidelines for construction designs and retrofitting measures for new and existing utility structures would help mitigate these impacts. A total of 239 greater sage-grouse strutting grounds (leks) were identified in the six sub-watersheds in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area as of 2003, though that study did not evaluate the status (i.e., active or inactive) of those leks. As discussed in Section 3.10.5 and in the PRB Coal Review Task 1D Report, the trend in the sage-grouse population for the Sheridan Region suggests about a 10-year cycle with periodic highs and lows. More recent population peaks have been lower than previous highs, suggesting a steadily declining sage-grouse population with the Sheridan Region (Oedekoven 2001). Direct and indirect impacts to sage-grouse as a result of development activities would result from the incremental surface disturbance of existing and potential habitat, increased levels of noise and human presence, introduction or dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species, and effects of dust from increased traffic on unpaved roads. In addition to disturbance-related impacts, sage-grouse are susceptible to infection with West Nile Virus, and the incidence of infection is much higher in northeastern Wyoming than the rest of the state. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-79

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences As discussed in Section 3.10.5.1, ten sage-grouse leks have been documented within the six combined general analysis areas for the six LBA tracts analyzed in this EIS. Four of the leks have been active during recent survey years and are classified as occupied (Hansen Lakes, Payne, and Kort I and Kort II leks; Kort leks likely represent a shift in lekking activity rather than two distinct leks). Two of the leks have not been attended by displaying grouse for at least the last 10 years and are classified as unoccupied/abandoned (Butch and Wilson leks). There is insufficient data on two leks, therefore they have been classified as undetermined (Stuart I and Stuart II). Two leks have been eclipsed by mining activities at the adjacent Black Thunder and North Antelope Rochelle mines (Black Thunder and Rochelle leks, respectively). The occupied leks, Hansen Lakes and Payne, are within the BLM study areas for the North Hilight Field and North Porcupine LBA Tracts, respectively, and are therefore likely to be directly impacted if these two tracts are leased and mined under the Proposed Action and/or Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative. The 3-mile radii of concern for the two other occupied leks (Kort I and Kort II leks, which are likely only one strutting ground that has been relocated slightly), overlap the North Porcupine LBA Tract. If the North Porcupine LBA Tracts as applied for and/or the additional areas evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2, the BLM’s preferred alternative, is leased and mined, potential nesting habitat for grouse that were bred at the Kort I and II leks would likely be affected by mining activity in those areas. Stuart II, one of the two undetermined leks, is within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for, and the 3-mile radii of both undetermined leks (Stuart I and Stuart II) overlap both the West Hilight Field and West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tracts as applied for. The 3-mile radius is the area in which two-thirds of the hens that were bred at those leks would be expected to nest. As previously discussed, the Stuart I and Stuart II leks are classified undetermined, but they are likely unoccupied/abandoned and will probably not be re-occupied in the near future due to the presence of nearby CBNG development activities and facilities. Therefore, if the West Hilight Field and West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tracts as applied for and the additional areas evaluated by BLM under Alternative 2 are leased and mined, it is unlikely that those two undetermined leks would be affected. However, as also previously discussed, no sage-grouse nests or broods have been recorded on any of the six LBA tracts as applied for or on lands added under Alternative 2, BLM’s preferred alternative for each tract, during specific surveys or incidental to other wildlife surveys conducted in those areas annually since at least 1994. The noise associated with mining operations may disrupt sage-grouse breeding and nesting activities that might occur in those areas. Direct and indirect effects to greater sage-grouse within the general Wright analysis area as a result of development activities are outlined in Appendix H. Based on existing information, the spatial relationship between projected future disturbance and reclamation areas for the coal production scenarios and the resource-specific information in the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layers could not be determined for the PRB Coal Review. However, the analysis did use 4-80 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences GIS layers for future coal reserves to provide some quantification of potential future coal mining-related impacts to greater sage-grouse. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4-26. The difference in the number of lek sites that would occur within two miles of coal mining activities under the lower coal production scenario versus the upper coal production scenario is due to slight variations in the projected disturbance areas. An unquantifiable number of lek sites initially could be impacted by CBNG activity, which would occur in advance of coal mine development. Potential direct impacts to sage-grouse, if present, could include loss of foraging areas, abandonment of a lek site, or loss of eggs or young as a result of development activities. Table 4-26. Potential Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-grouse Leks from Coal Mine Development - Upper and Lower Coal Production Scenarios.
Lek Categories Number of Directly Affected Leks Number of Leks within Two Miles of Coal Mining Activity 2010/ Lower 10 47 2010/ Upper 10 47 2015/ Lower 15 47 2015/ Upper 15 49 2020/ Lower 15 50 2020/ Upper 15 49

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005e)

Seven special status fish species potentially occur in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area sub-watersheds: the flathead chub (Platygobio gracilis) (Antelope Creek, Upper Cheyenne River, and Little Powder River sub-watersheds), plains topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus) (Upper Cheyenne River), goldeye (Hiodon alosoides) (Little Powder River), lake chub (Couesius plumbeus) (Little Powder River), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) (Little Powder River), silvery minnow (Hybognathus argyritis) (Little Powder River), and plains minnow (Upper Cheyenne River, Upper Belle Fourche River, and Little Powder River). Potential impacts to special status fish species as a result of development activities would be similar to effects discussed above for fisheries. Surface disturbance in three sub-watersheds (Upper Cheyenne River, Upper Belle Fourche River, Little Powder River) could alter habitat or affect water quality conditions for special status fish species. Erosion control measures, as required by existing (2003) and future permits, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements would be implemented for each project. These efforts would help decrease disturbance-related sediment input into stream segments that may contain one or more of the special status fish species. Therefore, it is anticipated that impacts to special status fish species would be low. 4.2.10 Land Use and Recreation The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005e) discusses potential cumulative impacts to land use and recreation as a result of projected development activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area (Figure 4-4). The baseline year (2003) area of disturbance and reclamation related to surface Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-81

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences coal mining and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. Table 4-10 shows the total area of disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year and the projected cumulative total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020. The PRB is a predominantly rural, wide open landscape. With little rainfall and limited alternative sources of water, the primary land use is grazing. Nevertheless, there is a range of other land uses. The major categories include agriculture, forested, mixed rangeland, urban, water, wetlands, coal mines, and barren land. The relative amounts of these lands in the PRB Coal Review Task 1 and Task 2 study area (Figure 4-1) is tabulated in Table 4-27. Table 4-27.
Use Category
Agriculture Barren Forested Mixed Rangeland Urban Water Wetlands Coal Mines Total

Land Use by Surface Ownership.
BLM 2,627 165 137,555 732,014 893 35 0 149 873,438 Surface Ownership (acres) USDA-FS State Private 14,197 13,770 472,811 205 187 9,396 14,604 48,645 332,062 218,156 561,363 5,271,644 17 1,039 25,469 73 334 4,773 104 559 1,566 7,236 2,805 40,917 254,592 628,702 6,158,638 Total Acres Percent 503,405 6.3 9,953 0.1 532,866 6.7 6,783,177 86.0 27,418 0.3 5,215 <0.1 2,229 <0.1 51,107 0.6 7,915,370 100.0

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 1D Report (BLM 2005d)

A large part of the PRB consists of split estate lands (privately owned surface lands underlain by federally owned minerals). This results in conflicts between surface users, which are mainly ranching interests, and mineral developers. There also may be conflicts with some dispersed rural residences, although specific locations cannot be identified until development is proposed. Much of the study area is also used for dispersed recreational activities such as hunting. The study area includes surface lands that are federally, state, and privately owned. With nearly 80 percent of the area privately owned, public lands provide important open space and recreation resources including both developed recreation facilities and areas to pursue dispersed recreation activities. The private sector contributes the elements of commercial recreation opportunities and tourism services such as motels and restaurants. Some private land owners also allow hunting with specific permission, sometimes for a fee. 4.2.10.1 Grazing and Agriculture Potential impacts to grazing in the Task 3 study area as a result of development activities can be classified as short-term and long- term. Potential short-term impacts arise from:

4-82

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences
• the

temporary loss of forage as a result of vegetation removal/ disturbance;

• temporary loss of AUMs; • temporary loss of water-related range improvements, such as improved

springs, water pipelines, and stock ponds;
• temporary loss of other range improvements, such as fences and cattle

guards; and
• restricted movement of livestock

within an allotment due to the development and operation of projects like surface coal mines, which would cease after successful reclamation had been achieved and replacement of water-related and other range improvements had been completed.

The discharge of produced water could increase the availability of water to livestock, which may offset the temporary loss of water-related range improvements. Potential long-term impacts consist of permanent loss of forage and forage productivity in areas, such as power plants, that would not be reclaimed in the near term. Indirect impacts may include dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species within and beyond the surface disturbance boundaries, which decreases the amount of desirable forage available for livestock grazing in the long term. Development activities could result in short- and long-term impacts to agricultural land, depending on their spatial relationship. Short-term impacts would include the loss of crop production during development and operational phases of the projects. Long-term impacts would result from the permanent loss of agricultural land due the development of permanent facilities such as power plants and railroads. Table 4-28 contains an estimate of the number of AUMs unavailable on lands disturbed and not yet reclaimed through 2020 for the high and low levels of predicted development activity, along with the acreage of cropland estimated to be affected. Table 4-28. AUMs and Acres of Cropland Estimated Unavailable on Lands Disturbed and Not Yet Reclaimed as a Result of Development Activities.
Category
Unavailable AUMs1 Unavailable Crop Land (acres)
1

2003/ Baseline 18,150 48

2010/ Lower 22,467 59

2010/ Upper 22,792 60

2015/ Lower 23,245 134

2015/ Upper 23,761 139

2020/ Lower 22,514 206

2020/ Upper 23,333 289

Based on an average stocking rate of six acres per AUM. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005e)

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-83

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 4.2.10.2 Urban Use It is expected that there would be additional expansion of urban residential and commercial development as a result of the projected 48 percent growth in population (between 2003 and 2020) in Campbell County. Section 4.2.12 and the Task 3C Report of the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005f) contain additional information on employment and population issues in the study area. A majority of the new urban development would be expected to occur adjacent to existing communities, primarily Gillette, which accounts for approximately 60 percent of the Campbell County population and, to a lesser extent, Wright and other small communities. Most of this development would occur on land that is currently in use for grazing or agriculture. 4.2.10.3 Recreation Accessible public lands provide diverse opportunities for recreation, including hunting, fishing, ORV use, sightseeing, and wildlife observation. The National System of Public Lands generally provides dispersed recreational uses in the study area. Some developed recreational facilities occur in special management areas, including recreation areas. While opportunities are available on public lands throughout the PRB, the majority of dispersed recreational uses occur in the western part of the PRB Coal Review Task 1 and Task 2 study area, including the South Big Horn Mountains area and along the Powder River. Public lands elsewhere consist mainly of isolated tracts of land that are too small to provide a quality recreational experience. Larger parcels of public lands occur in the southwest part of Johnson County and along the Powder River (administered by BLM) and in the Thunder Basin National Grassland (administered by the USFS). Public lands are accessible via public roads or across private land with the landowner’s permission. Hunting is a major recreation use of state and federal lands in the study area. Various big game and upland game bird species are hunted in the region. Fishing is a popular year-round activity for residents of the study area. Mule deer and pronghorn hunting are by far the most popular hunting activities in the Task 1 study area, accounting for 35,529 and 21,304 hunter days, respectively, in 2003 (Stratham 2005). The next highest were cottontail rabbit (2,348 hunter days) and elk (2,055 hunter days), followed by wild turkey (1,019), sharp-tailed grouse (508), and sage-grouse (38). Consistent trends in hunter activity over the past decade are not discernible from the WGFD data considered in the PRB Coal Review. All of the most prominent species hunted in the study area have had high years and low years. Pronghorn hunting, for example, was greatest from 1993 to 1996, while elk hunting was at its peak in 2001 and 2002. Mule deer hunting has been the most consistent, ranging from a low of 28,311 hunter days in 1996 to a high of 37,307 hunter days in 2002. ORV use in the Task 1 study area is available on most BLM-managed lands. Most of the public land in Johnson, Sheridan, and Campbell counties has been 4-84 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences inventoried and designated as open, limited, or closed to ORV use. For the baseline year, approximately 20,386 acres were open to unlimited vehicle travel on and off roads. There were 4,680 acres in the area that were closed to all ORV use and approximately 867,534 acres were available for limited use. Limited use typically means ORVs are restricted to existing roads and vehicle routes. Recreational use of public lands in the Task 1 study area has increased substantially over the past two decades, and is expected to continue to increase by about five percent every 5 years for most recreational activities (BLM 2003). Total visitor use by residents and nonresident visitors in Campbell and Converse counties in 1980 was projected at 1,276,000 visitor days (BLM 1979). The total visitor days of 1,881,763 estimated for 1990 was approximately 47 percent higher than the 1980 visitor days (BLM 2001a). Fewer than three percent of visitor days were estimated to occur on public lands. Few, if any, of the developed recreation sites in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area would be affected by development related disturbance. As most of the projected disturbance area would occur on privately owned surface land, the extent of effects on dispersed recreation activities largely would depend on whether the disturbance areas had been open to public or private lease hunting. It is projected that cumulative development activities, especially the dispersed development of CBNG and, to a lesser extent, conventional oil and gas, would tend to exacerbate the trend toward a reduction in private land available for public hunting, which has been observed by WGFD in recent years (Shorma 2005). A reduction in available private land for dispersed recreation would contrast with the anticipated increase in demand for recreational opportunities and would tend to push more recreationists toward public lands where the BLM has projected a five percent increase in use every 5 years (BLM 2001a). After coal- and oil and gas-related development activities have been completed and the disturbed areas have been reclaimed, many of the adverse effects on dispersed recreation activities would be reduced. It is expected that the development activities also would tend to expand and exacerbate the qualitative degradation of the dispersed recreation experience, in general, and of the hunting experience, in particular, as reported by the WGFD (Jahnke 2005). As noted in the Task 1D Report of the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005d), reductions in land available for hunting also make herd management more difficult for the WGFD and reduce its hunting-derived revenues (Shorma 2005). No direct effects on wilderness or roadless areas would be expected from the projected development activities. There are no designated wilderness areas in the study area, and mineral development would not be permitted in the Fortification Creek Wilderness Study Area until and unless Congress acts to remove it from Wilderness consideration.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-85

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences There would be no effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers as the only river segment identified as both “eligible” and “suitable” in the Task 1D Report of the PRB Coal Review is not in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. 4.2.11 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005e) discusses potential cumulative impacts to cultural resources as a result of projected development activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The baseline year (2003) area of disturbance and reclamation related to surface coal mining and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. Table 4-10 shows the total area of disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year and the projected cumulative total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020. Cultural sites occur throughout the study area. Surface disturbing activities can result in the loss or destruction of these sites. Table 4-29 contains an estimate of the amount of projected disturbance through 2020 for the projected lower and upper levels of coal development activity, along with the number of cultural sites estimated to be affected. The sites fall into two categories; prehistoric sites and historic sites, as described below. Also below are description of Native American traditional cultural places and a summary of the program to protect sites in any of these categories. 4.2.11.1 Prehistoric Sites All recognized prehistoric cultural periods, from Clovis through Protohistoric (about 11,500 to 200 years ago), are represented in the PRB Coal Review study area (see Section 3.12 for additional discussion about the prehistoric cultural periods.) The earliest prehistoric cultural periods, Paleoindian through Early Plains Archaic, are represented by only a small number of sites. Archaic and later prehistoric period sites (Archaic to Protohistoric) are represented in increasing numbers as a result of higher populations through time and better preservation of more recent sites. Important prehistoric site types in the region include artifact scatters, campsites, stone circles, faunal kill and processing sites, rock alignments and cairns, and stone material procurement areas. Artifact scatters dominate prehistoric sites in the study area. When there is adequate information to evaluate these types of sites, most are not eligible to the NRHP. However, complex sites and sites with buried and dateable material can yield important information and are often field evaluated as eligible. The proportion of unevaluated sites is lower in the subwatersheds in which more studies and more follow-up studies have been conducted, such as Antelope Creek, Upper Cheyenne River, and Upper Belle Fourche River. Some portions of some of the subwatersheds which have more varied habitats or conditions more conducive to preservation are very rich in significant prehistoric sites. Within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area, these areas include the lower Antelope 4-86 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-29. Square Miles of Projected Cumulative Disturbance and Number of Potentially Affected Cultural Resource Sites in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 Study Area – Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios.
Average Number of Sites per Square Mile1 4.7 Lower Coal Production Scenario Year 2010 Year 2015 Year 2020 Square Miles2 74 Sites3 346 Square Miles2 97 Sites3 484 Square Miles2 122 Sites3 608 Upper Coal Production Scenario Year 2010 Year 2015 Year 2020 Square Miles2 75 Sites3 376 Square Miles2 99 Sites3 496 Square Miles2 126 Sites3 629

Sub-watershed Antelope Creek

Dry Fork Cheyenne River

8.9

8.3

109

151

8.3

109

151

Little Powder River

4.6

415

108

495

123

567

419

109

502

125

577

Upper Belle Fourche River Upper Cheyenne River Upper Powder River Total
1

4.3

164

704

186

801

209

899

166

713

192

824

219

940

5.2

314

375

433

321

387

445

5.0

135 531

674 2,527

190 665

953 3,217

232 786

1,159 3,817

135 537

674 2,577

191 677

953 3,271

232 804

1,159 3,901

Average number of sites per square mile based on previous surveys in the study area. 2 Calculated, based on database disturbance acreages prepared for the Task 2 Report for the PRB Coal Review, Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities (Appendices A and D) (BLM 2005a). 3 The number of sites was calculated by multiplying the average density of known cultural sites per square mile (based on previous surveys) by the number of square miles of projected cumulative disturbance. Source: Task 3D Report for the PRB Coal Review Cumulative Environmental Effects (BLM 2005e)

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-87

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Creek drainage and eastern portions of the Upper Belle Fourche River. While prehistoric sites do exist in the general Wright analysis area, it does not appear to be particularly plentiful in significant prehistoric sites. More detailed information on the known cultural sites that are present in the PRB based on the existing surveys is included in the Task 1D Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005d). 4.2.11.2 Historic Sites In the PRB region, sites are documented within the broad contexts of Rural Settlement, Urban Settlement, Mining, Transportation, Military, Exploration, and Communication. Each of these site categories and the types of sites they include are detailed in the Task 1D Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005d). Evaluation of the importance of historic sites, districts, and landscapes must consider aspects of both theme and period in assessing the historic character and contributing attributes of the resources. 4.2.11.3 Native American Traditional Cultural Places General ethnographies of the tribes that may have had traditional ties to this region do not provide information on specific resources in the study area that are likely to be traditional cultural concerns because these resources are considered confidential by the tribes. Within this region, there are prominent and identifiable places such as the Medicine Wheel to the west in the Big Horn Mountains and Devils Tower to the east in the Black Hills area. These known sites offer some indication of the types of places valued by the Plains horse cultures in the historic period. Any identification of sacred or traditional localities must be verified in consultation with authorized tribal representatives. 4.2.11.4 Site Protection At the time an individual project is permitted, the development activities considered in this study would be subject to the following regulations relative to cultural resources. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, its implementing regulations (including but not limited to 36 CFR 800, 36 CFR 61, and Executive Order 11593), and NEPA and its implementing regulations, including 40 CFR 1500 - 1508, provide the legal environment for documentation, evaluation, and protection of historic properties (i.e., cultural resources eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places) that may be affected by development activities. In cases of split estate (where surface ownership and mineral ownership differ), surface resources, such as cultural sites, belong to the surface owner. The surface owner must be consulted about investigation, mitigation, or monitoring. 4.2.12 Transportation and Utilities The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005e) discusses potential cumulative impacts to transportation and utilities systems as a result of 4-88 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences projected development activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The baseline year (2003) area of disturbance and reclamation related to surface coal mining and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The total area of disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year and the projected cumulative total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-10. Generally, transportation systems in the study area would not be directly affected by the disturbance associated with projected development. Site-specific instances of disturbance may require that segments of highways, pipelines, transmission lines, or railroads be moved to accommodate expansion of certain coal mines. In such cases, the agencies authorized to regulate such actions would have to approve any proposal to move any segments of any transportation systems and construction of alternative routing would be required prior to closing existing links so that any disruptive effects on transportation systems would be minimized. The coal mines in the North Gillette subregion currently ship most of their coal via the east-west BNSF rail line through Gillette. That subregion produced 55 mmtpy in the baseline year (2003), which was just 22 percent of the estimated 250 mmtpy capacity of the BNSF rail line (BLM 2005a). The coal mines in the South Gillette and Wright subregions produced approximately 308 mmtpy in 2003, which was 88 percent of the estimated 350 mmtpy capacity of the joint BNSF & UP line serving those areas in the baseline year. Potential effects of development activities on transportation and utilities may be either short- or long-term in nature, varying with the type of development. A power plant or an urban community development would be considered longterm, and the demand for transmission line capacity would be virtually permanent, lasting for the economic life of the activity. The effects of coal production and the related demand for rail capacity would vary with market changes. In recent years, coal production has been increasing and the PRB Coal Review projects that the trend would continue, as shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. Similarly, the demand for pipeline capacity would vary with market conditions as well as with the rate of depletion of the oil or gas resource. Potential direct effects of projected development on roads and highways would include increased vehicular traffic and risk of traffic accidents on existing roadways in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area from daily travel by workers and their families. Indirect effects would include increased wear and tear on existing roads, additional air emissions from vehicles, additional fugitive dust from roads, noise, increased potential access to remote areas, and an increased risk of vehicle collisions with livestock and wildlife. Direct effects on railroads, pipelines, and transmission lines primarily would include increased demand for capacity to move coal, oil and gas, and electricity from production locations in the study area to markets outside the area. Indirect effects would include potential impacts of the accumulation of coal dust and fines blowing or sifting Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-89

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences from moving, loaded rail cars. The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report does not discuss the cumulative effects of coal dust resulting from the transport of coal along rail lines. The socioeconomic analysis conducted as a part of Task 3C of the PRB Coal Review projects a population increase of approximately 48 percent between 2003 and 2020 in Campbell County under the upper coal production scenario (BLM 2005f). Campbell County accounts for most of the population in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. Based on traffic studies conducted independently of the PRB Coal Review, vehicle miles traveled tend to increase at or above the rate of population growth. Consequently, highway traffic would be expected to increase by at least 48 percent by 2020. Approximately 60 percent of the population growth would occur in or near Gillette, which would indicate that the same proportion of traffic would originate in the Gillette area. The remainder of the traffic growth would be dispersed throughout the study area. Under this scenario, the greatest impact on traffic would occur in the Gillette area, where existing traffic volume to capacity ratios are highest. The increased traffic would be expected to cause delays in the Gillette area and might require widening of some streets and roads or other measures to increase traffic capacity. It is anticipated that there would be an increase in the risk of traffic accidents approximately proportional to the increase in traffic. Highway capacity on major routes away from Gillette would be expected to be sufficient to accommodate the growth without substantial constraints. Existing rail lines, together with proposed upgrades on the joint BNSF & UP line, would be expected to accommodate the projected coal transportation traffic through 2015 (Table 4-30). The PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005a) projects that the proposed DM&E line would be built and operational by 2015 (pending completion of additional environmental analysis), which would add 100 mmtpy in additional shipping capacity for the South Gillette and Wright subregions. A collaborative effort between the National Coal Transportation Association, the mines, and the BNSF and UP Railroads is resulting in measures to reduce coal dust emissions from loaded, moving rail cars. The Task 2 Report for the PRB Coal Review projected that basin-wide production of CBNG could potentially double by 2020, which would suggest that additional pipelines could be built. One potential additional pipeline (Bison Project) was identified for completion by November 2010. The filing for this project was made with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on June 2, 2008. Other potential projects are discussed in Section 4.1.2.3.1 was (Bison Pipeline 2008). An estimated 1,700 MW of new power production capacity is anticipated in the cumulative effects area by 2020. This level of production would require construction of additional transmission line capacity. It is assumed that new transmission lines would be constructed to connect new power plants to the grid.

4-90

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-30. PRB Rail Lines Coal Hauling Capacity and Projected Use.
2010 Projected 2010 Rail Use Capacity Increase1 mmtpy mmtpy % 250 62-78 349401 0 25-31 87- 100 0 2015 Projected 2015 Rail Use Capacity Increase1 mmtpy mmtpy % 250 74-104 30-42 2020 Projected 2020 Rail Use Capacity Increase1 mmtpy mmtpy % 250 78-121 417 4552 -3 31-48

Rail Line North BNSF South BNSF & UP DM&E
1

400 0

500 -2

393-4392 79-882 -3 -3

500 -2

83-912 -3

The range of increase in use shown for each year reflects the increases that are projected for the Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios, respectively. 2 The DM&E is assumed to be built and operational by 2015, adding 100 mmtpy of capacity for the mines served by the BNSF & UP South line. 3 The BNSF & UP South figures represent the projected combined traffic and percent capacity on the BNSF & UP South line and the projected DM&E line. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005e)

4.2.13 Socioeconomics The cumulative socioeconomic impact analysis focuses on Campbell County, but also considers Converse, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan, and Weston counties as directly affected and Niobrara and Natrona counties as indirectly affected. Recent and projected socioeconomic conditions are described in more detail in the Task 1C and 3C reports for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005c and 2005f). REMI Policy Insight (REMI), a professionally recognized regional economic model, was used to develop the cumulative employment and population projections presented below. The version of the REMI model for the Coal Review was comprised of two economic regions: one being Campbell County alone, the second composed of those Wyoming counties bordering Campbell County and linked to its economy by established industrial and consumer trade linkages and by work force commuting patterns. Results for the second region were analyzed to focus on the five counties, Converse, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan, and Weston, that are the most directly linked. Collectively, these five counties are referred to in the PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005f) as the surrounding counties. Additional analysis was undertaken to translate the population and employment forecasts for each of the surrounding counties into housing needs and to project future school enrollment. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the PRB emerged as a major coal producing region. Federal coal leasing has been a high profile activity because over 90 percent of the coal resources in the PRB are federally owned. The surface coal mines that developed during the 1970s and early 1980s are now mature operations, providing a stable economic and social foundation for the region. While energy development has produced periodic surges in population, followed occasionally by population declines in some communities, the growth in domestic energy consumption, coupled with the PRB’s vast energy resource base, has resulted in a 50-year growth trend in the region without the severe Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-91

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences economic dislocations that have characterized other western U.S. resource booms. This period of extended energy development has been accompanied by substantial economic changes and benefits, including economic growth, employment opportunity, tax revenue growth, and infrastructure development for local governments, both locally and across Wyoming, funded by tax revenues generated by production of coal and other energy resources. At the same time, periods of rapid growth have stressed communities and their social structures, housing resources, and public infrastructure and service systems. The emergence of the coal and other energy resource development industries in the PRB has had long-term cumulative affects on regional social and economic conditions. In general, Campbell County and the entire PRB region have developed an enhanced capacity to respond to and accommodate growth. The regional coal industry also provides a measure of insulation from dramatic economic and social dislocations. Key cumulative social and economic conditions identified in the PRB Coal Review are described below. 4.2.13.1 Employment and the Economic Base Energy resource development since 1970 has resulted in substantial economic expansion across the PRB. Total employment expanded by 163 percent as 40,674 net new jobs were added between 1970 and 2004. The most rapid expansion occurred between 1975 and 1980. After modest growth and slight decline in the 1980s and early 1990s, employment growth resumed in the late 1990s, led by increases in coal mine employment, including subcontractors, and CBNG development. Across the six-county area, total employment was 65,597 in 2004. Nearly half of the net job gain occurred in Campbell County, where total employment increased from 6,026 jobs in 1970 to 25,921 jobs in 2004. Strong gains also were posted in Sheridan County (9,821 jobs) and Converse County (4,421 jobs). The economic stimuli associated with the gains in mining and CBNG employment and the long-term population growth triggered secondary job gains in construction, trade, services, and government. In 2004, business and consumer services accounted for 51 percent of all jobs in the region, while mining and government accounted for 14 percent and 16 percent of all jobs, respectively. Farm employment in the region, as a share of total employment, declined from 14 percent in 1970 to 5.0 percent in 2004. However, that shift is primarily due to growth in non-farm employment rather than declines in farming, as total farm employment in the PRB recorded a net decline of only 375 jobs, from 3,571 to 3,196 (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2006). The largest impetus to future growth over the PRB Coal Review study period (2003 to 2020) is expected to occur by 2010. Under the lower production scenario, employment in 2010 related to coal mining, oil and gas production, and oil field services is projected to increase by one-third, or more than 2,300 4-92 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences jobs, as compared to 2003 levels. Many of the jobs gained would be the result of increased oil and gas development. While the number of coal mining jobs would increase, the projected coal mine-related productivity gains would limit increases in the number of mine employees required for operations. Beyond 2010, total mining industry employment would decline as major infrastructure development (e.g., additional CBNG compression capacity) is completed and the pace of conventional oil and gas drilling decreases. Increases in CBNG production and coal mining employment would occur thereafter, such that total mining employment would approach pre-2010 levels by the end of the forecast period (2020). Under the development scenarios, construction of three new power plants, having a combined capacity of 1,000 MW and a peak work force of approximately 1,550 in 2007-2008, is assumed to occur concurrently with the increases in mining employment. Under the upper production scenario, a second temporary construction work force impact would occur between 2016 and 2020 in conjunction with the construction of an additional 700-MW power plant. The net effects of these activities, including secondary effects on suppliers, merchants, service firms, state agencies and local government in the region, would be the creation of more than 8,700 new jobs in the region between 2003 and 2010. Of those, more than 5,600 jobs (a 22 percent increase over 2003) would be based in Campbell County. The pace of economic expansion, at least in terms of jobs, would moderate after 2010. Total employment growth of 2,017 additional jobs is projected in Campbell County between 2010 and 2020, with 1,741 additional jobs projected in the surrounding counties. However, to achieve the projected levels of energy and mineral development activity through 2010 assumes that industry has access to the necessary equipment, materials, labor, and other vital inputs. Current oil and gas exploration and development across the Rocky Mountain region has absorbed the available inventory of drilling rigs and crews. A lack of access to resources could delay or limit the job gains below the levels projected, even though prospects for such growth remain. Furthermore, competition for equipment, combined with tight labor markets, could negate the productivity gains that underlie the projections, such that the employment and associated impacts do materialize, but are associated with lower levels of activity (e.g., a lengthier construction period for a power plant or fewer new wells drilled each year). Employment effects associated with the upper coal production scenario, assuming productivity gains in coal mining equivalent to those in the lower coal production scenario, would result in total employment gains of 11,563 jobs by 2010 in the six-county study area, with an additional 3,667 jobs by 20202. As
2 The number of jobs in the coal mining industry under the upper production scenario was estimated assuming future productivity gains comparable to those used for the lower production scenario. This approach differs from that described for the upper production scenario in the Task 2 report of the coal study, whereby a 16 percent higher production would be achieved with a 2.5 percent increase in workforce. Although that assumption reflects a continuation of historic productivity gains, it may underestimate population and employment growth and related socioeconomic effects if the production levels are achieved but productivity lags. Using the productivity gains from the lower production scenario provides a more conservative perspective on potential long-term population growth for purposes of the cumulative analysis.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-93

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences compared to the employment projections under the lower coal production scenario, those gains include 2,821 additional jobs in 2010 and 3,214 additional jobs in 2020. Most of the incremental gains would be in Campbell County, further stressing labor markets, housing, and other community resources. Such pressures could delay or affect the development plans of individual firms and operators, such that the projected employment levels would not be realized in the time frames shown. Nonetheless, substantial growth in employment is expected to occur, and even if the projected total employment levels are not realized, substantial social and economic impacts still would be anticipated. The economic stimuli associated with the projected development also would stimulate increases in employment in other nearby counties beyond the five surrounding counties identified above. However, the potential effects in these areas are not addressed in the PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report because most of the effects would comprise indirect or induced growth that would be limited in scale relative to the size of the respective economies. Furthermore, the economic outlook for those areas is influenced by factors that are beyond the scope of this study, such as the role of the oil and gas support services industry based in Natrona County in supporting energy development in the south-central and southwestern portions of Wyoming. 4.2.13.2 Labor Market Conditions Labor market conditions in the PRB reflect a generally healthy economy, with average annual county unemployment rates between 2.1 percent (Campbell) and 3.5 percent (Weston) in 2006. Statewide and national unemployment rates for the period were 3.2 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2007). Over time, local unemployment levels and rates have reflected the influences of the large, relatively stable employment baseline associated with the region’s coal mining industry and the more transitory and variable influences of natural gas development. Prior to the onset of CBNG development in 1989, unemployment in Campbell County fluctuated between 4.8 and 5.3 percent, slightly above the corresponding statewide averages. Labor demand associated with CBNG development contributed to a decline in unemployment to below 3.0 percent in the 2001. As the pace of CBNG development stabilized, labor demand eased and unemployment rates climbed to 3.7 percent in 2003, before again falling to current record lows. The employment effects identified above indicate substantial pressures on local labor markets. Strong demand for labor would maintain low unemployment, creating upward pressure on wages and salaries. Those influences would stimulate substantial economic migration into Campbell County, causing impacts to population, housing demand, and other economic and social conditions. Similar influences would occur in surrounding counties, although the implications are less severe because the scale of effects would be smaller and would be distributed over multiple communities and service providers. 4-94 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 4.2.13.3 Personal Income A benefit associated with energy resource development, whether it is mineral mining or oil and gas development, is local wages and salaries that are among the highest in the state. Personal income registered strong gains across the region, but especially in Campbell County, during the late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1981, per capita personal income in Campbell County was $17,520, compared to the national average of $11,280 and the statewide average of $12,879. Personal income growth was tempered by several years of economic stagnation during the late 1980s. Renewed economic vitality since then resulted in per capita personal income in Campbell County reaching $33,388 in 2004. Those gains notwithstanding, per capita income among Campbell County’s residents was below statewide and national norms, as well as that for Sheridan ($35,716) County. When measured on a median household or family income basis in the 2000 census, Campbell County led statewide, national, and other counties in the PRB by considerable margins. That pattern has been maintained due to the strong economic growth in the region; in 2006 the median household income in Campbell County was $60,800 compared to a statewide median of $43,785 and national median of $44,374. Median household incomes for the other five PRB counties ranged from $40,195 to $46,883 (U.S. Census Bureau 2006a). In terms of total personal income, Campbell County led the six-county region with $1.22 billion in 2004. Sheridan County residents recorded aggregate personal income of $972 million in 2004. Total personal income in the other counties was substantially lower, ranging from $193 million in Crook County to $389 million in Converse County. Personal incomes in the region would increase over the time period 2007-2020, both in aggregate and on a per capita basis, in conjunction with the economic outlooks foreshadowed by the projected development scenarios. In 2004, total personal income in the six-county area was $3.24 billion. Under the lower production scenario, total personal income would more than double to $7.57 billion in 2020 (in nominal dollars). The upper production scenario would generate an additional $266 million per year in Campbell County and an additional $35 to $40 million per year in the surrounding counties by 2020. Annual per capita incomes are projected to increase by approximately 27 percent (in real terms) across the region between 2003 and 2020. Households with one or more workers employed directly in the energy industry, associated service firms, and the construction industry likely would realize larger shares of the gains (BLM 2005f). 4.2.13.4 Population and Demographics Population change over time is perhaps the single best indicator of cumulative social and economic change in the PRB. Campbell County was not among the original 13 counties when Wyoming was admitted to statehood, but was carved from Weston and Crook counties in 1911. Campbell County’s 1920 population Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-95

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences of 5,233 ranked it seventeenth among Wyoming’s counties. Forty years later and prior to the onset of coal development in the region, Campbell County ranked eighteenth among Wyoming’s counties in terms of population, with a 5,861 residents. Neighboring Converse, Sheridan, and Weston counties all had larger populations. By 1980, Campbell County’s population had increased by more than 300 percent, to 24,367, seventh among Wyoming’s counties. Energy development contributed to population growth in Sheridan, Converse, Johnson, and Crook counties during that period. Weston County recorded a population decline during the period; however, the combined population of the PRB climbed from 49,311 in 1960 to 82,598 in 1980. Annual coal production in the PRB has increased by nearly 560 percent since 1980, accompanied by expanded mine service and rail transportation capacity, stimulating further growth. The impetus for growth in local employment was tempered by substantial productivity increases in the mining industry, coupled with declining production of other energy resources. Consequently, the region’s population gained a relatively modest 11 percent, 9,318 residents, between 1980 and 2000, reaching 91,916. Campbell County registered a net gain of 9,331 residents during that period, raising its total population to 33,698 in 2000, fourth highest in the state. Across the PRB, the loss of about 2,000 residents in Converse County was offset by modest gains in the other four counties (U.S. Census Bureau 2001). More recently, the PRB has seen renewed population growth, primarily linked to CBNG development. Population estimates for 2006 indicate a total regional population of 100,504, a 9.3 percent increase over the 2000 census population. Gains were reported for all six counties, ranging from 118 persons in Weston County to 5,236 persons in Campbell County (Table 4-31). Table 4-31. Recent and Projected PRB Population.
Campbell County 33,698 36,381 38,934 45,925 48,905 50,995 47,662 51,558 54,943 Converse County Crook Johnson Sheridan County County County Census 12,104 5,895 7,108 26,606 12,326 5,971 7,530 27,116 12,866 6,255 8,014 27,673 Lower Coal Production Scenario 13,103 6,542 8,389 28,459 13,671 6,759 8,867 30,016 14,193 6,989 9,326 31,467 Upper Coal Production Scenario 13,160 6,570 8,424 28,579 13,763 6,802 8,924 30,214 14,313 7,045 9,403 31,733 Weston County 6,642 6,665 6,762 7,108 7,174 7,208 7,137 7,219 7,266 Six County PRB Total 92,053 95,989 100,504 109,526 115,392 120,178 111,532 118,480 124,703

Year 2000 2003 2006 2010 2015 2020 2010 2015 2020

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2006a) and PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report

4-96

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences The magnitude and timing of projected employment changes from 2003-2020 under either coal production scenario would trigger corresponding effects to population across the PRB, particularly in Campbell County (Figure 4-6).

60, 000

50, 000

40, 000

30, 000

20, 000

Popul i -U pperPr aton oducton i Em pl m ent-U pperPr oy oducton i Popul i -Low erPr aton oducton i Em pl m ent-Low erPr oy oducton i

10, 000

0 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019
Sour ce: PRB CoalRevi Tas 3C Repor BLM 2005f ew k t( )

Figure 4-6. Projected Campbell County Population and Employment to 2020 Under the lower coal production scenario, Campbell County’s population is projected to increase by more than 14,550 residents between 2003 and 2020, nearly 9,500 of which are anticipated by 2010. Growth over the next 3 years will maintain pressures on housing and other community resources. The projected energy and mineral development in the lower coal production scenario would also result in substantial population growth elsewhere in the PRB, with Sheridan, Johnson, and Converse counties all projected to gain substantial population. Population growth, like employment growth, would moderate after 2010. Projected population growth between 2003 and 2020 ranges from 0.5percent compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) in Weston County to 2.0 percent CAGR in Campbell County. In absolute terms, the net change ranges from 537 additional residents in Weston County to a gain of 14,557 residents in Campbell County. The total population of the six-county study area is projected to climb to 120,178 in 2020, a 1.3 percent CAGR. As with employment, changing development conditions could result in actual population growth varying from projected growth. If project schedules or levels of development vary from the projected levels, corresponding effects on population growth could result (e.g., lower growth). Population demographics could also change due to migration and commuting, with more immigrating construction workers being single-status, rather than accompanied by families. Another possibility is that the spatial distribution of population growth could shift as a result of housing or labor constraints, such that less growth would occur in Gillette and Campbell County, and more growth would occur elsewhere. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-97

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Projected population growth through 2020 under the upper coal production scenario is approximately 19 percent higher than under the lower coal production scenario (28,625 compared to 24,100, with the six-county population reaching 124,703 by 2020). Much of the incremental population growth would occur by 2010 in Campbell County, and in particular in and near Gillette. Community population growth under the upper coal production scenario generally would mirror growth under the lower coal production scenario but with higher growth in Wright, Douglas, and Newcastle due to the effects of higher coal production, coal transportation, and power generation concentrated in the southern portion of Campbell County. 4.2.13.5 Housing While the population grew by 55 percent in the 1970s, the housing stock in the study area grew by almost 78 percent. Housing growth was especially rapid during the 1970s in Campbell County, where population grew by 88 percent and the housing stock grew by 140 percent. The expansion in housing supply, combined with the slowdown in the rate of population growth, produced doubledigit vacancy rates for rental housing in the late 1980s and early 1990s. After growth resumed in the mid-1990s, most county-level vacancy rates for ownership units were at or below the state levels in 2000. Vacancy rates for rental units declined even more sharply. Vacancy rates have fallen even more as a result of recent growth, with current rates below 1.5 percent in five of the sixcounties, and that in Johnson County at only 2.8 percent (Table 4-32). Table 4-32.
Year 2004 4Q 2006 4Q
Source:

Rental Housing Vacancy Rates, 2004 4Q and 2006 4Q.
Converse County 8.3% 1.4% Crook County 10.4% 1.0% Johnson County 2.1% 2.8% Sheridan County 4.5% 0.5% Weston County 5.0% 0.0% Wyoming 4.8% 2.4%

Campbell County 2.8% 0.4%

Wyoming Housing Database Partnership (2007)

In 2000, the housing inventory in the six-county study area was 41,203 units (Table 4-33). Total housing inventory had expanded to 43,363 units in 2005, a net addition of 2,160 since 2000. However, new construction hasn’t kept pace with population growth, resulting in tighter market conditions in terms of availability, and higher prices. Table 4-33.
Year 2000 2005 Change
Source:

Total Housing Stock in 2000 and 2005.
Converse County 5,669 5,852 183 Crook County 2,935 3,132 197 Johnson County 3,503 3,694 191 Sheridan County 12,577 13,283 706 Weston County 3,231 3,317 86 Six-county PRB Region 41,203 43,363 2,160

Campbell County 13,288 14,085 797

U.S. Census Bureau (2006b)

In 2005, the average sales price of homes in the study area varied from $80,303 in Weston County to $186,095 in Sheridan County. The average home price 4-98 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences statewide in 2006 was $178,183 (Wyoming Housing Database Partnership 2007). In addition to Sheridan County, Campbell ($185,874) and Johnson ($180,209) counties also had average home sale prices above the statewide average in 2006. The average sales price in Converse County was $149,096, 17 percent below the statewide average. Monthly costs for rental housing in the PRB, measured in the fourth quarter of 2006, were highest in Campbell County (Table 4-34). Table 4-34.
County Campbell Converse Crook Johnson Sheridan Weston Wyoming

Monthly Housing Rents in 20061 in the PRB Study Area and Percent Change from 2004.
Apartments Rent Change $697 25.8% $515 31.4% $391 17.4% $477 -5.4% $571 14.0% $459 47.1% $567 14.1% Mobile Home Lots Rent Change $283 22.0% $152 1.3% $125 5.9% $170 16.4% $285 4.4% $119 17.8% $225 15.4% Houses Rent Change $975 23.0% $545 2.8% NA NA $700 15.3% $857 27.9% $567 36.3% $782 13.0% Mobile Homes on a Lot Rent Change $758 20.5% $452 22.5% NA NA $518 5.5% $650 26.7% $505 27.5% $561 15.2%

1 Data are for the fourth quarter of 2006. Change is the percent change since fourth quarter of 2004.
NA = information not available due to insufficient sample size.
Source: Wyoming Department of Administration and Information (2006)

Temporary housing resources are available in the PRB in the form of hotel-motel rooms, private and public campgrounds, and vacant spaces in mobile home parks. In all, there are more than 70 lodging establishments with a total of more than 2,500 rooms. These temporary housing resources, supplemented by whatever apartments, townhouses, and mobile home spaces are available in Gillette, Wright and Douglas, have accommodated temporary housing needs associated with natural resource and energy projects in the past. Both projected coal production scenarios indicate a strong demand for housing across the six-county study area through 2020. Net housing requirements under the lower coal production scenario are for approximately 9,110 units through 2020, a 21 percent increase above the 2006 existing inventory (Figure 4-7). New housing requirements under the upper coal production scenario are estimated at 10,900 units, a 25 percent increase compared to the 2006 inventory and 1,790 units more than for the lower coal production scenario. Approximately 60 percent of the overall demand for new housing through 2010 would be in Campbell County. A substantial portion of the near-term housing demand in Campbell County would be associated with the assumed concurrent construction of three power plants. If that occurs, one or more project sponsors may be required by the Wyoming Industrial Siting Administration to pro-actively provide housing (e.g., a construction camp for single-status workers). Such actions could temper the needs for more housing; however, the remaining needs would nonetheless be substantial, straining public and private sector residential development capacity. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-99

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences
5, 000 4, 500 4, 000 3, 500 3, 000 2, 500 2, 000 1, 500 1, 000 500 0 20032010 20112015 20162020 Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005g)

C am pbel l C onver se Cr ook Johnson Sherdan i W est on

Figure 4-7. Projected Housing Demand in the PRB Study Area Under the Lower Coal Production Scenario. Although smaller in scale than those in Campbell County, housing demands in the surrounding counties may also strain the capabilities of the residential construction sector to respond. Furthermore, residential contractors would be competing for available labor, contributing to the population growth and housing demand, and fueling increases in construction costs and housing prices. The relative scale of the housing needs can be evaluated in comparison to past growth in the study area. One benchmark for comparison is the rapid growth that occurred in the PRB in the 1970s. During that decade, the number of housing units in the six-county study area rose by approximately 14,900 units, approximately 1,500 units per year on average compared to the 850 to 975 new units per year projected under the upper and lower coal production scenarios through 2010. The rapid pace of development in the 1970s coincided with a period of economic expansion and strained the region’s construction trade and building supply industries. Although the underlying economies of the region are now larger, the projected needs would tax the ability of communities to respond. Signs of strain are apparent in Gillette and could surface elsewhere as greater housing needs arise in the remaining counties of the six-county study area under the low coal production scenario. Projected housing demands under either coal production scenario, although lower than what Campbell County and the region experienced in the “boom” years of the 1970s, would exert substantial pressure on housing markets, prices, and the real estate development and construction industries, all at a time when demand for labor and other resources would be high overall.

4-100

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 4.2.13.6 Public Education There are 10 school districts in the six-county PRB study area, ranging in size from CCSD #1 with 7,337 students in the 2005 school year to Sheridan County School District # 3 (based in Clearmont, Wyoming) with fewer than 100 students. CCSD #1, based in Gillette, and Converse #1 in Douglas, serve the primary energy and resource development region. Public school enrollment trends generally mirrored population trends during the period of rapid population growth. District-wide enrollment in Campbell County grew by more than 4,600 students (131 percent) between 1975 and 1985. Enrollment increased in all districts in Converse and Sheridan counties as well. Enrollment in Campbell County School District (CCSD) #1 subsequently peaked, but remained near record high levels for nearly a decade. Elsewhere in the region enrollments generally declined with a combined enrollment of 9,525 in the other study area districts in 2005, the lowest since 1975 (Wyoming Department of Education 2006). Recent natural gas and mining development has tempered, but not reversed, the trend of declining school enrollments across the region. Communities across the PRB study area would see population growth due to economic migration from 2003 to 2020; however, the effects of such migration on public school enrollments would vary. As the demographics of the population change, school districts in the PRB would be affected by new trends. In some counties, the size of the school-age population (generally aged five to 17 years) may even trend in the opposite direction of total population in the short-term due to underlying demographics of the established resident population. The demographic projections for the two coal production scenarios forecast growth in elementary school enrollments in Campbell County through 2010 and after 2010 for most PRB school districts. Projected enrollments in CCSD #1 would be approximately 10 percent higher by 2020 under the upper coal production scenario, with those in the surrounding districts about one percent higher. However, several districts still may experience enrollment levels in 2020 below current levels, as growth from 2010 to 2020 would not offset recent declines or those projected to occur before 2010. Under the lower coal production scenario, Campbell County would experience an increase of 1,587 students, or 22 percent above recent levels, in school enrollment through 2020. However, the net impact on CCSD #1 would be composed of two trends; a substantial increase in grades K-8 but only small increases in grades 9-12 (Figure 4-8). School districts in the surrounding counties are projected to experience declining elementary and middle school enrollments through 2010 and declining high school enrollments through 2015. Thereafter, growth and the associated influences on demographics would generate renewed enrollment growth, particularly in the elementary grades in Johnson, Sheridan, and Converse counties. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-101

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences
9, 000 8, 000 7, 000 6, 000 5, 000 4, 000 3, 000 2, 000 1, 000 0 1990
CCSD#1,G r ades K8 Ot herDi rct sti s,K8 CCSD#1,G r ades 912 Ot herD i rct sti s,912

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005f)

Figure 4-8. Projected School Enrollment Trends to 2020 Under the Lower Coal Production Scenario. Under either scenario, projected enrollments may cause short-term school capacity shortages, depending on the specific grade levels and residential locations of the additional students. Under the Wyoming School Facilities Commission planning guidelines, impacted school districts generally need to accommodate minor capacity shortages through the use of temporary facilities, such as portable classrooms. For larger and more long-term increases, the Commission’s policy is to fund capital expansion where warranted by projections developed during updates of school districts’ five-year plans. The approved fiveyear plan for CCSD #1 has a $57.4 million budget covering construction of several new schools and numerous major maintenance and facility upgrade projects. The approved five-year plans for the other school districts have combined cost of $163 million. Capital investment in public education facilities has been a statewide priority in Wyoming for the past decade, with taxes and royalties on mineral and energy resources the primary source of program funding (Wyoming School Facilities Commission 2007 and CREG 2007). 4.2.13.7 Facilities and Services The types and levels of facilities and services provided by local governments reflect service demand, revenue availability, and community values regarding appropriate services and service standards. As with most socioeconomic characteristics, the level and availability of local government facilities and services varies by county and community across the PRB. There are literally several hundred separate service providers in the region. Although virtually all 4-102 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences local government facilities and services are affected by energy development and the demand related thereto, the critical facilities and services include municipal water and sewer systems, law enforcement at the county level, and hospitals. A comprehensive assessment of facilities and services is beyond the scope of the PRB Coal Review. However, an initial screening revealed no critical needs or shortfalls and indicated that most providers are engaged in an ongoing longterm process to maintain and improve facilities and services to meet community needs and to comply with various regulations and standards. The PRB Coal Review socioeconomic analysis focuses on water supply and wastewater systems (two essential services that are costly and have the longest lead times to develop) and law enforcement, emergency response, and road maintenance (three services that typically are most affected by energy development). Water supply and wastewater systems in most communities have the capacity to accommodate the cumulative population growth associated with either projected coal production scenario through 2020, assuming ongoing or planned improvements are completed. In Gillette, there may be a timing issue with planned water supply system expansions, as completion of planned improvements would occur when substantial growth is anticipated under both projected coal production scenarios. Consequently, Gillette may experience water shortages in the summer months for several years, particularly if growth follows that under the upper coal production scenario. Douglas is looking to add water treatment capacity to provide additional capacity and management flexibility to address needs during times of drought. The ability to provide desired levels of services to the projected energy-related population and development is less clear in Campbell County, Gillette, Wright, and outlying rural communities. Campbell County and its communities would experience a 25 percent increase in population between 2003 and 2010 under the lower coal production scenario and 30 percent under the upper coal production scenario. Growth rates and the resultant facility and service demand in other counties within the study area would be substantially less during the 2003 to 2010 period under either scenario; all communities other than Johnson County and Buffalo would grow substantially less than 10 percent during the period. The populations of Johnson County and Buffalo would increase 10 percent by 2010, driven primarily by CBNG development. Growth rates and resultant increases in service demands would slow substantially during both the 2011 to 2015 and 2016 to 2020 periods under either projected coal production scenario. In most communities except Sheridan County and the city of Sheridan, there would be little difference in population growth and service demand between the two scenarios.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-103

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 4.2.13.8 Fiscal Conditions Federal mineral royalties and state and local taxes levied on coal and other mineral production are vitally important sources of public revenue in Wyoming. Taxes, fees, and charges levied on real estate improvements, retail trade, and other economic activity supported by energy development provide additional revenues to support public facilities and services. These revenues benefit not only those jurisdictions within which the production or activity occurs, but also the federal treasury, state coffers, school districts, and local governments across the state through revenue-sharing and intergovernmental transfer mechanisms. Coal and other minerals produced in Wyoming, regardless of ownership, are subject to ad valorem taxation by local taxing entities and a statewide levy to support public education. Statewide ad valorem taxable valuation on coal production in 2005 was $2,280.1 million. Of that total, 88 percent was based on production in the PRB. The total assessed valuation of Campbell County, boosted by recent increases in CBNG production, was $4,264 million in 2006. Valuations on aggregate mineral production accounted for 87 percent of that total. Because Campbell County has been the primary beneficiary of mineral production gains over the past three decades and the recent gains tied to CBNG, the county’s assessed valuation in 2006 was nearly 38 times that of Weston County ($112.5 million) and 31 times that of Crook County ($137.2 million). The 2006 valuation of 2005 coal production in Campbell County was $1,995.3 million (Wyoming Department of Revenue 2006). Wyoming levies a severance tax on coal and many other minerals produced in the state. The severance tax rate, levied on the value of production, has varied from 1.0 percent to 10.5 percent over time. The current rate of 7.0 percent was established in 1992. Cumulative statewide severance tax proceeds on coal production since 1970 exceed $2.8 billion. Cumulative severance tax revenues on coal produced in Campbell County total $1.89 billion. Cumulative severance tax revenues for the corresponding period total $96.5 million from Converse County, $60.5 million from Sheridan County, and $758.0 million from the remainder of the state (Wyoming CREG 2007 and Wyoming Department of Revenue 2006). Producers pay a 12.5 percent royalty to the federal treasury on the value of all surface coal production from federal leases. Total federal mineral royalties of nearly $3.3 billion have been paid on coal produced in Wyoming since 1970, approximately half of which is returned to the state. Estimated 2005 mineral royalties of about $377 million were paid on federal coal produced in the PRB (Minerals Management Service 2006). At the foundation of the mineral development revenue projections for the period 2003 to 2020 are projected levels of future energy and mineral resource production. The projected total value of annual mineral production under the 4-104 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences lower coal production scenario will climb by $3.49 billion (2004 dollars) over 2003 levels, reaching $8.54 billion by 2020, a 69 percent increase over the 2003 value. The aggregate value of energy and mineral resource production under the upper coal production scenario would increase to $9.21 billion in 2020. The incremental difference, compared to the value under the lower coal production scenario, would be $670 million per year, all of which represents the value of higher annual coal output. The overwhelming majority of future mineral production value is anticipated to be in Campbell County. Over time, the future value of production in Sheridan and Johnson counties would climb. Total annual mineral production value by 2020 is projected to reach $6.37 billion in Campbell County and $2.17 billion in the surrounding counties. Between 2005 and 2020, total royalty and tax receipts derived from the key selected sources range between $21.1 and $22.6 billion for the lower and upper coal production scenarios, respectively. Receipts derived from coal production would account for the majority of the totals under either scenario, with federal mineral royalties on coal at $4.9 to $5.7 billion being the single largest source. Severance taxes, ranging from $6.3 to $6.7 billion, also would accrue to the state (Tables 4-35 and 4-36). Table 4-35. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated with Energy Resource Production Under the Lower Coal Production Scenario (million $).
Industry and Taxes 2005-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 1 $3,164.8 $3,178.9 $3,756.3 Coal CBNG $2,915.2 $3,076.4 $3,288.7 Conventional Oil and Gas $568.5 $576.4 $614.0 Totals $6,648.5 $6,831.7 $7,659.0 Severance Tax $1,995.9 $2,012.4 $2,249.3 Federal Mineral Royalties $2,754.1 $2,839.4 $3,166.3 State Mineral Royalties $233.5 $225.8 $251.4 Ad Valorem Tax (Counties) $417.6 $443.0 $502.8 Ad Valorem Tax (Schools) $1,247.5 $1,311.1 $1,489.3 Totals $6,648.6 $6,831.7 $7,659.1 1 Does not include coal lease bonus bids due to the uncertainty regarding timing. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005f) Total $10,100.0
$9,280.3
$1,759.0
$21,139.3 $6,257.6
$8,759.8
$710.7
$1,363.3
$4,047.9
$21,139.3

The federal and state governments also benefit from coal lease bonus bids derived from future coal leasing. Bonus bids have risen over time, with successful bids for recent sales ranging from 30 cents per ton to 97 cents per ton. There is no guarantee of that trend continuing. Considerable uncertainty also exists with respect to the timing and scale of future leases, although BLM currently has pending applications for more than four billion tons of federal coal, including this application. The state receives 50 percent of the bonus bid revenue. Taxes and mineral royalties levied on energy and mineral resource production accruing to the state are disbursed to the Permanent Water Development Trust Fund, Wyoming School Foundation and Capital Facilities funds, capital Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-105

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-36. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated with Energy Resource Production Under the Upper Coal Production Scenario (million $).
Industry and Taxes Coal1 CBNG Conventional Oil and Gas Totals Severance Tax Federal Mineral Royalties State Mineral Royalties Ad Valorem Tax (Counties) Ad Valorem Tax (Schools) Totals
1

2005-2010 $3,538.0 $2,915.2 $568.5 $7,021.7 $2,104.1 $2,946.3 $233.5 $435.8 $1,302.3 $7,022.0

2011-2015 $3,703.0 $3,076.4 $576.4 $7,355.8 $2,159.0 $3,099.9 $225.8 $472.0 $1,398.9 $7,355.6

2016-2020 $4,350.0 $3,288.7 $614.0 $8,252.7 $2,415.4 $3,461.4 $251.4 $535.0 $1,589.8 $8,253.0

Total1 $11,591.0 $9,280.3 $1,759.0 $22,630.3 $6,678.5 $9,507.6 $710.7 $1,442.8 $4,291.0 $22,630.6

Does not include coal lease bonus bids due to the uncertainty regarding timing. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005f)

construction fund for state and local government facilities, and other programs according to a legislatively-approved formula. Through these funds, the revenues derived from resource development benefit the entire state, not just agencies, businesses, and residents of the PRB. County governments and school districts would realize benefits from future energy and mineral resource development in the form of ad valorem taxes. Such taxes, estimated on the basis of future coal, oil, and natural gas production, are estimated to range between $5.4 billion and $5.7 billion through 2020. Those sums do not include future property taxes levied on the new power plants, expanded rail facilities, or new residential and commercial development associated with future growth, or sales and use taxes levied on consumer and some industrial purchases. These latter revenues are not estimated in this study, but would be substantially lower than those on resource production. Local governments would benefit from property taxes on new development, as well as from sales and use taxes on taxable sales within their boundaries. Such revenues are not estimated for this study due to the large number of jurisdictions and other analytical considerations. 4.2.13.9 Social Setting The past 30 years have seen sweeping social change in the U.S. and throughout much of the world. But in addition to the broad forces that have driven social change in the U.S. as a whole, social conditions in some PRB communities have been substantially influenced by energy development. Factors that have affected social conditions in the PRB include industrial and natural resource development, economic and demographic change, housing 4-106 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences and public infrastructure development, and institutional change at the local and state government levels. One of the key drivers of social change in the PRB has been energy-related population growth. When the first oil boom occurred in the late 1950s, Campbell County was a relatively stable, sparsely-populated rural county. Like many places in Wyoming and throughout the rural west, Campbell County was a small, relatively homogeneous ranching community (ROMCOE 1982). The oil booms of the 1950s and 1960s brought an influx of new people. Development of coal mines, continued oil and gas drilling, and power plant construction precipitated another round of growth. In all, Campbell County population grew by almost 600 percent between 1950 and 2000. On the one hand, this population growth, combined with a robust economy, generated a variety of positive social effects. Financial and technical resources poured into the community as it mobilized to accommodate the new population. Job opportunities were created in the construction industry, as the community responded to demands for housing, public facilities, and retail goods and services. The large and rapid influx of new residents, eager to take advantage of the employment opportunities, created energy, vitality, and a sense of economic optimism about the community. Where economic advancement had been limited before the boom, there was now opportunity (Gardiner 1985). On the other hand, it is likely that many residents had mixed feelings about these changes (Heinecke 1985). New residents brought new ideas, new ways of doing things, new preferences for goods and services, and new demands for government services. Some long-time residents, particularly those who were not directly participating in the economic benefits of energy development, viewed these changes as negative. Today, almost any organization, committee, or government body is made up of a cross-section of energy employees, ranchers, and other community members whose tenure in the community may be long or short (Bigelow 2004, Spencer 2004). Moreover, because of the turnover in the energy companies, the community has become accustomed to newcomers. Cumulative energy development in the PRB through the year 2020 has the potential to generate both beneficial and adverse effects on community social conditions. Social effects of development activities in the PRB would vary from county to county and community to community under the coal production scenarios developed for this study, based on the existing social setting and the type of development that would occur. Beneficial social effects would be associated with an expanding economy and employment opportunities associated with energy development and resulting improvements in living standards for those employed in energy-related industries. Adverse social effects could occur as a result of conflicts over land Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-107

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences use and environmental values. Negative social effects also could occur if the pace of growth exceeds the abilities of affected communities to accommodate energy-related employees and their families with housing and community services. In the PRB, social conditions in Campbell County, the city of Gillette, and the town of Wright are most likely to be affected because the county would host much of the cumulative energy development workforce, and the county and its municipalities would receive the largest increments in population growth. Campbell County and its municipalities have a long history of energy development, and they have developed infrastructure and management systems to plan for and manage growth; consequently, major adverse social effects would not be anticipated. However, under either scenario, the county and the two municipalities may face challenges in providing adequate housing and expanding community services in anticipation of population growth through 2010, particularly if several power plant and coal mine construction projects occur simultaneously. As municipalities receive only sales and use tax revenues directly from development and purchases made within their boundaries, Gillette and Wright could face challenges in securing the necessary funding to improve municipal facilities and services. Housing shortages and limitations in public services could contribute to adverse community social effects in these communities. Many of the people who would immigrate to Campbell County for energy-related jobs are likely to share characteristics with much of the current population; therefore, few barriers to social integration are anticipated. Social effects on other communities in the PRB are likely to be minimal to moderate. Energy-related population growth is anticipated to be moderate in other communities. Sheridan County, also familiar with coal mining, is the only other county anticipated to host a major construction project under the development assumptions used for either projected coal production scenario. Converse, Weston, and Crook counties could experience spillover growth from projects in Campbell County. Johnson, Sheridan, and Campbell counties could experience continued conflict over split estate and water issues associated with CBNG development, and the pace and scale of energy development across the PRB is likely to continue to generate social and political conflict over environmental issues under either coal production scenario. 4.2.14 Coal Mining and Coal-Fired Power Plant Related Emissions and ByProducts As discussed in Chapter 1, BLM does not authorize mining by issuing a lease for federal coal, but the impacts of mining the coal are considered in this EIS because it is a logical consequence of issuing a maintenance lease to an existing mine. The use of the coal after it is mined is also not determined at the time of 4-108 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences leasing, however, almost all of the coal that is currently being mined in the Wyoming PRB is being used by coal-fired power plants to generate electricity. As a result, a discussion of emissions and by-products that are generated by burning coal to produce electricity is included in this section of the EIS. As discussed in Chapter 2, under the currently approved mining plan, which represents Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative), from 2008 on, the Black Thunder Mine would be able to produce coal at an average production level of 135.0 mmtpy for another 10.2 years, compared with an average of 135.0 mmtpy for 12.2 years under the Proposed Action, or an average of 135.0 mmtpy for another 14.6 years under Alternative 2 for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract (Table 2-2). The Black Thunder Mine would be able to produce coal at an average production level of 135.0 mmtpy for another 11.8 years under the Proposed Action, or an average of 135.0 mmtpy for another 12.5 years under Alternative 2 for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract (Table 2-4). The Black Thunder Mine would be able to produce coal at an average production level of 135.0 mmtpy for another 13.0 years under the Proposed Action, or an average of 135.0 mmtpy for another 17.3 years under Alternative 2 for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract (Table 2-6). As discussed in Chapter 2, from 2008 on, the Jacobs Ranch Mine would be able to produce coal at an average production level of 40.0 mmtpy for another 10.6 years under Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative), compared with an average of 40.0 mmtpy for 27.3 years under the Proposed Action, or an average of 40.0 mmtpy for another 33.4 years under Alternative 2 for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract (Table 2-8). As discussed in Chapter 2, under the currently approved mining plan, which represents Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative), from 2008 on, the North Antelope Rochelle Mine would be able to produce coal at an average production level of 95.0 mmtpy for another 10.9 years, compared with an average of 95.0 mmtpy for 17.2 years under the Proposed Action, or an average of 95.0 mmtpy for another 18.7 years under Alternative 2 for the North Porcupine LBA Tract (Table 2-10). The North Antelope Rochelle Mine would be able to produce coal at an average production level of 95.0 mmtpy for another 14.2 years under the Proposed Action, or an average of 95.0 mmtpy for another 14.5 years under Alternative 2 for the South Porcupine LBA Tract (Table 2-12). Section 3.4.5 contains estimates of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the combined mine operations at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines from projected operations under the Proposed Actions and alternatives. 4.2.14.1 Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and changes in biological carbon sequestration due to land management activities on global climate. Through Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-109

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 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 GHG levels have varied for millennia, recent industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) concentrations to increase dramatically, and are likely to contribute to overall global climatic changes. As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. This does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate change science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty, because they are based on well-known physical laws and documents trends (EPA 2008a). Climatic change analyses are comprised of several factors, including GHG emissions, land use management practices, and the albedo effect. In Chapter 3, the effects of recent global climate change on the environment in the area of the proposed action have been identified. It is 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 Powder River Basin. Reference has been made to national and regional data that is available, including the recent comprehensive 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). Tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with those factors for the projected development activities in the PRB are presently unavailable. As a consequence, impact assessments 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 of factors that contribute to climate change. To the extent that emission data were available or could be inferred from representative type data, potential GHG emissions that could result from development of the proposed LBAs have been identified, as well as emissions that will result from selection of the no action alternative. In the following analysis, the contribution of the proposed LBAs to cumulative effects on the environment of historic and projected development activity is evaluated. To do this, it is assumed that coal mining will proceed in accordance with permit conditions. It is 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. The BLM does not determine the destination of this coal, and the use of the coal is determined by the coal consumer. The electric utilities where this coal has historically been used are throughout the United States, and have a variety of coal combustion technologies and emission control, but all are licensed by the appropriate 4-110 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences regulatory authorities and operate under necessary permit requirements, and in compliance with regulation. Assuming that all coal produced would be burned to generate electricity, 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 has been estimated. This was done by relating the portion of coal mined to the total emission of GHG from all coal mined in the U.S. It is 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, and 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 analysis 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. The National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, an interagency effort initiated by Congress under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, Public Law 101-606, has confirmed that climate change is impacting some natural resources that the Department of the Interior has the responsibility to manage and protect (DOI 2001). The Synthesis Report, the final part of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (available online at http://www.ipcc.ch), was released in preliminary form on November 17, 2007. The Synthesis Report (Bernstein et al. 2007) summarizes the results of the assessment carried out by the three working groups of the IPCC. Observations and projections addressed in the report include:


“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperature, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.” “Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans show that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases.”



From 1850 to present, historic trend data show an increase of 1°C in global mean temperature. The increase is not linear, and there have been extended periods (decades) where temperature has dropped or stayed constant. This historic warming over that same period has caused sea levels to rise by about 20 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-111

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences cm on average, and has also resulted in changes in climate patterns on land. These changes are not uniform. In some areas near the equator, temperatures have cooled by about 5°C, while closer to the poles, temperatures have risen by equal amounts (Hansen and Lebedeff 1987). In northern latitudes (above 24° N), temperature increases of nearly 1.2°C (2.1°F) have been documented since 1900. Temperature changes can result in shifts of weather patterns (rainfall and winds) which may then affect vegetation and habitat. Several activities contribute to the phenomena of climate change, including emissions of GHGs (especially carbon dioxide and methane) from fossil fuel development, large wildfires and activities using combustion engines; changes to the natural carbon cycle; and changes to radiative forces and reflectivity (albedo). It is important to note that GHGs will have a sustained climatic impact over different temporal scales. (EPA 2008a). There has been, and continues to be, considerable scientific investigation and discussion as to the causes of the recent historic rise in global mean temperatures, and whether the warming trend will continue. Solar variability may play a role in global climate change, though the magnitude of the influence of increased sun activity is not well understood. Physical aspects of the sun, like sunspots and solar radiation output, are known to vary over time. The intensity of energy from the sun has varied through time and has resulted in global temperature variation. Human population doubled to two billion from the period 1780 to 1930, then doubled again by 1974. The atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased as human populations have increased. More land and resources were used to provide for the needs of these populations. As human activities have increased, carbon-based fuels have been used to provide for those additional energy needs. Forests and vegetation were cleared in order to provide for food production and human use. Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, water vapor, ozone, and nitrous oxide (N2O) are recognized as the major greenhouse gases, although there are other gases that are considered GHGs. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these GHG emissions and net losses of biological carbon sinks cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated by the earth back into space. Like glass in a greenhouse, these gases trap radiation from the sun and act as an insulator around the Earth, holding in the planet’s heat. According to the IPCC’s synthesis report (Bernstein et al. 2007):


“Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.” Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-112

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences


“Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).” “There is high agreement and much evidence that with current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global greenhouse gas emission will continue to grow over the next few decades.” “Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would be very likely to be larger than those observed during the 20th century.” “There is high confidence that by mid-century, annual river runoff and water availability are projected to increase at high latitudes and in some tropical wet areas and decrease in some dry regions in the mid-latitudes and tropics. There is also high confidence that many semi-arid areas (e.g., Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and northeast Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change.” “Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.” “Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change.” “There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilization levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialized in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.”



The National Academy of Sciences has confirmed these findings, but also has indicated there are uncertainties regarding how climate change may affect different regions. Computer model predictions indicate that increases in temperature will not be equally distributed, but are likely to be accentuated at higher latitudes. Warming during the winter months is expected to be greater than during the summer, and increases in daily minimum temperatures is more likely than increases in daily maximum temperatures. Increases in temperatures would increase water vapor in the atmosphere, and reduce soil moisture, increasing generalized drought conditions, while at the same time Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-113

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences enhancing heavy storm events. Although large-scale spatial shifts in precipitation distribution may occur, these changes are more uncertain and difficult to predict (EPA 2008a). Relatively steep elevation gradients between valley floors and adjacent mountain ranges in the western U.S. produce considerable geographic climate variability. Warm, dry, semiarid conditions are typical on valley floors; moist and cool conditions are typical in higher parts of mountain ranges. Different plant communities occur within specific elevation zones. There also have been patterns of historic climatic variation in these areas for more than 10,000 years, during which plant communities gradually shift to higher or lower elevations depending on the direction of temperature and precipitation changes (Tausch et. al. 2004). If global warming trends continue into the foreseeable future, Chambers (2006) and the 2008 report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2008) indicate that the following changes may be expected to occur in the West:


The amount and seasonal variability of precipitation will increase over most areas. IPCC (2001) climate model scenarios indicate that by 2100, precipitation will increase about 10 percent in summer, about 30 percent in fall, and 40 percent in winter. Less snowfall will accumulate in higher elevations, more precipitation will occur as rain, and snowmelt will occur earlier in the spring because of higher temperatures. Streamflow patterns will change in response to reduced snowpacks and increasing precipitation. Peak flows in spring are expected to occur earlier and be of lower magnitude because of snowpack changes. Runoff from greater amounts of winter rainfall will cause higher winter flows. Summer flows will be lower, but with higher variability depending on the severity of storm events. Some populations of native plants, invasive species, and pests will expand. Increasing amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide. and precipitation during the growing season will provide favorable growth conditions for native grasses, perennial forbs, woody species, and invasive annuals such as cheatgrass. Insect populations also will likely increase because milder winter temperatures will improve reproduction and survival rates. Fire frequency, severity, and extent will increase because of the increased availability of fine fuels (grasses, forbs, and invasives) and accumulation of fuels from previous growing seasons. Higher temperatures will extend the length of fire seasons. Expansion of pinyon-juniper species and increasing tree densities could increase the number of high severity crown fires. Higher rates of insect damage and disease also may increase fuel accumulations. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications



4-114

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences


Sensitive species and overall biodiversity will be reduced. High-elevation habitats will shrink in area or disappear as lower-elevation plant communities expand. It is probable that some mammalian, avian, and other species that currently inhabit these high-elevation habitats may become extinct. Higher rates of disease and insect damage also may pose threats to other sensitive plant and animal species.

In 2006, transportation sources accounted for approximately 29 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (EPA 2008b). Transportation is the fastest growing source of U.S. GHGs, accounting for 47 percent of the net increase in total U.S. emissions since 1990. Transportation is also the largest end-use source of CO2, which is the most prevalent GHG (EPA 2008b). Transportation is also the largest end-use source of CO2, which is the most prevalent anthropogenic GHG (EPA 2008b, NOAA 2009). Historically, the coal mined in the PRB has been used as one of the sources of fuel to generate electricity in power plants located throughout the United States. Coal-fired power plant emissions include CO2, which has been identified as a principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas. According to the Energy Information Administration (USDOE 2007a):


CO2 emissions represent about 84 percent of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Estimated CO2 emissions in the U.S. totaled 5,934.2 million metric tons in 2006, which was a 1.8 percent decrease from 2005. 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 CO2 emissions in 2006. Estimated CO2 emissions from coal electric power generation in 2005 totaled 1,937.9 million metric tons or about 33 percent of total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions in 2006. Coal production from the Wyoming PRB represented approximately 42 percent of the coal used for power generation in 2006, which means that Wyoming PRB surface coal mines were responsible for about 13.9 percent of the estimated U.S. CO2 emissions in 2006.



Wyoming PRB coal is shipped primarily nationwide, although it can also be shipped overseas. The mines in the Powder River Basin have sold, and are expected to sell coal into the open coal market. Each mine’s ability to sell coal in this market will determine annual production rates at that mine. Historically, the coal buyers have been domestic electric producers, although the coal could be used in other coal applications and it has been exported.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-115

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Relatively little PRB coal, about two percent, is burned in Wyoming. In 2005, Wyoming coal went to 35 states besides Wyoming. As noted above, coal represented 50.2 percent of the fuel mix used by electric generators nationally in 2004. In the NERC power regions where PRB coal is sold, coal use ranges from 74.2 percent in the upper Midwest, to 15.6 percent in the northeast U.S. (EPA 2007e). There are methods of generating electricity that result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions than burning coal, including natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal resources. However, coal-burning power plants currently supply about 50 percent of the electric power generated in the U.S. The demand for power is increasing in the U.S. and throughout the world. According to a recent report by the North American Electric Reliability Council, peak demand for electricity in the U.S. is expected to double in the next 22 years (Associated Press 2007). Many developing countries, including China and India, are also relying heavily on coal to meet their rapidly increasing power demands as coal is more economical and more available than other sources of electrical generation. Coal sales are made on short term contracts, generally to individual power generators, or coal is sold on a spot market. This market is very dynamic and competitive. During the coal leasing EIS process, it is uncertain and speculative to predict who might purchase future PRB coal, how it would be used, and where the coal might be transported to. Technologies for producing cleaner, more efficient and more reliable power from coal are currently available, although not yet commercially established. These include advanced pulverized coal, circulating fluidized bed, and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technologies. The FutureGen project proposes to produce electricity by turning coal into gas, remove impurities, extract CO2 from the waste stream, and then sequester the CO2 underground. A site in southeastern Illinois was recently selected for the plant, which has a goal of being operational in 2012 (Biello 2007). FutureGen is a public-private partnership between the USDOE and the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc., a non-profit consortium of international energy companies. The Alliance is responsible for design, construction, and operation of the facility, and USDOE is responsible for independent oversight and coordinating participation of international governments. Under a cooperative agreement between USDOE and the Alliance, USDOE was to provide a majority of the project’s cost. On January 30, 2008, USDOE proposed a major restructuring of the FutureGen project and that financing part of FutureGen at this time would be inappropriate. However, the full Senate Appropriations Committee passed legislation in July 2008 to protect $134 million of previously appropriated federal funding slated for FutureGen to keep the project moving forward (FutureGen 2008). At this time, there is no national policy or law in place that regulates GHG emissions. A number of bills were introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2007 related to global climate change. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, 4-116 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences which was introduced in October, 2007 by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (ID-CT) and John W. Warner (R-VA), would establish a cap-and-trade within the United States. In short, the “cap” would set a legal limit on the quantity of greenhouse gases that a region can emit each year and “trade” would allow companies to exchange the permission – or permits – to emit greenhouse gases. This program would require a 70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from covered sources, which represents over 80 percent of total U.S. emissions. It was voted out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in December, 2007 (http://www.pewclimate.org, accessed 12/21/2007). The last action on the bill was on May 20, 2008 when it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 740. President Obama, in an address to Congress in February 2009, advocated congressional action on a cap-and-trade program. 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). The case was remanded to EPA to take further action to regulate CO2 under the CAA unless the EPA determines that CO2 does not endanger public health or welfare. On April 17, 2009, the Administrator of the EPA signed a proposal with two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding. The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding. This proposed action, as well as any final action in the future, would not itself impose any requirements on industry or other entities. An endangerment finding under one provision of the Clean Air Act would not by itself automatically trigger regulation under the entire Act. The EPA is accepting comment on this proposed action for 60 days (EPA 2009c). Federal, state, and local governments are also developing programs and initiatives aimed at reducing energy use and emissions. The 2002 Clear Skies and Global Climate Change Initiative is a voluntary national program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There are federal tax incentives for energy efficiency and conservation, and some states have renewable energy and energy efficiency policies. Regional initiatives have been started in the northeast (Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) as well as the Western Climate Initiative in the western states. At this time, it is not possible to predict how all of these programs would be melded into a national regulatory process if one were to be enacted.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-117

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences A number of U.S. financial and corporate interests have acknowledged that enactment of federal legislation limiting the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases seems likely (NARUC 2007). There is uncertainty about anticipated CO2 emission limits and carbon capture/sequestration regulations. This has caused some proponents to cancel or delay their proposed projects that use existing and emerging technologies to produce electricity from coal (Casper Star Tribune 2007b, 2007c, 2007d). The regulatory mechanisms proposed under the Climate Security Act, as well as the past regulation of other pollutants under the CAA, are imposed at the point when coal is burned and converted to electric energy and by-products like CO2. Over 95 percent of coal produced in the PRB is sold in an open market where coal is purchased on short term contracts or spot prices based on a coal feed stock that is suitable for each buyer’s power generating facility. Coal production at any one mine is not tied in any predictable way over a period of time to any one power plant. Power plant buyers attempt to buy coal from suppliers at the most economical prices that meet their needs. PRB coal has competed well in this market due to its low sulfur content. This makes it valuable in lowering sulfur dioxide pollution, as well as competitive mining costs when compared to delivered costs of coal from other coal producing areas. U.S. coal production increased from 1,029.1 million tons in 1990, when the Powder River Federal Coal Region was decertified, to 1,161.4 million tons in 2006, an increase of 12.9 percent (USDOE 2007b). Wyoming coal production increased from 184.0 million tons in 1990 to 444.9 million tons in 2006, an increase of 242 percent (Wyoming Department of Employment 1990, 2006). The share of electric power generated by burning coal was consistently around 50 percent during that time frame. Also, the percentage of total U.S. CO2 emissions related to coal consumption was consistently around 36 percent during that same time frame. The percentage of U.S. CO2 emissions related to the coal electric power sector increased from about 31 percent in 1990 to about 33 percent in 2006 (USDOE 2007b and 2007c). 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 (USDOE 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 (USDOE 2007a). In 2006, Wyoming PRB mines accounted for approximately 37.2 percent of the coal produced in the U.S (USDOE 2007b). Table 4-37 shows the estimated cumulative annual CO2e emissions produced by all mines in the PRB which currently have LBAs pending. The cumulative emissions calculated are those associated with the actual mining operations and 4-118 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-37. Estimated Annual Equivalent CO2 Emissions* Production at Mines With Pending LBAs.
Source SGAC Mines/LBA Tracts WAC Mines/LBA Tracts Antelope Mine/West Antelope II Tract Buckskin Mine/Hay Creek II Tract Total 2007 0.716 1.245 0.225 0.197 2.535

from

Coal

With LBA Tracts 1.182 2.503 0.348 0.197 4.229

* Equivalent CO2 in million metric tons Source: BLM 2008g, J&S 2009, WWC 2009a, WWC 2009b

not from the combustion of the coal produced and sold on the open coal market. The LBAs are addressed individually in the following EISs: The SGAC EIS, the WAC EIS, the West Antelope II EIS, and the Hay Creek II EIS. Wyoming coal production has increased at a more rapid rate than other domestic coal. Wyoming coal is low in sulfur, providing a way for electric generators to achieve acid rain reduction requirements. Coal coming out of the Wyoming PRB is mined using surface mining methods which are generally safer and less labor intensive than underground mining. Rural rangelands are the areas that are mainly mined; they are reclaimed according to WDEQ/LQD’s standards (see Section 3.9.4). PRB coal reserves are in thick seams, resulting in more production from areas of similar land disturbance, and lower mining and reclamation costs. As discussed earlier in this chapter, future coal mining impacts are estimated based on two forecast scenarios for PRB coal production through 2020. In the low scenario, the percentage of coal use for electric generation would stay about the same, assuming that all forms of electric generation would grow at a proportional rate to meet forecast electric demand. In the high scenario, percentage of coal use would also remain about the same, but with PRB coal displacing coal from other domestic coal regions. If public sentiment results in changed electric demand, or if GHG emissions are ultimately regulated, the demand forecast for coal for electric generation could change. The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) has forecasted that by 2030, the coal share of total energy use will increase from 23 percent in 2006 to 25 percent in 2030, while the share of natural gas will fall from 22 percent to 20 percent, and the liquids share is predicted to fall from 40 percent to 37 percent. The combined share of carbon-neutral renewable and nuclear energy is forecasted to grow from 15 percent in 2006 to 17 percent in 2030. Taken together, projected growth in the absolute level of primary energy consumption and a shift toward a fuel mix with slightly lower average carbon content will cause projected energy-related emissions of CO2 to grow by 16 percent from 2006 to 2030. This is slightly lower than the projected 19 percent increase in total energy use. Over the same period, the economy becomes less Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-119

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences carbon-intensive, because the 16 percent increase in CO2 emissions is about one-fifth of the projected increase in Gross Domestic Product (79 percent), and emissions per capita decline by 5 percent. In the 2008 study, projected energy-related CO2 emissions grew from 5,890 million metric tons in 2006 to 6,851 million metric tons in 2030. In the Annual Energy Outlook 2008 study, energy-related CO2 emissions were projected to grow by about 35 percent, to 7,950 million metric tons in 2030. This reflects both a higher projection of overall energy use and, to a lesser extent, a different mix of energy sources (USDOE 2008b). This forecast is within the range of the high and low scenarios presented in Chapter 4. The Annual Energy Outlook 2008 report projected that energy-related emissions of CO2 will grow by 16 percent from 2006 to 2030. In this projection, the mix of sources for this generation include coal, natural gas, nuclear, liquids (petroleum), hydro-power, and non-hydro renewable (wind, solar, etc.). The forecasted generation mix by 2030 as compared to 2007 is included in Table 4 38 (USDOE 2008b). Table 4-38. Projected Percent of CO2 Emissions by Source (2007 and 2030). Source Coal Nuclear Natural Gas Petroleum Hydro Power Renewables 2007 51% 21% 18% 1% 7% 2% 2030 58% 19% 11%
1% 6%
5%

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) attempted to identify a scenario of how the full portfolio of technologies to provide for electric energy would respond if national policy were to require that CO2 emissions be reduced to 1990 levels (James 2007). As noted earlier, there is no regulatory structure or CO2 emission levels or limits that have been set by national policy or law yet. This scenario provides some analysis of the possible effect of regulation as well as decreased demand through energy efficiency at the user end, in transmission, and at the producer end. The forecasted generation mix by 2030 as compared to 2007 is included in Table 4-39. The EPRI study predicts that national policy that forces a reduction of CO2 emissions to 1990 levels would promote increased energy efficiency, and the growth of “non carbon” sources such as nuclear and renewable. Renewable sources include wind and solar, as well as emerging technologies like tidal power, river turbines and others reported in the media. Hydropower is limited because most opportunities for hydropower have been used or require large infrastructure. Use of carbon based sources such as gas and petroleum are less 4-120 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-39. Projected Percent of CO2 Emissions by Source (2007 and 2030) Under a Reduced CO2 Emissions Scenario. Source 2007 2030 Coal 51% 52% Nuclear 21% 29% Natural Gas 18% 5%
Petroleum 1% 0% Hydro Power 7% 5%
Renewables 2% 9% than forecasted by the USDOE Energy Information Administration (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. The mines in the PRB have sold and are expected to sell coal into the open coal market. In both EIA market projections and market projections that contemplate CO2 regulation, the coal market supplies half or more of the electric generation mix through 2020. Each mine’s ability to sell coal in this market will determine annual production rates at that mine. Historically, the coal buyers have been domestic electric producers, although the coal could be used in other coal applications or be exported. The three Wright Area coal mines produced 195.8 million tons of coal in 2006, which represents about 45.4 percent of the coal produced in the Wyoming PRB in 2006, or about 6.4 percent of the estimated U.S. CO2 emissions in 2006. Under the No Action Alternative, CO2 emissions attributable to burning coal produced by the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines would be extended at about this level for up to approximately 11 years beyond 2008, while the mines recover their remaining estimated 2,691 million tons of currently leased coal reserves. It is likely that, by that time, regulations limiting CO2 emissions will be in place and, potentially, projects utilizing the emerging technologies to reduce and/or sequester CO2 emissions would be more established. Section 3.18.2 contains estimates of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the specific mine operations at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines from projected operations under the Proposed Actions and alternatives. Under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3, the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines anticipate producing the coal included in the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts at or less than currently permitted levels using existing production and transportation facilities, which would extend CO2 emissions related to burning coal from the applicant mines for up to about 23 additional years beyond 2008. It is not possible to project the level of CO2 emissions that burning the coal from the six Wright Area Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-121

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Coal LBA Tracts would produce due to the uncertainties about what emission limits will be in place at that time or where and how the coal in these LBA tracts would be used after it is mined. It is not likely that selection of the No Action Alternatives would result in a decrease of U.S. CO2 emissions attributable to coal-burning power plants in the longer term, because there are multiple other sources of coal that, while not having the cost, environmental, or safety advantages, could supply the demand for coal beyond the time that the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines complete recovery of the coal in their existing leases. CBNG, which is composed primarily of methane, another greenhouse gas, is released into the atmosphere when coal is mined. According to the EIA (USDOE 2007a and 2007b):


U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions totaled 605 million metric tons CO2 equivalent (CO2e) in 2006. U.S. 2006 methane emissions from coal mining were estimated at 64.7 million metric tons CO2e, which represents approximately 10.7 percent of the U.S. total anthropogenic methane emissions in 2006. Surface coal mining operations in the U.S. were estimated to be responsible for methane emissions of about 14.2 million metric tons of CO2e in 2006, which represents about 2.35 percent of the estimated U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions in 2006, and about 22 percent of the estimated methane emissions attributed to coal mining of all types. The Wyoming PRB produced approximately 53.7 percent of the coal mined in the U.S. in 2006 using surface mining techniques, which means that Wyoming PRB surface coal mines were responsible for approximately 1.26 percent of the estimated U.S. anthropomorphic methane emissions in 2006. The three Wright Area coal mines contributed about 52 percent of the Wyoming PRB production in 2006.



Since 1990, when BLM began leasing using the lease by application process, total U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions declined from 708.4 million metric tons CO2e to 605.1 million metric tons CO2e in 2006. Total coal mining related emissions declined from 97.7 million metric tons CO2e to 64.7 million metric tons CO2e during the same time period. The EIA attributes the overall decrease in coal mine emissions of methane since 1990 to the fact that the coal production increases during that time had been largely from surface coal mines that produce relatively little methane (USDOE 2007a). CBNG is currently being commercially produced by oil and gas operators from wells within and near the Wright Area Coal LBA Tracts. CBNG that is not recovered prior to mining would be vented to the atmosphere during the mining process. Selection of the No Action Alternatives would potentially allow more complete recovery of the CBNG from the Wright Area Coal LBA Tracts in the 4-122 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences short term (roughly 10 years), during the time that the three applicant mines’ currently leased coal is being recovered. However, BLM’s analysis suggests that a large portion of the CBNG resources that are currently present on the tract would be recovered prior to mining under the Proposed Action or Alternatives 2 or 3. Selection of the No Action Alternatives would not be likely to directly decrease U.S. methane emissions attributable to coal mining in the long term because there are multiple other sources of coal that could supply the coal demand beyond the time that the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines recover the coal in their existing leases. 4.2.14.2 Mercury, Coal Combustion Residues, and Other By-Products To meet the nationwide consumer demand and requirement for energy, coal is burned in power plants to produce electricity for the United States. Coal is an important component of the U.S. energy supply partly because it is the most abundant domestically available fossil fuel (USGS 2002b). One-quarter of the world’s coal reserves are found within the U.S.; the energy content of U.S. coal resources exceeds that of all the world’s known recoverable oil; and coal resources supply more than half of the electricity consumed by Americans (USDOE 2008b and 2009). Many countries are even more reliant on coal for their energy needs than is the United States. More than 70 percent of the electricity generated in China and India comes from coal (USGS 2000). The value of coal is partially offset by the environmental impacts of coal combustion (USGS 2000). As described below, some of these impacts may have direct or indirect effects on human health (USGS 2000). One of the concerns associated with burning coal for electricity production is the release of elements from coal to the environment (USGS 2000). When coal is burned, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and other compounds and elements, including lead and cadmium, are released (EPA 2009d). The principal pollutants generated by coal combustion that can cause health problems are particulates, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, trace elements (including arsenic, fluorine, selenium, and radioactive uranium and thorium), and organic compounds generated by incomplete coal combustion (USGS 2000). In coal combustion, concentrations of these elements and compounds vary depending on the chemistry of the coal deposits and on the type of air pollution controls in place when the coal is burned. Coal use in developing countries can potentially cause serious human health impacts (USGS 2000). Some coal mined in China is known to have caused severe health problems in several local populations because the coal was mined and burned with little regard to its chemical composition (USGS 2000). Chinese coals that contained high levels of arsenic, fluorine, selenium, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have caused severe, life-threatening health impacts to some residents that burned the coal in unvented stoves in their homes (USGS 2000). Coal that is burned in the U.S. generally contains low to modest concentrations of potentially toxic trace elements and sulfur (USGS 2000). Specifically, Powder Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-123

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences River Basin coal is recognized as being a clean burning coal due to its low sulfur and low ash properties. In a 2002 analysis conducted by USGS (2002b), PRB coal was found to contain, on average, approximately 8 times less sulfur than coals being utilized from the Appalachian and Illinois basins to supply U.S. power plants (feed coal). PRB feed coal was also found to contain nearly half as much uranium (8.9 ppm), 7 times less arsenic (17 ppm), 5 times less lead (19 ppm), and 3 times less cadmium (1.1 ppm) as compared to Appalachian and Illinois basin feed coals. When burned, PRB coal produced, on average, 38 percent less fly ash than Appalachian and Illinois basin coals (USGS 2002b). The fly ash resulting from combusted PRB coal contained approximately 39 times less mercury than fly ash that was generated from combusted Appalachian and Illinois basin coal (USGS 2002b). Additionally, many U.S. coal burning power plants use sophisticated pollutioncontrol systems that efficiently reduce the emission of hazardous elements (USGS 2000). The EPA conducted a detailed study of possible health impacts from exposure to emissions of approximately 20 potentially toxic substances from U.S. coal-burning power plants (USGS 2000). The EPA concluded that, with the exception of possibly mercury, there is no compelling evidence to indicate that emissions from U.S. coal-burning power plants cause human health problems (USGS 2000). Mercury is a naturally occurring element and enters the environment as a result of natural sources, such as active volcanoes, and through human activities such as industrial combustion and mining (EPA 2006). Natural sources of mercury, such as volcanic eruptions and emissions from the ocean, have been estimated to contribute about 33 percent of the current worldwide mercury air emissions; anthropogenic (human-caused) mercury emissions account for the remaining 67 percent, though these estimates are highly uncertain (EPA 2009e). When fossil fuels burn, mercury vapor can be released into the atmosphere where it may drift for a year or more, spreading with air currents over vast regions of the globe (USDOE 2006). In 1995, an estimated 5,500 tons of mercury was emitted globally from both natural and human sources, and coalfired power plants in the U.S. contributed to less than one percent of that total (USDOE 2006). Mercury is a global problem that knows no national or continental boundaries. It can travel thousands of miles in the atmosphere before it is eventually deposited back to the earth in rainfall or in dry gaseous forms. EPA estimates that about one-third of the U.S. anthropogenic mercury emissions are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle (EPA 2009e). Table 4-40 summarizes how the various continents contributed to the worldwide anthropogenic mercury emissions in 2004. The 2004 U.S. anthropogenic mercury emissions were estimated to account for about three percent of the global total (EPA 2009e). EPA estimates that 83 percent of the mercury 4-124 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 2004 Percent Contribution to Worldwide Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions. Continent Percent Asia: 53 Africa: 18 Europe: 11 North America: 9 Australia: 6 South America; 4
Source: EPA 2009e

Table 4-40.

deposited in the U.S. originates from international sources, with the remaining 17 percent coming from the U.S. and Canada. These figures include mercury from natural and anthropogenic sources (EPA 2006). In 2006, EPA estimated that 50-70 percent of current global anthropogenic atmospheric emissions came from fuel combustion, and much of it came from China, India, and other Asian countries. Coal consumption in Asia is expected to grow significantly over the next 20 years. This international source of mercury emissions may grow substantially if left unaddressed (EPA 2006). Over the past decade, addressing environmental and human health mercury risks has been a focus for EPA. Overall U.S. mercury air emissions have been reduced by 45 percent since 1990. EPA is most concerned with methyl mercury, a potent form of mercury and the form to which humans are primarily exposed (EPA 2006). Atmospheric mercury can settle into water or onto land where it can be washed into the water. Certain microorganisms can transform mercury into methyl mercury, a highly toxic mercury compound that builds up in fish and shellfish when they feed. Methyl mercury is the only form of mercury that biomagnifies in the food web. Concentrations of methyl mercury in fish are generally on the order of a million times the methyl mercury concentration in the water. The primary pathway of human exposure to mercury is through eating fish containing methyl mercury (EPA 2006). There are adverse health effects to humans and other animals that consume these fish and shellfish. Birds and mammals that eat fish may be more exposed to mercury more than other animals in water ecosystems (EPA 2008c). At high levels of exposure, methyl mercury’s harmful effects may include death, reduced reproduction, slower growth and development, and abnormal behavior (EPA 2008c). Research has shown that most people’s fish consumption does not cause a health concern, but high levels of methyl mercury in the bloodstream of unborn babies and young children may harm the developing nervous systems of those children (EPA 2006). The U.S. Department of Energy’s (USDOE’s) Office of Fossil Energy has been sponsoring studies on mercury emissions from coal-based power generators to Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-125

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences identify effective and economical control options for the past decade. The Office of Fossil Energy manages the largest funded program in the U.S. for developing an understanding of mercury emissions and developing emission control technologies for the coal-fired electric generating industry in the U.S. (USDOE 2006). Research on advanced and improved mercury control technology is ongoing. In the U.S., coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions being released into the air, accounting for about 40 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions (EPA 2008c). However, these emissions contribute little to the global mercury pool. EPA estimated that mercury emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants account for about one percent of the global total (EPA 2009e). Coal production from the Wyoming PRB represented approximately 42 percent of the coal used for power generation in 2006, which would represent about 0.4 percent of the global anthropogenic mercury emissions. The three Wright Area coal mines produced about 45.4 percent of the coal produced in the Wyoming PRB in 2006, which would represent about 0.2 percent of the global mercury emissions. Under the No Action Alternatives, mercury emissions attributable to burning coal produced by the three Wright Area coal mines would be extended at about current levels of up to approximately 11 years beyond 2008, while the mines recover their remaining estimated 2,691 million tons of currently leased coal reserves. Under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3, the three Wright Area coal mines contribution to global mercury emissions would be extended from 1.6 to 22.8 additional years, depending on the tract and alternatives selected. Uncertainties about future regulatory requirements and the use of the coal mined from the six Wright Area Coal LBA Tracts make it difficult to project the impacts of mercury emissions produced by burning coal produced from these tracts. Additionally, burning coal in electric utility boilers generates residual materials which are referred to as coal combustion residues. These residues include non combustible materials left in the furnaces and ash that is carried up the smokestacks and collected by air pollution control technologies. As previously referenced, coal and coal combustion residues can contain a variety of compounds, metals, and other elements depending on the coal deposit and upon the site-specific characteristics of where the coal originated from. Coal-fired boilers are required to have control devices to reduce the amount of emissions that are released into the atmosphere (EPA 2007f). The use of air pollution control equipment at power plants has resulted in fewer emissions but has also increased the amount of solid residues. In the past, coal combustion residues have generally been recycled or disposed of in landfills or surface impoundments. More recently, these residues have been disposed of in mines. There can potentially be risks of contamination of drinking water supplies and surface water bodies by coal combustion residues, particularly when they are disposed of in mines (National Academy of Science 4-126 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 2006, EPA 2002). The EPA is evaluating management options for solid wastes from coal combustion, including whether current management practices pose risks to human health or ecological receptors. A draft report, dated August 6, 2007, prepared for the EPA Office of Solid Waste, and entitled “Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes”, is available at http://www.earthjustice.org/library; however, the report is labeled as a draft document which is not to be cited or quoted. As discussed above, the Wright Area coal mines produced about 45.4 percent of the coal produced in the Wyoming PRB in 2006. Under the No Action Alternatives, production of coal combustion residue attributable to burning coal from the three Wright Area coal mines would be extended at about current levels for up to approximately 11 years beyond 2008, while the mines recover their remaining estimated 2,691 million tons of currently leased coal reserves. Under the Proposed Action or Alternatives 2 or 3, coal combustion residue related to burning coal mined at the Wright Area coal mines would be extended from 1.6 to 22.8 additional years, depending on the tract and alternatives selected. Uncertainties about future regulatory requirements and the use of the coal mined from the six Wright Area Coal LBA Tracts make it difficult to project the impacts of disposing coal combustion residues produced by burning coal produced from these tracts. Depending on the size, shape, and chemical composition, some coal combustion residues can be recycled and beneficially reused as components of building materials or as replacement to raw materials that would ordinarily need to be mined such as sand, gravel, or gypsum (EPA 2007f). Coal combustion products (CCPs) are the materials produced primarily from the combustion of coal in coalfired power plants and can include the following materials: fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization material (EPA 2007f). Studies and research conducted or supported by the EPA, Electric Power and Research Institute (EPRI), other government agencies, and universities have indicated that the beneficial uses of coal combustion products have not been shown to present significant risks to human health or the environment (EPA 2008d). Fly ash is a byproduct of burning finely ground coal in a boiler to produce electricity. Physically, fly ash is a fine, powdery material composed mostly of silica and nearly all particles are spherical in shape. Fly ash is a pozzolan—a siliceous material which, in the presence of water, will react with calcium hydroxide at ordinary temperatures to produce cementitious compounds. Because of its spherical shape and pozzolanic properties, fly ash can be useful in cement and concrete applications (EPA 2007g). Bottom Ash is agglomerated ash particles, formed in pulverized coal furnaces that are too large to be carried in the flue gases. Bottom ash is coarse with grain sizes spanning from fine sand to fine gravel. It can be used as a replacement for aggregate and is usually sufficiently well-graded in size to avoid the need for blending with other fine aggregates to meet gradation requirements (EPA 2007h). Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 4-127

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Boiler slag is the molten bottom ash collected at the base of slag tap and cyclone type furnaces. Boiler slag particles are uniform in size, hard, and durable with a resistance to surface wear. The permanent black color of this material is desirable for asphalt applications and aids in the melting of snow (EPA 2007i). Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) material is a product of a process typically used for reducing SO2 emissions from the exhaust gas system of a coal-fired boiler (EPA 2007j). These materials can be used as embankment and road base material, wallboard manufacturing, and in place of gypsum for the production of cement. Currently, the largest single market for FGD material is in wallboard manufacturing (EPA 2007j). Utilizing CCPs can generate significant environmental and economic benefits (EPA 2009f). CCPs can be used for raw feed for cement clinker, concrete, grout, flowable fill, structural fill, road base/sub-base, soil modification, mineral filler, snow and ice traction control, blasting grit and abrasives, roofing granules, mining applications, wallboard, waste stabilization/solidification, and soil amendment. Using CCPs can reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and can help reduce the need for landfill space. Economic benefits include reduced costs associated with managing coal ash and slag disposal, potential revenue from the sale of CCPs, and savings from using CCPs in place of other more costly raw materials (EPA 2009f). CCPs offer product-performance benefits as well. Boiler slag is a sought-after replacement for sand in blasting grit because it is free of silica and eliminates the potential health risk of silicosis (EPA 2007i). High coal ash content concrete is used for building long-lived pavements designed to last 50 years—twice the lifetime of conventional pavements. Coal fly ash can create superior products because of its self-cementing properties. Using coal fly ash in concrete can also produce stronger and longer-lasting buildings (EPA 2007g). This not only reduces the costs of maintaining buildings, but provides the additional environmental benefit of reducing the need for new concrete to repair or replace aging buildings. This translates to a significant reduction in future energy consumption and GHG emissions (EPA 2007g). In 2005, demand had become so strong for coal ash that some power plants were selling all the ash they produced (EPA 2005b). EPA estimated that through the utilization of 15 million tons of coal fly ash, the U.S. reduced their greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the annual emissions of nearly 2.5 million passenger vehicles (EPA 2008e). Because of the many potential uses of CCPs, EPA has sponsored the Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2) Program to further the beneficial use of these coal combustion by-products (EPA 2003b). With more than 170 private and public partners (EPA 2009g), the C2P2 Program is a cooperative effort between EPA and various organizations to help promote the beneficial use of CCPs and the environmental benefits which can result from the proper use of these potentially recyclable materials (EPA 2003b). The C2P2 program will help 4-128 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences meet the national waste reduction goals of the Resource Conservation Challenge—an EPA effort to find flexible yet more protective ways to conserve valuable natural resources through waste reduction, energy recovery, and recycling (EPA 2009g). In 2007, the U.S. used approximately 43 percent of its coal combustion products (EPA 2009f). The C2P2 program aims to reduce adverse effects on air and land by increasing the use of coal combustion products to 50 percent in 2011 from 32 percent in 2001 (EPA 2009g). The program also plans to increase the use of CCPs as a supplementary cementitious material in concrete by 50 percent, from 12.4 million tons in 2001 to 18.6 million tons in 2011; this would decrease GHG emissions from avoided cement manufacturing by approximately 5 million tons (EPA 2009g).

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

4-129

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

In addition to this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)1, other factors and consultations are considered and play a major role in determining decisions on the proposed lease applications. They are included in the following list below. Regional Coal Team Consultation The four coal lease applications included in this EIS were reviewed and discussed at Powder River Regional Coal Team (PRRCT) public meetings held on April 19, 2006, in Casper, Wyoming (North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, and West Jacobs Ranch tracts), and on January 18, 2007, in Casper, Wyoming (North and South Porcupine tracts). The North and South Hilight Field tracts were applied for in a single application, and the North and South Porcupine tracts were applied for in a single application. Each of the applicants presented information about their existing mines and pending lease application to the PRRCT at those meetings. Voting and nonvoting members of the PRRCT include the governors of Wyoming and Montana, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the Crow Tribal Council, the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service (USFS), Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The PRRCT determined that the lands in the four applications met the qualifications for processing as production maintenance tracts. The PRRCT recommended that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) continue to process all four lease applications. Governor's Consultation The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming on April 27, 2006, that Ark Land Company (ALC) had filed a lease application with BLM for the North and South Hilight Field Lease by Application (LBA) Tracts. The BLM Wyoming State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming on February 2, 2006, that ALC had filed a lease application with BLM for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. The BLM Wyoming State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming on September 18, 2006, that Jacobs Ranch Coal Company (JRCC) had filed a lease application with BLM for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. The BLM Wyoming State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming on March 14, 2007, that BTU Western Resources, Inc. (BTU) had filed a lease application with BLM for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. Public Notice BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS and Notice of Public Meeting in the Federal Register on July 3, 2007, in the Gillette News-Record on
1

Refer to page xxvi for a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this document.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5-1

5.0 Consultation and Coordination July 6, 2007, and in the Douglas Budget on July 11, 2007. The publications served as public notice that the Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, and Porcupine coal lease applications had been received, announced the time and location of a public scoping meeting, and requested public comment on the four applications. Letters requesting public comment and announcing the time and location of the public scoping meeting were mailed to all parties on the distribution list on July 11, 2007. At the public scoping meeting, which was held July 24, 2007 in Gillette, Wyoming, the applicants orally presented information about their mines and their need for the coal. The presentations were followed with a question and answer period, during which three oral comments were made. The scoping period extended from July 3 through September 3, 2007, during which time BLM received nine comment letters. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will publish a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The BLM will publish a Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Hearing in the Federal Register for the DEIS. There will be a 60-day comment period on the DEIS. A formal public hearing will be held during the 60-day comment period to solicit public comments on the DEIS, the fair market value, the maximum economic recovery, and the proposed competitive sale of coal from the six LBA tracts. Following the comment period on the DEIS, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will be prepared. Comments received from the public, state, and federal review agencies on the DEIS will be included in the FEIS. Parties on the distribution list will be sent copies of the FEIS when it is completed, and the EPA will publish a Notice of Availability for the FEIS. After a 30-day availability period, BLM will make a separate decision to hold or not to hold a competitive lease sale for the federal coal in each of these six LBA tracts. A separate Record of Decision (ROD) will be prepared and signed for each of the tracts. Copies of each ROD will be mailed to parties on the mailing list and others who commented on this EIS during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. After each ROD is signed, there will be a 30-day appeal period before the ROD is implemented. If lands administered by the USFS are included in the tracts that are offered for lease, the USFS will prepare and sign a separate consent decision for each tract. Applicable Forest Service regulations for appeal will be followed. Department of Justice Consultation After each competitive coal lease sale, but prior to issuance of a lease, BLM will solicit the opinion of the Department of Justice on whether the planned lease issuance creates a situation inconsistent with federal anti-trust laws. The Department of Justice is allowed 30 days to make this determination. If the 5-2 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5.0 Consultation and Coordination Department of Justice has not responded in writing within the 30 days, BLM can proceed with issuance of the lease. Other Consultations Other federal, state, local, and Native American governmental agencies that have been consulted in preparation of this EIS or will be consulted prior to making a decision to hold or not to hold a federal coal lease sale are listed in the following tables. Contributors, Reviewers, and Preparers This EIS was prepared by WWC Engineering, a third-party contractor, under the direction of the BLM. Representatives from cooperating agencies reviewed and contributed to the EIS. Tables 5-1 and 5-2 provide listings of the BLM, cooperating agency, and third-party consultant personnel who prepared and reviewed this EIS. Distribution List This EIS was distributed to Congressional offices, federal agencies, state governments, local governments, industry representatives, interest groups, and individuals for their review and comment (Table 5-3).

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5-3

5.0 Consultation and Coordination Table 5-1.
Name Mike Karbs Sarah Bucklin Teresa Johnson Ginger Vickers Mike Brogan

List of Contributors and Reviewers.
Project Responsibility BLM High Plains District Office Project Supervisor Wright Area EIS Project Manager, Wildlife, T&E Species Environmental Protection Specialist Legal Assistant, Distribution List Water Resources BLM Wyoming State Office Coal Program Coordination NEPA Coordination Land Adjudication Socioeconomics Minerals Appraiser Resources Air Quality and Climate Water Resources BLM Wyoming Reservoir Management Group CBNG Geology CBNG Reservoir Engineering Mineral Resources BLM Buffalo Field Office EIS Liaison Cultural Resources, Paleontology Cultural Resources Rangeland Resources Geology, Mineral Resources, Mining Claims Wildlife, T&E Species, BLM Sensitive Species USDA-Forest Service Deputy District Ranger, FS Representative, Socioeconomics EIS Liaison, Geology, Mineral Resources, Paleontology Cultural Resources Vegetation, Range, Weeds Vegetation, Range, Weeds Botany, T&E Plants, USFS Sensitive Plant Species Wildlife, T&E Animals, Management Indicator Species Fisheries, Amphibians, Reptiles Water Resources, Wetlands Air Quality Soils Land Use, Recreation Visual Resources Hazardous Waste, Transportation

Bob Janssen Janet Kurman Mavis Love Larry Jensen Steve Hageman Bill Hill John Zachariassen Rick Schuler

Dwain McGarry Lee Almasy Dave Chase

Tom Bills Clint Crago Buck Damone Kay Medders Jerry Queen Chris Durham

Misty Hays Mike Fracasso Ian Ritchie Charlie Bradshaw Moriah Shadwick Kathy Roche Tim Byer Catherine Willard Dave Gloss Greg Eaglin Randy Tepler Marcia Rose-Ritchie Jeff Tupala Amy Ormseth

5-4

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5.0 Consultation and Coordination Table 5-1.
Name

List of Contributors and Reviewers (Continued).
Project Responsibility BLM National Science and Technology Center (Powder River Basin Coal Review) Air Quality and Climate Water Resources Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Western Regional Coordinating Center

Craig Nicholls Paul Summers

Foster Kirby

Archaeologist, EIS Cooperating Agency Representative Board of Converse County Commissioners EIS Cooperating Agency Representative Wyoming Department of Transportation EIS Cooperating Agency Representative University of Wyoming Wyoming Natural Diversity Database Botanist Rocky Mountain Herbarium Curator Rocky Mountain Herbarium Manager

James H. Willox

Larry Konetzki

Bonnie Heidel Ron Hartman B. Ernie Nelson

ENSR International (Powder River Basin Coal Review) Project Manager Valerie Randall Dolora Koontz Assistant Project Manager and Task 2 Manager (Existing Development and Reasonably Foreseeable Development) Eldon Strid, Matt Reilly Existing and Projected Coal Development and Coal Transportation Scenarios Doree Dufresne Database Development Bruce MacDonald, PhD Air Quality Robert Berry, PhD Water Resources James Rumbaugh Ground Water Modeling Brad Anderson Surface Water Ron Dutton, George Blankenship Socioeconomics Bernhard Strom Land Use, Transportation, and Utilities William Berg Topography, Geology, and Minerals James Burrell, James Nyenhuis Soils and Alluvial Valley Floors Jon Alstad Vegetation, Wetlands, and Grazing Charles Johnson Wildlife Rollin Daggett Fisheries Native American Concerns, and Paleontological Resources Kim Munson Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) Office of Outreach Services Ombudsman, EIS Liaison

Dan Clark

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5-5

5.0 Consultation and Coordination Table 5-1.
Name Don McKenzie Kathy Muller Ogle Mark Rogaczewski Anna Waitkus Doug Emme

List of Contributors and Reviewers (Continued).
ProjectResponsibility WDEQ Land Quality Division Administrator CHIA Program Supervisor District Three Supervisor Senior Analyst Blasting Program Principal WDEQ Air Quality Division Engineer/EIS Cooperating Agency Division Representative WDEQ Water Quality Division Water Resources Wyoming Game and Fish Department Deputy Director – External Programs Wyoming State Planning Office Coal Issues Coordination/Cooperating Agency Representative

Kelly Bott

John Wagner

John Emmerich

Steve Furtney

5-6

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5.0 Consultation and Coordination Table 5-2.
Name Mike Karbs Sarah Bucklin

List of Preparers.
Education/Experi nce e BLM High Plains District Office 33 years profession experience, M.S., B.S. al Mineral Engineer, Public Policy M.S. Candidate Zoology, B.S. Biology, Registered Associate Wildlife Biologist, 10 years professional experience Responsibility EIS Project Supervisor EIS Project Manager

WWC Engineering
Third-Party Contractor
Ken Collier B.S. Geology, 32 years professional experience Licensed Wyoming Geologist B.S. Wildlife Biology, 32 years professional experience 17 years professionalexperience 11 years professional experience Project Management Report Preparation Report Preparation Document Production CADD/Figures Preparation

John Berry Heidi Robinson Mal McGill

Resource Responsibility Geology/Mineral Resources Air Quality Water Resources Alluvial Valley Floors Wetlands Soils Vegetation Wildlife Land Use/Ownership Cultural/Paleontology Visual Socioeconomics Resource Responsibility Geology/Mineral Resources Water Resources Alluvial Valley Floors Wetlands Soils Vegetation Wildlife Land Use/Ownership Cultural/Paleontology Socioeconomics

Subcontractors For ALC: North, South and West Hilight Field Tracts Habitat Management, Inc., Gillette, WY Knight Technologies, Inc., Gillette, WY WWC Engineering, Sheridan, WY Habitat Management, Inc., Gillette, WY Knight Technologies, Inc., Gillette, WY BKS Environmental Associates, Inc., Gillette, WY Habitat Management, Inc., Gillette, WY Thunderbird-Jones and Stokes, Gillette, WY Habitat Management, Inc., Gillette, WY GCM Services, Inc., Butte, MT Knight Technologies, Inc., Gillette, WY WWC Engineering, Laramie, WY For JRCC: West Jacobs Ranch Tract Aqua Terra Consultants, Sheridan, WY Aqua Terra Consultants, Sheridan, WY Aqua Terra Consultants, Sheridan, WY Aqua Terra Consultants, Sheridan, WY Intermountain Resources, Laramie, WY Intermountain Resources, Laramie, WY Intermountain Resources, Laramie, WY Aqua Terra Consultants, Sheridan, WY GCM Services, Inc., Butte, MT WWC Engineering, Laramie, WY

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5-7

5.0 Consultation and Coordination Table 5-2. List of Preparers (Continued).
For BTU: North and South Porcupine Tracts BKS Environmental Associates, Inc., Gillette, WY BKS Environmental Associates, Inc., Gillette, WY Thunderbird-Jones and Stokes, Gillette, WY GCM Services, Inc., Butte, MT WWC Engineering, Laramie, WY

Resource Responsibility Soils Vegetation Wildlife Cultural/Paleontology Socioeconomics

5-8

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5.0 Consultation and Coordination Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for the Wright Area Draft EIS.
US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC USDA – FS, Douglas Ranger District, Douglas, WY USDA Forest Service, Douglas, WY USDA Forest Service, Golden, CO USGS Water Resources Division, Cheyenne, WY Wyoming State Agencies Economic Analysis Division Office of State Lands and Investments Office of the State Treasurer WDEQ - Air Quality Division WDEQ - ISD WDEQ - Land Quality Division, Cheyenne WDEQ - Land Quality Division, Sheridan WDEQ - Water Quality Division Department of Agriculture Department of Education Department of Employment Research & Planning Department of Transportation Game & Fish Department, Cheyenne Game & Fish Department, Lander Game & Fish Department, Sheridan O & G Conservation Commission Office of State Lands & Investments Parks & Cultural Resources Department Public Service Commission State Engineer's Office State Geological Survey State Historic Preservation Office State Land Office State Planning Office Water Development Commission Local Government and Agencies Big Horn County Commission, MT Campbell County Board of Commissioners, WY Campbell County Conservation District, WY Campbell County Department of Public Works, WY Campbell County School District 1, WY Carbon County, WY City of Douglas, WY City of Gillette, WY Converse County Commission, WY Converse County Joint Powers Board, WY Converse County School District, WY Converse City Special Projects, WY Gillette Dept of Comm. Dev, WY Rosebud County Commission, MT Town of Wright, WY Weston County Board of Comm., Newcastle, WY

Federal and State Officials Governor of Montana Brian Schweitzer Governor of Wyoming Dave Freudenthal Representative Dave Edwards Representative Erin Mercer Representative Sue Wallis Representative Timothy Hallinan Representative Thomas Lubnau Senator Jim Anderson Senator John Hines Senator Michael Von Flatern US Congresswoman Cynthia M. Lummis US Senator John Barrasso US Senator Mike Enzi Federal Agencies BLM Library, Denver, CO BLM, Buffalo, WY BLM, Casper, WY BLM, Cheyenne, WY BLM, Miles City, MT BLM, Montana State Office, Billings, MT BLM, Washington, DC Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC Department of Energy, Casper, WY Department of Energy, Washington, DC Department of Interior, Denver, CO Devils Tower National Monument Medicine Bow National Forest, Laramie, WY Mineral Management Bureau, Helena, MT MMS, Denver, CO MMS, Herndon, VA National Park Service, Denver, CO NPS - Air Resources Division, Denver, CO NPS, Washington, DC NRCS, Douglas, WY OEPC, Denver, CO OSM - Library, Denver, CO OSM, Casper, WY OSM, Denver, CO OSM, Washington, DC Rocky Mountain Regional Solicitor US Army Corps of Engineers, Cheyenne, WY US EPA, Denver, CO US EPA, Washington, DC US Fish & Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA US Fish & Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, WY US Geological Survey, Cheyenne, WY US Geological Survey, Denver, CO US Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5-9

5.0 Consultation and Coordination Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for the Wright Area Draft EIS (Continued).
Companies/Businesses Tribal Organizations and Individuals Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Arapahoe Business Council Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma Comanche Nation Comanche Nation Tribe Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, South Dakota Crow Tribe, Montana Eastern Shoshone Tribe Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe Kiowa Business Committee Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Northern Arapaho Business Council Northern Arapaho Tribe Northern Cheyenne Cultural Commission Northern Cheyenne Tribe Oglala Sioux Tribe Rosebud Sioux Tribe Santee Sioux Tribe Shoshone Business Council Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc. Aceite Energy Corp AE Investments, Inc. AG Andrikopoulos Resources, Inc. All American Equipment Amax Land Co. Amerada Hess Corporation American Colloid Co. Anadarko Exploration & Production Anadarko Petroleum Corp Anderson Investments Anderson Oil Company Anderson Oil Ltd. Antelope Coal Company APC Operation Partnership, LP Arch Western Resources, LLC Ark Land Company Bandera Energy Company Bank of America, NA Barret Resources Corp. Beard Oil Company Belle Fourche Pipeline Company Other Organizations and Groups Berenergy Corporation Bill Barrett CBM LLC Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Bill Barrett Corp. Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Bjork Lindley Little PC Campbell City Economic Development Corp BKS Environmental CANDO BNSF Railway Company Center For Biological Diversity Boller-Mills Ranch Defenders of Wildlife Bridgeview Coal Company Federation for North American Wild Sheep Bridle Bit Ranch Company John P. Ellbogen Foundation Buckskin Mine Medicine Wheel Coalition Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad National Mining Association Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP National Wildlife Federation Burns & McDonnell Natural Resources Defense Council C & H Oil & Gas, Inc. Petroleum Association of Wyoming Calvin Petroleum Corp. Powder River Basin Resource Council Carbon Recovery Technology Sierra Club Cargoil Oil and Gas LLC Thunder Basin Coalition CH Snyder Company Trout Unlimited Chaco Energy Company WildEarth Guardians Chaparral Royalty Company WY Association of Professional Archeologists Chevron USA Inc. WY Business Council/NE Region Citation 1994 Investment LP Wyoming Bankers Association Citation 2002 Investment LP Wyoming Business Alliance Citicorp North America, Inc. Wyoming Mining Association Coleman Oil & Gas, Inc. Wyoming Outdoor Council CNG Producing Company Wyoming Stock Growers Association Colonial Royalties Limited Partnership Wyoming Wildlife Federation Conoco-Phillips Petroleum Company Wyoming Wool Growers Association CONSOL Inc Exploration & Land Cordero Rojo Mine Cosner Minerals Limited Partnership

5-10

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5.0 Consultation and Coordination Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for the Wright Area Draft EIS (Continued).
Jacobs Ranch Coal Company Jerry J. Dilts Family Ltd. Partnership Jetta Production Company Inc. JIREH Exploration and Consulting, LLC John E. Jacobs Family Company, LLC Jolen Operating Co. Journey Properties, LLC JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA JPC, LLC KAB Acquisitions LLP-VI Kaiser-Francis Oil Company Kastner Oil Properties, LLC Kenneth R. Paulsen Consultants Kerr McGee O & G Onshore LP Kiewit Mining Company Kiewit Mining Group, Inc. Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. Kirby Minerals, LLC Kirkwood Oil & Gas LLC Klabzuba Oil & Gas Inc KM Upstream, LLC KN Gas Gathering, Inc. Lasmo Oil & Gas, Inc. LE Peabody & Associates Levison Partners Corp. Liberty Petroleum Corp Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. M & K Oil Company, Inc. Malibu Presbyterian Church Manitowac Mortgage Holding Company Manx Oil Corporation Marathon Oil Company Marshall & Winston Inc. Marston & Marston McCulloch Interstate Gas Corp. McDun Limited Partnership McGraw-Hill McMoran Oil & Gas Company McVehil-Monnett Associates Inc Meagher Oil & Gas Properties, Inc Medallion Exploration Media Maconi MEG Wyoming Gas Services, LLC Meineadair Consultants Merit Energy Company Merit Energy Partners Midgard Energy Company Mills Brothers Mine Engineers Inc. Mining Associates of Wyoming Moon Royalty, LLC Morse Acquisition LLC Mountain Fuel Supply Company Mourne Oil & Gas Murjo Oil & Royalty Company Nance Petroleum Corp.

COU Rouge Oil & Gas Cowry Enterprises, Ltd. CTV O & G Multi-State LLC Cucker, Montgomery, Aronstein & Bess, PC Dakota - TX Oil Company Daven Corporation Davis Oil Company Derby Energy LLC Devon Energy Production Company LLP DL Cook Estate DNR O & G Inc. Dry Fork Coal Company Ducker Montgomery et al. Durham Ranches Inc. Dymond Resources Limited Partnership EDE Consultants El Paso Production Company Eland Energy, Inc. Ellbogen Property Management LTD Energy Operating Company Inc. ENSR Environmental Solutions Inc. EOG Resources Inc. Explorers Petro Corp. Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation Fayette Oil & Gas Corporation First Interstate Bank First State Bank of Newcastle Five Star Energy LLC Fleischaker Mineral Company, LLC Flocchini Investment Flying J Oil & Gas Inc. Foundation Coal West Inc. Fulbright Tower, Guggenheim Corp. Funding, LLC Future Realty Inc. Geyer Brothers Equipment GPM, Inc. Great Points Energy Greenbrair Energy LP IV Guest Petroleum, Inc Hallador Petroleum, LLP Hardin & Associates Harvey E. Yates Company Headington Investments, Inc Headington Minerals, Inc. HEYCO Employees LTD Hilcorp Energy LLP HQ-USAF/CEVP Hunt Petroleum Inc. Inexco Oil Company ING (US) capital LLC Intermountain Resources Interwest Mining Company Isaacs Family Ltd Liability Limited Partnership

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5-11

5.0 Consultation and Coordination Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for the Wright Area Draft EIS (Continued).
Star Investment Corporation Steveco Stuart Family Mineral Limited partnership Swift Energy Company Talala Corporation TBI Exploration, Inc. TC Craighead & Company Teton Capital Management, Inc. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. The Bud & Mary Lou Flocchini Family Partnership Thru Line, Inc. Thunder Basin Coal Company Thunder Creek Gas Services, LLC Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes Titan Resources Corporation Tom Brown, Inc. Petro-Hunt, LLC Tonka Oil & Gas Production, Inc. TRC Environmental Triton Coal Company, LLC Tucker Family Investments, LLP Two Rivers Ranch Union Bank of California, NA Union Pacific Railroad US Bank National Association US West Communications Vintage Petroleum, Inc. Wachovia Bank, National Association Wells Fargo Bank, NA Wellstar Corporation West Roundup Resources, Inc West Trnet Res. Corp. Western Energy Company Western Fuels Association Western Gas Resources, Inc. Westland Energy Inc. Whiting Petroleum Joint Venture 1983-84 Wilbanks Acquisitions I, LLC Williams Field Service Co. Williams Production RMT Company Wold Oil Properties Inc. WP Properties Corporation WWC Engineering Wyotex Oil Company Yates Petroleum Corp et al Yates petroleum Corp. ZAB, Inc. Zalman Resources, Inc.

Nationsbanc Leasing Corp Nerco Coal Company NM Doelger Consulting, LLC Norwest Corporation NPC, Inc. Oilfield Salvage and Service Co. Olive Oil LLC Ostlund Investments OXY USA Inc. P & M Coal Mining Company Pacific Power & Light Company Paribas North America Passeo Resources LLC Pathfinder Energy, Inc. Patina Oklahoma Corp. Peabody Coal Company Peabody Energy Peabody Natural Gas LLC Perry R. Bass, Inc. Petro-Canada Resources (USA) Inc. Petroleum, Inc. Phillips Petroleum Company Phoenix Resources Co. Plains Petroleum Operating Co. PNC Bank, National Association Powder River Coal LLC Powder River Energy Corporation Powder River Oil & Gas Ventures, LLC Prima Oil & Gas Company Primary Natural Resources, Inc. Providence Energy Corporation Quest Communications International, Inc. Questar Exploration and Production Co. QWEST RAM Energy Inc. Raymond T. Duncan Oil Properties LTD Resolute Wyoming RIM Offshore, Inc. Rio Tinto Energy America Riverside Technology Inc. RL Zinn, et al, LTD Robert M. Bass Group Royalty Repository II, LLC Ryder Stilwell Oil San Jan Coal Company Scorpio Resources, Inc. Scot Holding Inc., d/b/a Ture Blue Sky Inc. Shogoil & Gas Co. LLC Sid R. Bass, Inc. Sioux Ranch, Inc. Sonorin III, LLC Spiral Inc. Sport Resources, Inc.

5-12

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5.0 Consultation and Coordination Table 5-3.
Press Associated Press Casper Star Tribune Douglas Budget Gillette News-Record Platts Rocky Mountain Oil Journal Wyoming-Tribune Eagle Educational Institutions CSU Library Northwestern University NWU Policy Research Institute University of Wyoming Libraries URS Greiner Woodward Clyde Library US Department of the Interior/Natural Resources Library Individuals Aronstein, James K. Awve, Carl Awve, Delores Fraley Jr., Thomas Aylsworth, Gayle Baalman, Lynne M & Mark I Baldwin, Katherine Barbero, Ralph Bartolone, Carmen Belden, Scott Bennage, James Benson, Scott Bierman, Sheldon Birdsall, Jennie Blacburn, Jannis Boller, Verne Bradley Jr., Jack Brown, Maurice Buchanan et vir, Patricia Bunds, Carol Burroughs, Chap Cantrick, Joel Chapa, Nancy Chittenden, William M. & Lois R. Collins, Kristina Collums, James Cottrell, Elizabeth Ann Couch, Marion Couch, Tom Coulter, Betty Craft, Lecia Cupery, Karla

BLM Distribution List for the Wright Area Draft EIS (Continued).
DeGroot, John Deizell, Larry Deputy et al, Robert Dilts et ux, John Diltz III, Fred Ditmore, Judy Dobbs, Kenna Dorough Jr., Thomas Dukam, Jennifer Springen Dunlap, Katherin Dymond, Michael Edwards, Dorothy Edwards, Linda Edwards, Thomas W. & Leah B. Ellbogen, John Erwin, Tanya Lee Ferguson, Gladys Fleischman, Barbara Fliginger, Mark Flocchini Family, Richard & Patricia Forbes Jr., Jim Forbes, Roxie Forster, Jamie Glover, Dewey and Ruth Glustrom, Leslie Graham, John Greer, Virginia Lee Greub, Twyla Gryneberg, Celeste Gunnison, Lila Mae Hardy, Vern R. Hays, James K. Hays, Robert D. Heisner, Bill Henderson, Misty L. Hernandez, Beth Hewit, Betty R. Hines, Sandra Holland, J. Read Holt, David T. Huckins, Coey Huckins, Donny Huckins, Gary P. Isenberger, James n. Isenberger, Mathew Lee Isenberger, Robert E. Jester, Debra A. Johnson-Head, Debra Johnson-Hopson, DeMar Joslyn, Jerald D. Joslyn, Ronald J. Kennedy, George Kimoski, Stephen Kinnaman, Dorothy

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5-13

5.0 Consultation and Coordination Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for the Wright Area Draft EIS (Continued).
Rockefeller, Mandra Roderick, Jonathan S. Roemer, Dr. Lamar B. Rogers Jr., Richard J. Rogers, Geri Sauble, Dennis Mackey Saulcy, Bill Schmitt, Debbie S. Schriner, Frances N. Schwabauer et vir, Linda M. Semple, William Smith, Peter F. Spangsberg, Shirley Springen, Phyllis Stadelman, Joseph & Diana Stephens, Billie L. Storey, Bill Stringer, Luella M. Stroock, Thomas F. Stuart, Larry D. Sye, Rank M. Tanner, Sandy Taylor, Janet C. Terry, Evelyn M. Terry, mark W. Tresner, Dean G. Ukeiley, Robert Unruh, Dean D. Unruh, Florence E. Van Dyke, Jeanne Walllin, Julia Springen Walker,Huntington Wanger, Deena L. Ward Linda West, Jennie M. Wilinson, John Allen Wilkinson, Jerry & Rhonda Williams, John Williams, Keith Williams, Monica Wilmot, Roger R. Wilmot, William W. Winland, Mark Wood, Derryl W. Wright Davis, Mary Ellen & Bobby Gale Wright, O. Dale Young, Dennis D. Trusts Amy Lynn Lenhert Trust/Gerald T. Tresner Trust Ann Ireland & Karen Fisher, co-trustees Anna Louise Wright Carson, Trustee Barbara Davis, Trustee

Klabzuba, Robert Klurfeld, Gregor Kok, Margaret L. Kraning, James Kraning, Jerry W. Kruse, Douglas G. Kruse, Gary Lass, Bonnie Leadbetter, Cheryl Leadbetter, Linda Lee, Vivian E. Lenhert, Amy L. Leutwyler, Scott Levorsen, Sandra Lieberman, Erin Litton, Mr & Mrs Gene E. Loepp, David Q. Mackey, Robert R. Masek, John Matejec, Hazel E. Maxey, Shirley E. McAfee, Paul McMahon Jr., Joe Meadows, Kelly Merritt, Linda J. Merritt, Ruth A. Migchelbrink, Margaret E. Mitchell, Brandon S. Mitchell, Michael S. Mohrmann, Brad Moore Dr., Carl Moore, Larry W. Moore, Robert D. Nash, Patsy Shubert Nelson, Christine M. Nichols, Jeremy Nyenhuis, Jim O'Connell, R.K. Ogren, Harriet E. Olson, Kermit G. Papp, Alex Paris, Jack W. Pederson, Kathleen Penner II, Robert L. Penner, Wibert H. Pippin, Robert L. Powers, Shirley Price et ux, William Price, Bennett L. Pridgeon, William L & P Elaine Priewe, Doran E. Richlin, Kory S. Roarke et vir, Marjie Rock, Kim

5-14

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5.0 Consultation and Coordination Table 5-3. BLM Distribution List for the Wright Area Draft EIS (Continued).

Bennage Family Trust Boller Trust Burton Keith Reno, Jr., Trustee Callies Family Trust Carole J. Pahl Irrevocable Trust Coramay Keeline Edelman Irrevocable Trust D & J Jacobs Family Trust David L. Herbaly Revocable Trust Donald L Anderson, Trustee Doris I Mills Living Trust Earl & Mildred Boller Living Trust Fleischman Revocable Trust Frank Ford, Trustee Gary P Huckins, Trustee for Jeffery Thompson George F. Collins, Jr. Trust George R & Elaine Keeline Trust Guy W. Edwards Trust Harry W. Keeline II Trust Hazel K. Nisselius, Trust Henderson Living Trust U/A/D Irene Stuart Living Trust J.A. Humphrey, Trustee Jack K. Nisselius, Revocable Trust John & Shirley Long Revocable Trust Joseph S. Pollare Living Trust Keeline Oil & Gas Trust Kenneth C. Revland Revocable Trust Larry & Kathryn Dunlap Family Trust Larry L. Jourgenson, Trustee LaVern & Bill Stephens Revocable Trust Leslie W. Flamank, Trustee Mary Jo Connelly, Trustee Maurita A. & Patrick M. Meehan, Trustees Ms. Barbara H. Dilts Living Trust Northern Trust Bank of Florida Patsy Sue Shubert Trust Paul R. Stuart, Trustee R. Reynared Mills Trust R. Wesley Savage, Trustee Reverend Burns Ind. & as Trustee Robert L. Haynie Revocable Trust Stuart Living Trust Stuart Revocable Trust TFS Trust Thomas G. Dorough Trust Partnership Willamas Family Trust (NE) William E. Reno Revocable Trust William L. Ferguson Trust William R. & Dolores P Wright II, Trustees Willimas Family Trust (CA) WL Ferguson Testamentary Trust WTR Revocable Trust

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

5-15

6.0 References Cited 6.0 REFERENCES CITED

All Business, 2008, “STB Approves Canadian Pacific’s Bid for DM&E Railroad, Extending U.S. Reach,” by Rip Watson, senior reporter for AllBusiness.com. Available from website on the Internet as of February 11, 2009: . Allen & Crouch Petroleum Engineers, Inc. (A&C), 2008, A reserve estimate of conventional oil and gas resources in the general South Gillette and Wright analysis areas. Prepared for WWC Engineering, January 30, 2008. Argonne, 2002, Technical Support Document - Air Quality Impact Assessment for the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Final Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans and the Wyoming Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Montana and Wyoming State Offices, by the Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne, Illinois. Associated Press, 2007, Market Spotlight: Coal Producers, by Samantha Bomkamp. Available from website on the Internet as of December 5, 2007: . Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC), 1994, Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C. , 2006, Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Research Foundation, Washington, DC, 125 pp. Barry, J., 2008, “Uranium: Not Over Yet.” Available from website on the Internet as of June 1, 2009: Bernstein, L., P. Bosch, O. Canziani, Z. Chen, R. Christ, O. Davidson, W. Hare, S. Huq, D. Karoly, V. Kattsov, Z. Kundzewicz, J. Liu, U. Lohmann, M. Manning, T. Matsuno, B. Menne, B. Metz, M. Mirza, N. Nicholls, L. Nurse, R. Pachauri, J. Palutikof, M. Parry, D. Qin, N. Ravindranath, A. Reisinger, J. Ren, K. Riahi, C. Rosenzweig, M. Rusticucci, S. Schneider, Y. Sokona, S. Solomon, P. Stott, R. Stouffer, T. Sugiyama, R. Swart, D. Tirpak, C. Vogel, and G. Yohe, 2007, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 6-1

6.0 References Cited Change Fourth Assessment Report November 17, 2007. Available from website on the Internet: . Biello, 2007, “New Power Plant Aims to Help Coal Clean Up,” Scientific American. Available from website on the Internet as of December 2007: . Bigelow, S., 2004, Personal communication between S. Bigelow, Executive Director, Campbell County Economic Development Corporation, and G. Blankenship, Blankenship Consulting, LLC, July 9. Billings Gazette, 2007a, “Federal board OKs final segment of Tongue River Railroad,” by Matthew Brown, Associated Press, October 10. Available from website on the Internet as of February 11, 2009: . , 2007b, “Railroad owner aims to make deal for leasing coal,” by Jim Gransbery. Available from website on the Internet as of February 11, 2009: . Bison Pipeline LLC, 2008, Bison Pipeline LLC website. Available from website on the Internet as of August 2008: . BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. (BKS), 2005, 2005 School Creek Study Area Baseline Soils Assessment. Prepared for West Roundup Resources, Inc. Included in the School Creek Mine Permit Application, TFN 4 6/208, submitted to WDEQ/LQD in 2006. On file at WDEQ/LQD offices in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. Black Thunder Mine (BTM), 2008a, Air Quality Permit No. MD-6824, approved on January 22, 2008. On file with WDEQ/AQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. , 2008b, Air Quality Permit No. MD-3851, approved on August 18, 2008. On file with WDEQ/AQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. Borden, G.W., R.R. Fletcher, and D.T. Taylor, 1994, Economic Impact of Coal on Wyoming’s Economy, Cooperative Extension Service Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, University of Wyoming, B 987. Bott, K., 2006, Personal communication between K. Bott, WDEQ/AQD, Cheyenne State Office, and N. Doelger, BLM, Casper Field Office, November 28.

6-2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited Braun, C.E., 1998, Sage-Grouse declines in western North America: What are the problems? Proceedings of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 78:139-156. Braunlin, D., 2004, Personal communication between D. Braunlin, Campbell County Planner, Gillette, Wyoming, and B. Strom, Planera, Inc., November 18. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1974, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Eastern Powder River Basin of Wyoming. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. , 1979, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Development of Coal Resources in the Eastern Powder River Wyoming. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. , 1981, Final Powder River Regional Coal Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. , 1983, Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Riley Ridge Natural Gas Project, Sublette, Lincoln, and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming. BLM-YA-EA-84-002-1327. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. , 1984, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Round II Coal Lease Sale in the Powder River Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. , 1985, Buffalo Resource Area Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Resource Area, Casper, Wyoming. , 1989, Manual 3420, Competitive Coal Leasing. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. , 1991, Powder River Regional Coal Team Operational Guidelines for Coal Lease-By-Applications. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. , 1992, Final West Rocky Butte Coal Lease Application Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. , 1998, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Powder River Coal Lease Application and Thundercloud Coal Lease Application. U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 6-3

6.0 References Cited , 2001a, Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet: . , 2001b, Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Development in the Buffalo Field Office Area, Campbell, Johnson and Sheridan Counties, Wyoming. , 2003, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming, January 2003. , 2005a, Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, December 2005. The PRB Coal Review is available on BLM’s website at: . , 2005b, Task 1A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Current Air Quality Conditions. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, September 2005. , 2005c, Task 1C Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Current Social and Economic Conditions. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, March 2005. , 2005d, Task 1D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Current Environmental Conditions. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, June 2005. , 2005e, Task 3D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Cumulative Environmental Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, December 2005. 6-4 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited , 2005f, Task 3C Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Cumulative Social and Economic Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, December 2005. , 2006a, Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153. Policy and Guidance on Conflicts between Coalbed Natural Gas and Surface Coal Mine Development in the Powder River Basin. Reissued May 11, 2006. , 2006b, Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Cumulative Air Quality Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, February 2006. , 2006c, Task 1B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Current Water Resource Conditions. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, September 2006. , 2006d, Task 3B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Cumulative Water Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, August 2006. , 2007, Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, December 2007. , 2008a, NEPA Handbook H-1790-1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. , 2008b, BLM Land and Mineral Use Record web site. Available from website on the Internet as of September 2008: . , 2008c, June 12, 2008 Letter from BLM to Governor Freudenthal. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2008d, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, December 2008. , 2008e, Invited field survey. Observations and measurements by BLM Casper Field Office staff, July 7. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 6-5

6.0 References Cited , 2008f, Statement made by BLM at the public hearing for the West Antelope II Coal Lease Draft Environmental Impact Statement in Gillette, Wyoming, March 24, 2008. , 2008g, E-mail from Mavis Love, BLM Minerals Division, BLM Cheyenne Office, to John Jackson, WWC Engineering Socioeconomist, October 24, 2008. , 2008h, Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Supplemental Cumulative Air Quality Effects for 2015. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, October 2008. , 2008i, Task 3B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Cumulative Water Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, August 2006, revised February 2008. , 2009, Powder River Basin Coal Leases by Application Data Sheets. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), 2008, Advisory Board, July 9, 2008. Byer, T., 2003, USDA Forest Service Wildlife Biologist, Douglas Ranger District, Douglas, Wyoming, personal communication with Nancy Doelger, BLM, Casper Field Office, September 11 and 29, 2003. Campbell County, 2007, Campbell County Natural Resource and Land Use Plan – Adopted August 21, 2007. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: . Campbell County Memorial Hospital (CCMH), 2005, Campbell County Memorial Hospital information. Available from website on the Internet as of March 2005: . Campbell County School District No. 1 (CCSD), 2007, Facts About Campbell County School District. Available from website on the Internet as of April 2007: . CAM-PLEX, 2005, CAM-PLEX Multi-Event Facilities. (Brochure) Gillette, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2005: .

6-6

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited CANAC Railway Service, Inc. (CANAC), 2007, Presentation by CANAC at the 2007 Coal Marketing Days in Pittsburg, PA. Casper Star Tribune, 2007a, “Coal Dust Concerns Converse”, by Rena Delbridge, March 12. (Chapter 3) , 2007b, “Will Wyo's electrical export ambitions go up in smoke?,” by Dustin Bleizeffer, December 16. Available from website on the Internet as of February 11, 2009: . , 2007c, “Clean-Coal Investors Plead for Regulations,” by Dusting Bleizeffer, October 11. , 2007d, “Utility Snuffs Coal Projects,” by Dustin Bleizeffer, December 11. Cedergren, M.R., 1977, Seepage Drainage and Flow Nets, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. Center for Climate Strategies, 2007, Wyoming Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990-2020, report for Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, available from website on the Internet as of November 2008: . Cerovski, A., M. Gorges, T. Byer, K. Duffy, and D. Felley, 2001, Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 1.0, Wyoming Partners in Flight, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. July 1, 2001. Cerovski, A., M. Grenier, B. Oakleaf, L. Van Fleet, and S. Patla, 2004, Atlas of Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department – Biological Services Section, Lander, Wyoming. July, 2004. Chambers, J.C., 2006, Climate change and the Great Basin, in proceedings prepared for Collaborative Watershed Research and Management Conference: November 28-30, 2006, Reno, Nevada. Available from website on the Internet at: . Chancellor, R., 2003, Personal communication between R. Chancellor, WDEQ, Cheyenne State Office, and Nancy Doelger, BLM, Casper Field Office, June 16. Christensen, R., 2002, Personal communication between R. Christensen, WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne, Wyoming and C. Florian, Greystone Environmental Consultants, regarding summary report of coal permit Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 6-7

6.0 References Cited totals to date: Active Coal Mine Permits, Powder River Basin, 1999-2001, July 31, 2002. Christiansen, T., 2004, Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Population Trend Relative to the 2005 Hunting Season – A Summary Report and Recommendation. Available from website on the Internet as of March 2005: . City-Data, 2009, Campbell County, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . City of Gillette, 1978, City of Gillette/Campbell County Comprehensive Planning Program. June 1978. Updated March 1994. Gillette, Wyoming. , 2008a, Community Development Department, Building and Planning Divisions, “Developing Gillette, The Development Summary for January – December 2007.” January 2008. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2008: . , 2008b, Administrative Office, Gillette Regional Water Supply Project. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2008: . Clark, D.W., 1995, Geotechnical processes in ground water resulting from surface mining of coal at the Big Sky and West Decker Mine area, southeastern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4097, 80 pp. Clark and Stromberg, 1987, Mammals in Wyoming. Museum of Natural History. Lawrence, Kansas. University of Kansas,

Clark, M.L. and J.P. Mason, 2007, Water-Quality Characteristics for Sites in the Tongue, Powder, Cheyenne, and Belle Fourche River Drainage Basins, Wyoming and Montana, Water Years 2001-05, with Temporal Patterns of Selected Long-Term Water-Quality Data. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5146, prepared in cooperation with Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Coates, D.A., 1977, Surficial Geological Map of the Hilight Quadrangle, Campbell County, Wyoming, 1:24,000, U.S. Geological Survey MF-894. Coates, D.A., 1978a, Surficial Geological Map of the Little Thunder Reservoir Quadrangle, Campbell County, Wyoming, 1:24,000, U.S. Geological Survey MF-1019. 6-8 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited Coates, D.A., 1978b, Surficial Geological Map of the Reno Junction Quadrangle, Campbell County, Wyoming, 1:24,000, U.S. Geological Survey MF-969. Community Strategies Institute (CSI), 2005, Campbell County Housing Needs Assessment. Prepared for the Campbell County Economic Development Corporation. Denver, Colorado. January 2005. Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroedoer, and S.J. Stiver, 2004, Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, unpublished report, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Curtis, J. and K. Grimes, 2004, Wyoming Climate Atlas, Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS). Sponsored by the Wyoming Water Development Commission, U.S. Geological Survey, and University of Wyoming. 328 p. Crist, M.A., 1991, Evaluation of groundwater-level changes near Gillette, northeastern Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 88-4196. De Bruin, R.H., 2002, Oil and Gas Fields Map of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, MS-51. Wyoming State Geological Survey, Laramie, Wyoming. De Bruin, R.H. and R.M. Lyman, 1999, Coal Bed Methane in Wyoming. Pages 61-72 in: Coal Bed Methane and Tertiary Geology of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana. Wyoming Geological Association 50th Field Conference Guidebook. Delson, E., 1971, Fossil mammals of the Early Eocene Wasatchian Powder River Local Fauna, Eocene of Northern Wyoming, American Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 146, pp. 305-364. DKRW Advanced Fuels (DKRW), 2009, Fact sheet about Medicine Bow Fuel and Power LLC coal to liquids process. Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: . DOI, 2001, Secretarial Order 3226, Department of the Interior. Emme, D., 2003, Personal communication with D. Emme, WDEQ/LQD, Blasting Program Principal, May 7. , 2007, Personal communication with D. Emme, WDEQ/LQD, Blasting Program Principal, April 2.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6-9

6.0 References Cited Erathem-Vanir Geological PPLLC (EVG), 2001, Paleontological Inventory and Evaluation 2001 Baseline Survey, Cordero Mining Company, Campbell County, Wyoming, prepared for TRC-Mariah & Associates, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming, 8 p. Evergreen Energy, Inc. (Evergreen), 2009, K-Fuel refined coal fact sheet. Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: . Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 2004, “Major Pipeline Projects on the Horizon as of February 2004.” Available from website on the Internet as of February 2004: . , 2009, Bison Pipeline LLC – Notice of Filing, Docket No. CP09-161. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Office of Policy & Communications, February, 2008. “Freight Railroads Background”. Available from website on the Internet as of July 2008: . Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong, 1994, Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colorado. Flores, R.M., A.M. Ochs, L.R. Bader, R.C. Johnson, and D. Vogler, 1999, Framework Geology of the Fort Union Coal in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana. Chapter PF, pages 1-40, in Fort Union Coal Assessment Team. 1999 Resource Assessment of Selected Tertiary Coal Beds and Zones in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1625-A, Chapter PF. Flores, R.M., G.D. Stricker, J.F. Meyer, T.E. Doll, P.H. Norton, Jr., R.J. Livingston, and M.C. Jennings, 2001, A Field Conference on Impacts of Coalbed Methane Development in the Powder River Basin. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-126. Frankel, A.C., C. Mueller, T. Barnhand, D. Perkins, E.V. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, and M. Hopper, 1997, Seismic-hazard Maps for the Coterminous United States, Map F - Horizontal Spectral Response Acceleration for 0.2 Second Period (5 percent of critical damping) with 10 Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-131-F. Frison, G., 1978, Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. York, New York. 6-10 Academic Press: New

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited , 1991, Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press: New York, New York. , 2001, Hunting and Gathering Tradition: Northwestern and Central Plains, in Plains, edited by Raymond J. DeMaille, pp. 131-145. Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 13, Part I, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. FutureGen, 2008, General information obtained from FutureGen Alliance website on the Internet as of July 2008: . Gardiner, S., 1985, editor, Rumblings from the Razor City: The Oral History of Gillette, Wyoming, an Energy Boomtown. Gartrell, P., 2008, “The Quest to Harness the Wind.” The Gillette News-Record, March 29. Gillette Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, 2004, “Gillette, Wyoming – Take Another Look!” (Brochure). Gillette, Wyoming. Gillette News-Record, 2007a, “Railway officials focus on coal dust solutions,” by Peter Gartrell, July 1. , 2007b, “Two Elk Plant inks transmission deal,” by the Associated Press, October 5. , 2007c, “Will Wright boom?” by Peter Gartrell, October 19. , 2008a, “Coal's future: Environmentalist groups threaten to tie up new coal-burning power plants, even as the nation's demand for energy skyrockets,” by Matthew Brown, January 15. , 2008b, “Forum focuses on harnessing Wyoming’s wind,” by Wendilyn Grasseschi, March 3. Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc., 2003, Surface Water Quality Analysis Technical Report. Surface Water Modeling of Water Quality Impacts Associated with Coal Bed Methane Development in the Powder River Basin, January 2003. Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987, Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature, 92 J. Geophysical Res. 345. Heinecke, B., 1985, Director Mental Health Service, Northeast Wyoming Mental Health Center, Oral History in Rumblings from Razor City: The Oral History of Gillette, Wyoming, an Energy Boomtown. Edited by S. Gardiner. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 6-11

6.0 References Cited Harrison, C. ,1984, A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs, and Nestlings of North American Birds. The Stephen Greene Press. Brattleboro, Vermont and Lexington, Massachusetts. Heffern, E.L. and D.A. Coats, 2000, Hydrogeology and Ecology of Clinker in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana, Plate 1, in 50th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, pp. 231-252. Wyoming Geological Association, Casper, Wyoming. HKM Engineering, Inc., Lord Consulting, and Watts and Associates, 2002a, Powder/Tongue River Basin Plan. Prepared for Wyoming Water Development Commission Basin Planning Program, February 2002. , 2002b, Northeast Wyoming River Basin Plan. Prepared for Wyoming Water Development Commission Basin Planning Program, February 2002. Holcomb, J., 2003, Rocky Mountain Pipeline Assessment, prepared for PACE Global Energy Services and presented at the Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists and Petroleum Technology Transfer Council CBM Symposium, Denver, Colorado, June 10, 2003. Homath, J., 2003, USFS Douglas Ranger District, Douglas, Wyoming, personal communication with Nancy Doelger, BLM Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, October 20, 2003. Hydro-Engineering, 1991, GAGMO 10-Year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. , 1996, GAGMO 15-Year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. , 2001, GAGMO 20-Year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. , 2006, 2005 GAGMO Annual Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, Wyoming, January 2006. , 2007, GAGMO 25-Year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. April 2007. IHS Energy Services (IHS), 2004, Oil and Gas Production and Well History Database.

6-12

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited IMPROVE, 2008, IMPROVE Summary Data – Summary data through 2005. Available from website on the Internet as of as of November 2008: . Interline Resources, 2008, Crude Oil Refining – NorthCut Refining LLC. Available from website on the Internet as of June 2008: . Intermountain Resources (IR), 2007, Personal communication with Russell Tait, wildlife and range scientist with Intermountain Resources. , 2008, Wildlife Resources Report for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA, prepared for Jacobs Ranch Coal Company, October 2008. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001, Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. Available from website on the Internet: . Jacobs Ranch Coal Company (JRCC), 1994, Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Application, Appendix D11 (AVF Assessment). On file at WDEQ/LQD offices in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. , 2004, Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Application, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 271-T5, approved November 23, 2004. On file at WDEQ/LQD offices in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. , 2008, Jacobs Ranch Mine 2007 Annual Report, submitted to WDEQ/LQD March 2008. On file with WDEQ/LQD, Sheridan and Cheyenne, Wyoming. Jacobs Ranch Mine (JRM), 2007, Air Quality Permit No. MD-1005A2, approved on January 22, 2007. On file with WDEQ/AQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. Jahnke, L., 2005, Personal communication between L. Jahnke, Wildlife Management Coordinator, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Sheridan, Wyoming and B. Strom, ENSR, May 20. , 2008, WGFD long-term data, provided by L. Jahnke, Regional Biologist, to PRB coal mine wildlife contractors (personal communication with Gwyn McKee of Thunderbird J&S). James, R., 2007, Electricity Technology in a Carbon-Constrained Future, Carnegie-Mellon University, November, 2007 and The Full Portfolio, an article by Revis James in Electric Perspectives, January/February 2008.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6-13

6.0 References Cited Langston, T., 2005, Director of Gillette Department of Community Development. Personal communication with R. Dutton, Economist. Law, B.E., 1976, Large-scale compaction structures in the coal/bearing Fort Union and Wasatch Formations, northeast Powder River Basin, Wyoming: in Wyoming Geological Association: Guidebook on geology and energy resources of the Powder River Basin, pp. 221-229. LeCompte, J., and Anderson, J.L., 1982, History of Northern Campbell County and the Rawhide Mine Permit Area, Wyoming. Pioneer Archaeological Consultants, Longmont, Colorado. Report on file at the WDEQ/LQD office in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Lewis, B.D. and W.R. Hotchkiss, 1981, Thickness, percent sand, and configuration of shallow hydrogeological units in the Powder River Basin, Montana and Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1317. Martin, L.J., D.L. Naftz, H.W. Lowham, and J.G. Rankl, 1988, Cumulative potential hydrologic impacts of surface coal mining in the eastern Powder River Structural Basin, northeastern Wyoming (CHIA). U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 88-4046. Prepared in cooperation with WDEQ and OSM, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Martin, W., 1999, Archaeological Investigations Along the Wyoming Segment of the Express Pipeline, in Contributions to Archaeology, Volume 5. Project Synthesis, pp. 4-1, 4-22. William Martin and Craig S. Smith, series editors. TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc., 1997, NO2 Concentrations in Northeastern Wyoming: Historical Data and Projections. Report prepared and submitted to WDEQ/AQD July 1997. Minerals Management Service, 2006, Mineral Revenue Management, Federal Mineral Royalty Revenue Reported and Disbursed, By State and Commodity. Available from website on the Internet: . Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), 1997, 645 Database, Wyoming Summary Employment and Injury Information. Moore, H.D. and D.A. Coates, 1978, Surficial Geologic Map of Reno Reservoir Quadrangle, Campbell County, Wyoming, 1:24,000, U.S. Geological Survey MF-954. Morovits, P., 2005, Senior Water Systems Operator, City of Gillette Water Division, Gillette, Wyoming. Personal communication with B. Strom, Planera, Inc., January 14, 2005. 6-14 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited MSNBC, 2007, “Canadian Pacific buying U.S. railroad DM&E.” September 5, 2007, Available from website on the Internet as of December 2008: . National Academy of Science, 2006, Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines. National Academies Press. Available from website on the Internet: . National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), 2007, Committee on Energy Resources and the Environment, Resolution on State Regulatory Policies Toward Climate Change, adopted 11/14/2007. Available from website on the Internet as of December 2007: . National Coal Transportation Association (NCTA), 2007. “Ballast Fouling Initiative on the PRB Joint Line”. February 13 PowerPoint presentation. Available from website on the Internet as of July 2008: . , 2008, Mission statement. Available from website on the Internet as of July 2008: . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1969, Climatography of the United States: Asheville, North Carolina, National Climatic Center, Climatological Summaries, No. 20-48. Naugle, D.E., C.L. Aldridge, B.L. Walker, T.E. Cornish, B.J. Moynihan, M.J. Holloran, K. Brown, G.D. Johnson, E.T. Schimidtman, R.T. Mayer, C.Y. Kato, M.R. Matchett, T.J. Christiansen, W.E. Cook, T. Creekmore, R.D. Falise, E.T. Rinkes, and M.S. Boyce, 2004, West Nile Virus: a pending crisis for greater sage-grouse. Ecology Letters, Vol. 7, p. 704-713. Naugle, D.E., K.E. Doherty, and B.L. Walker, 2006, Sage-grouse Winter Habitat Selection and Energy Development in the Powder River Basin: Completion Report. Available from website on the Internet as of August 2006: . Niering, W.A., 1985, Wetlands. Chanticlear Press, Inc., New York, New York, 638 pp. Oedekoven, O.O., 1994, Distribution, habitat use, and population dynamics of the Rochelle Hills elk herd, Final Report. WGFD, Gillette, Wyoming. , 2001, Sage-Grouse Job Completion Report, Sheridan Region, Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6-15

6.0 References Cited Office of the Governor of Wyoming, 2008, Executive Order 2008-2: Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: . Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 1980, Noise impact assessment of the Caballo Rojo Mine. Unpublished report prepared by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., Aurora, Colorado. , 1984, Correlation and effect of mine facility wells on the Tullock Aquifer in the Gillette, Wyoming, vicinity. Prepared by G.E. McIntosh, C.A. Harrison and J.V. Wilcox. Ogle, K. M., 2004, Spatial Examination of Backfill Aquifer Water Quality, Powder River Basin, Wyoming Using GIS. Paper presented at the 2004 Advanced Integration of Geospatial Technologies in Mining and Reclamation, December 7-9, 2004, Atlanta, GA. Ogle, K.M., M. Calle, G. Mooney, and D.N. Dornak, 2005, Cumulative Hydrological Impact Assessment (CHIA) of Coal Mining in the Middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, WDEQ-CHIA-14. Ogle, K.M., and M. Calle, 2006, Cumulative Hydrological Impact Assessment (CHIA) of Coal Mining in the Southern Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, WDEQ-CHIA-19. 122 p. Orpet, J., 2007, Maysdorf II LBA Tract Baseline Wildlife Technical Support Document. Prepared for Cordero Rojo Coal Company for the South Gillette Area Coal EIS. PacifiCorp, 2007, Wyoming Industrial Development Information and Siting Act 109 Application Permit, Glenrock/Rolling Hills Wind Energy Project. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2008: . Painter, C.L., 2009, Personal communication May 28, 2009 between C. Painter, U.S. Forest Service Wildlife Biologist, Douglas, Wyoming, and J. Berry, WWC Engineering, regarding 2007 and 2008 sage-grouse data. Pederson Planning Consultants, 2001, Appendix D, in the Wyoming Energy Commission, Preliminary Progress Report to the Wyoming Legislature, Joint Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee, December 14, 2001. Draft Report commissioned by the Wyoming Energy Commission, 34 pp. 6-16 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited Peterson, R. T., 1990, A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Pitchford, M.L. and W.C. Malm, 1994, Development and Applications of a Standard Visual Index, in Atmospheric Environment, 28(5): 1,049-54. Powder River Coal, LLC (PRC), 2004, North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Application, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 569-T6, approved August 20, 2004. On file at WDEQ/LQD office in Cheyenne, Wyoming. , 2006, Air Quality Permit No. MD-1309, approved on January 24, 2006. On file with WDEQ/AQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. , 2007, North Antelope Rochelle Mine 2007 Annual Report, submitted to WDEQ/LQD January 2008. On file with WDEQ/LQD, Sheridan and Cheyenne, Wyoming. Prink, C., J. Westerman, P. Lupcho, A. Kinney, R White, and G. Kee, Jr, 2004, Soil Survey of Campbell County Wyoming, Southern Part. USDA-NRCS, in cooperation with BLM, USFS, Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station, and University of Wyoming-Extension Service. Rahn, P.H., 1976, Potential for Coal Strip-Mine Spoils as Aquifers in the Powder River Basin: Project Completion Report Prepared for Old West Regional Committee, Project No. 10470025. Reheis, M.C., and D.A. Coates, 1987, Surficial Geologic Map of the Reno Junction 30’ × 60’ Quadrangle, Campbell and Weston Counties, Wyoming, U.S. Geological Survey Map C-106. Reuters, 2007, “CONSOL Energy, Pittsburg and Midway Coal Announce Venture to Develop New Powder River Basin Coal Mine,” April 24. Rising, J.D., 1997, A Guide to the Identification and Natural History of the Sparrows of the United States and Canada. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), 2007, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation News Release, RTEA and Jacobs Ranch Mine Donate Conservation Easement to Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, June 25, 2007. Available from website on the Internet as of July 2007: . ROMCOE, 1982, Center for Environmental Problem Solving, Rapid Growth Communities Project, Community Profiles. Boulder Colorado, July 1982.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6-17

6.0 References Cited Schneider, E.A., J. Johnston, and J. Lowe, 2000, Appendices D-2 and D-3A for the Buckskin Mine Expansion Permit. Report prepared for Triton Coal Company’s Buckskin Mine by TRC Mariah Associates, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. Scire, J.S., D.S. Strimitis, and R.J. Yamartino, 1999a, A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5.0). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, Massachusetts. October 1999. Shamley, J., 2008a, Senior Engineering Analyst, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division, District 3, provided Powder River Basin coal mines coal and overburden production to J. Berry, WWC Engineering, April 24. , 2008b, Senior Engineering Analyst, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division, District 3, personal communication with J. Berry, WWC Engineering, May 3. Shelley, K., 1992, Habitat Reclamation for Birds and Small Mammals on Surface Mined Lands in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Sheridan Press, 2006, “Rails try to keep up with Wyoming coal production,” United Press, January 9. Shorma, G., 2005, Personal communication between G. Shorma, Regional Supervisor, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Sheridan, Wyoming, and B. Strom, ENSR, May 20, 2005. SourceWatch, 2007, Wygen Unit 3, Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: . Straskraba, V., 1986, Groundwater Recovery Problems Associated with Open Pit Reclamation in the Western U.S. International Journal of Mine Water and the Environment, Vol. 5, No. 4. December 1986. Stratham, A., 2005, Personal communication between A. Stratham, Wyoming Game and Fish Department and B. Strom, ENSR, May 12, 2005. Strathmore Minerals Corporation, 2008, Powder River, Wyoming: Stage 3 Historical Resource. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2008: . Surface Transportation Board (STB), 2001, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Dakota, Minnesota, & Eastern Railroad Powder River Basin Expansion Project. Cooperating agencies: U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of 6-18 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Coast Guard. STB Finance Docket No. 33407. November 2001. , 2006, News release, “STB issues Final SEIS on Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern’s PRB Expansion Project.” Available from website on the Internet as of December 2008: . Tausch, R.J., C.L. Nowak, and S.A. Mensing, 2004, Climate change and associated vegetation dynamics during the Holocene: The Paleoecological Record, in Great Basin Riparian Ecosystems: Ecology, Management, and Restoration, edited by J.C. Chambers and J.R. Miller, Island Press. Thiele, D., 2009, Personal communication May 7, 2009 between D. Thiele, Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wildlife Biologist, Buffalo, Wyoming, and J. Berry, WWC Engineering, regarding 2007 and 2008 sage-grouse data. Thunder Basin Coal Company (TBCC), 2002, Black Thunder Mine Report for Development of Safe Setback Distances for Blasting Activities at the Black Thunder Mine, dated July 2002. , 2005, Black Thunder Mine Permit Application, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 233-T7, approved November 1, 2005. On file at WDEQ/LQD offices in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. , 2007, Black Thunder Mine 2007 Annual Report, submitted to WDEQ/LQD January 2008. On file with WDEQ/LQD, Sheridan and Cheyenne, Wyoming. , 2009, Historical NOX data provided by Black Thunder Mine for the Tracy Ranch monitoring site, January 2009. Thunder Basin Grazing Association (TBGA), 2008, Personal communication with TBGA personnel, October 23. Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes (J&S), 2007, Personal communication with Gwyn McKee, wildlife biologist with J&S. Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), 2005, Southern Powder River Updates – 2005 Year-End Review. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2008:. , 2006, Southern Powder River Updates – 2006 Year-End Review. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2008: . Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 6-19

6.0 References Cited U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, by the Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2006, Regional Economic Information System – Full-time and Part-time Employment by NAICS, 1969 – 2004, and Personal Income and Earnings by NAICS, 1969 – 2004. Available from website on the Internet: . U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007, Local Area Unemployment Statistics – 1997 to 2006, Not Seasonally Adjusted. Available from website on the Internet: . , 2008, Local Area Unemployment Statistics – 1997 to 2006, Not Seasonally Adjusted. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2008: . U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Housing - Physical Characteristics data from 2000 census. Campbell County and Gillette, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2008: . , 2001, 2000 Census of Population and Housing – Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet: . , 2006a, Annual Estimates of Population for Counties of Wyoming: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CO-EST2006-01-56). Available from website on the Internet August 2006: . , 2006b, Annual Estimates of Housing Unit Counts in Wyoming: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 (HU-EST2005-04-56). Available from website on the Internet August 2006: . , 2008, Annual Estimates of Population for Counties and Cities of Wyoming as of July 2008. Available from website on the Internet as of March 2009: . U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (USFS), 1987, Plant Associations of Region 2, Edition 4, USFS publication RC-ECOL-87-2. USFS Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, Colorado. 429 p. , 2001, Land and Resource Management Plan for the Thunder Basin National Grassland, Medicine Bow-Routte National Forest, Rocky Mountain Region.

6-20

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited , 2006, Environmental Assessment – Yates Petroleum Corporation Marine Coal Bed Natural Gas Development Project. USFS Douglas Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland, Campbell County, Wyoming. June 2006. 2006 sage-grouse data updated by USFS Douglas Ranger District. , n.d., Land Use Summary Report for Project LA-WY-1, Land Acquisitions File, USFS Permanent Records, Douglas District Office, Resettlement Program, homestead files. U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), 1994, “Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal.” DOE/EIA-0121(94/Q1), August 1994. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2006, “Mercury Emission Control R&D”. Available from website on the Internet as of July 29, 2008: . , 2007a, Energy Information Administration, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2007.” Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: . , 2007b, “2006 Annual Coal Report.” Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: . , 2007c, Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Review 2007. Statistics on coal production, consumption by sector, exports by country, stocks; prices; mining productivity; coke. Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: . , 2008a, Annual Coal Report 2007, Released September 2008, Coal Production and Number of Mines by State and Mine Type. Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: . , 2008b, Annual Energy Outlook 2008, Report, April 2008. Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: . , 2009, “Coal”. Available from website on the Internet as of February 13, 2009: .

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6-21

6.0 References Cited U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1974, nformation on Levels of I Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA 550/9-74-004. , 2001a, Region 8 comment letter to Nancy Doelger, BLM, on the North Jacobs Ranch Coal Lease Application DEIS, dated March 1, 2000. Reference to WMA Report “PRB Short-Term Exposure NO2 Study.” , 2001b, Visibility in Mandatory Federal Class I Areas (1994-1998): A Report to Congress, Executive Summary, November 2001. , 2002, Characterization and Management of Residues from Coal-Fired Power Plants, Interim Report, EPA-600/R-02-083. U.S. December 2002. , 2003a, Region 8 comment letter to Nancy Doelger, BLM, on the South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS dated April 16. Reference to air quality, nitrogen dioxide. , 2003b, Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2) Fact Sheet. EPA530-F-03-004. January 2003. , 2005a, Effects of Acid Rain: Lakes and Streams. Available from website on the Internet as of April 2005: . , 2005b, EPA May 20, 2005 News Release: “Coal Waste Becomes Viable Product.” Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: . , 2006, “EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury.” EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0013, Available from website on the Internet as of July 2008: . , 2007a, Particle Pollution, Health and Environment. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2007b, NOx – How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breath – Health and Environmental Impacts of NOx. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2007c, America’s Wetlands: Our Vital Link Between Land and Water. Available from website on the Internet as of July 2007: .

6-22

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited , 2007d, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Memorandum following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision, June 5, 2007. Available from website on the Internet as of December 2007: . , 2007e, Clean Energy, eGRID, 2006 Version 2.1, April 2007. , 2007f, “About Coal Combustion Products,” Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2007g, “Fly Ash.” Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2007h, “Bottom Ash.” Available from website on the Internet as of May
2009:
.
, 2007i, “Boiler Slag.” Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2007j, “Flue Gas Desulfurization Material,” Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2008a, “Climate Change – Science – State of Knowledge.” Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2008b, “Transportation and Climate.” Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2008c, “Mercury: Basic Information”. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2008d, “Environmental and Health Information.” Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2008e, “EPA Recognizes Leadership in Beneficial Uses of Industrial Materials.” Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: .

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6-23

6.0 References Cited , 2009a, “NOx: What is it? Where does it come from?” Six common air pollutants. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: . , 2009b, AirData Monitor Values Report – Criteria Air Pollutants, PM10, NO2, and O3 for Campbell County, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: . , 2009c, Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2009d, Clean Energy, Air Emissions. Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: . , 2009e, “Mercury Emissions: The Global Context,” Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: . , 2009f, “Benefits of Using CCPs,” Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2009g, Coal Combustion Products Partnership, C2P2. Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1980, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data for portions of Wyoming: Spatial Data and Visualization Center, Laramie, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of August 2007: . , 2000, 12-month administrative finding for a petition to list the blacktailed prairie dog as threatened. Published in the Federal Register, February 2000: Federal Register 65 (24): 5476 – 5488. , 2001, Annual notice of findings on recycled petitions. Federal Register 66(5):1295 – 1300. , 2002, Coal Mine List of Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming, based on Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 1.0, report available from Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

6-24

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited , 2003, Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the mountain plover as threatened. Federal Register 68 (174): 53083 – 53101. , 2004a, Letter to Interested Parties Regarding Black-footed Ferret Surveys in Wyoming. File ES-61411/BFF/WY7746, dated February 4, 2004. , 2004b, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; August 12, 2004 Finding for the Resubmitted Petition to List the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog as Threatened. Federal Register 69 (159): 51217. , 2009, Recent actions on the black-tailed prairie dog. Endangered Species of the Mountain-Prairie Region. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: . U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2000, Health Impacts of Coal Combustion. USGS Fact Sheet FS-094-00. , 2002a, Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Powder River Basin Province of Wyoming and Montana, 2002. U.S. Geological Survey National Oil and Gas Assessment Fact Sheet FS 146 02. , 2002b, Characterization and Modes of Occurrence of Elements in Feed Coal and Fly Ash—An Integrated Approach. USGS Fact Sheet-038-02. May 2002. , 2004, Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. Available from website on the Internet as of December 2004: . , 2006, Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Powder River Basin Province of Wyoming and Montana – 2006 Update. Fact Sheet 2006-3135, December 2006. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2008, State-By-State List of Mining Region – Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of August 2008: . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), 2008a, Application for Source Material License Moore Ranch Uranium Project - Environmental Report Volume I) - Letter from Energy Metals, Submitting Source Materials Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 6-25

6.0 References Cited License Application for Moore Ranch Uranium Project. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2008b, Uranerz Energy Corporation - Submittal of Source Material License Application to Construct and Operate the Nichols Ranch ISR Project Located in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2008c, Expected Uranium Recovery Facility Applications /Restarts/Expansions. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . Van Voast, W.A., and J.C. Reiten, 1988, Hydrogeologic response–twenty years of surface coal mining in southeastern Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Memoir 62. Van Voast, W.A., R.B. Hedges, and J.J. McDermott, 1978, Hydrologic Characteristics in Coal Mine Spoils, Southeastern Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Bull. 102, 43 pp. Vickery, P. D., 1996, Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, Number 239. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Vonsik, Brenda, 2005, Campbell County Fire Department. Gillette, Wyoming. Personal communication with B. Strom, Planners, Inc. January 14, 2005. Waters, T.F., 1995, Sediment in Streams, Sources, Biological Effects and Control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, 251 pp. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2008, Historical climatological data for the Wright 12 W Station. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2008: . Williams, M., 2008, CEO Interline Resources. Personal communication with R. Dutton, Sammons/Dutton LLC. June 9. Winterfield, G.F., 1978, Unpublished field notes, surveys of coal mines in Powder River Basin, Wyoming. 6-26 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited Wisdom, M.J., B.C. Wales, M.M. Rowland, M.G. Faphael, R.S. Holthausen, T.D. Rich, and V.A. Saab, 2002, Performance of Greater Sage-Grouse Models for Conservation Assessment in Interior Columbia Basin, USA Conservation Biology, 16: 1232-1242. World Information Service on Energy, 2007, New Uranium Mining Projects Wyoming, USA. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: http://www.wise-uranium.org/upusawy.html>. Wyoming Community Development Authority (WCDA), 2007, The 2007 Wyoming Housing Needs Forecast – Final Report. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2008: . , 2008, The 2008 Wyoming Profile of Demographics, Economics and Housing, Semiannual Report, Ending June 30, 2008, Available on the internet as of October 2008: . Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (Wyoming CREG), 2007, Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast, Fiscal year 2008- Fiscal 2012, January 2007. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2008: . , 2008, Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast, Fiscal year 2009Fiscal 2014, October 2008. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2008:. Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, 2006, Economic Analysis Division, Average monthly rental rates. Available from website on the Internet: . , 2007, Economic Analysis Division, Equality State Almanac 2007. Population, economic, and demographic information. Available from website on Internet as of November 2008: . , 2008, Economic Analysis Division, Wyoming Cost of Living Index for Second Quarter of 2008. Available from website on Internet as of November 2008: . Wyoming Department of Education, 2006, Statistical Report Series, Report No. 1, 2 and 3. Available from website on the Internet: . Wyoming Department of Employment, 1990, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year Ending December 31, 1990. , 1995, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year Ending December 31, 1995. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 6-27

6.0 References Cited , 1997, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year
Ending December 31, 1997.
, 1998, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year
Ending December 31, 1998.
, 1999, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year
Ending December 31, 1999.
, 2000, Ending , 2001, Ending Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year
December 31, 2000.
Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year
December 31, 2001.

, 2002, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year
Ending December 31, 2002.
, 2003, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year
Ending December 31, 2003.
, 2004, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year
Ending December 31, 2004.
, 2005, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year
Ending December 31, 2005.
, 2006, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year
Ending December 31, 2006.
, 2007a, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the
Year Ending December 31, 2007.
, 2007b, Research and Planning, Labor Market Information – Quarterly
Census of Employment and Earnings, 2003 through 2006. Available
from website on the Internet as of November 2007:
.
, 2008a, Labor Market Information Fourth Quarter 2007. Available from website on the Internet as of March 2008: . , 2008b, Research and Planning Division. Wyoming Labor Force Trends, Vol. 45, No. 3. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2008: . Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD), 2006, Powder River Basin Coal Mine Permitting Guidance 6-28 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited Memorandum. February 2006. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: . , 2007, Natural Events Action Plan For The Coal Mines Of The Powder River Basin Of Campbell & Converse Counties, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: . , 2008, Wyoming Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan 2008. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2009: . , 2009, Wyoming Visibility Monitoring Network Website, as of February 2009: . Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Industrial Siting Division (WDEQ/ISD), 2007, Industrial Siting News: Basin Electric Awarded Permit. Available from website on the Internet as of March 2007: . Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD), 1996, Guideline No. 1, Soils and Overburden. November 1984, Rules Update August 1994, Selenium Update November 1996. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division (WDEQ/WQD), 2009, Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapters 1 and 8 (Wyoming Surface Water Standards, approved 4/25/2007, and Groundwater Quality Standards, approved 4/26/2005, respectively). Surface Water Classification List, June 21, 2001. Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: . Wyoming Department of Revenue, 2004, Excise Tax Division, Sales and Use Tax Distribution Reports for Fiscal Year 2004. Available from website on the Internet as of March 2005: . , 2006, Annual Report 2006, Available from website on the Internet: . Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) and Foundation Coal Company, 2008, Background information and other materials presented at a public open house and information meeting on the proposed location of U.S. Highway 14/16 north of Gillette. Available from website on the Internet as of May 2008: Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 6-29

6.0 References Cited . Wyoming GIS Coordination Structure (WGCS), 2002, Color Infrared Aerial Photos – 2002 Digital Orthophoto Quads, Wyoming Geographic Information Advisory Council (WGIAC), Wyoming Spatial Data Clearinghouse. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2008: . Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), 2003, Wyoming Greater SageGrouse Conservation Plan, June 24, 2003. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: . , 2007a, 2007 Big Game Job Completion Reports. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: . , 2007b, 2006 Greater Sage-Grouse Job Completion Report, June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: . Wyoming GIS Coordinate Structure (WGCS), 2002, 2002 Color Infrared Aerial Photography - Digital Orthophoto Quads, Wyoming Geographic Information Advisory Council (WGIAC), Wyoming Spatial Data Clearinghouse. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2008: . Wyoming Housing Database Partnership, 2007, The 2007 Wyoming Housing Needs Forecast – Final Report. Available from website on the Internet: . Wyoming Mining Association (WMA), 2006, Wyoming Bentonite Page from website on the Internet: . Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), 2004, Wyoming Statistics. Available from website on the Internet: . , 2005, Rules and Statues. Available from website on the Internet as of March 2005: . , 2007a, Oil and gas well information downloaded from website on the Internet as of December 2007: . 6-30 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

6.0 References Cited , 2007b, Presentation by Don Likwartz, Oil and Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Natural Gas Fair, September 20, 2007. Available from website on the Internet: . , 2008a, Oil and gas well information downloaded from website on the Internet as of May 2008: . , 2008b, Rules and Statutes, Chapter 3, Operational Rules, Drilling Rules. Effective 4/28/2008. 46pp. Available from website on the Internet as of September 2008: . Wyoming School Facilities Commission (WSFC), 2005, Five Year Plan Information. Available from website on the Internet: . , 2007, 2007-2008 Biennium Budget Request and Approved Five Year Plans. Available from website on the Internet: . Wyoming State BLM Office-Reservoir Management Group (WSO-RMG), 2006, Review of Coalbed Natural Gas Resources, Production, and Economics, Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Completed May 2006. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 2007, Wyoming Abstract & Mill Levy Report, 2006. Available from website on the Internet: . Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS), 2002, Wyoming Geo-notes, No. 73, April 2002, 44 pp. , 2003, Wyoming Geo-Notes No. 78, November 2003, 47 pp. , 2004, Digital Industrial Minerals and Construction Materials Map of Wyoming, by R.E. Harris. WSGS Map Series MS-47. , 2008, Uranium production in Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of September 2008:. WWC Engineering (WWC), 2009, EIS Technical Support Document for CO2e Emissions Calculations. Using known CO2e emission source values to estimate the unknown source values and the combined CO2e emission source values expected at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines if the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are added to the mines’ operations. Available on request from BLM Casper Field Office. Prepared March 2009. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 6-31

7.0 Glossary 7.0 GLOSSARY

aboriginal - Related to early or primitive cultures in a region. Being the first or earliest known of its kind in a specific region. ad valorem tax - A tax paid as a percentage of the assessed value of property. adverse impact - An apparent direct or indirect detrimental effect. aliquot - An exact portion. alkalinity - The degree to which the pH of a substance is greater than 7. alluvial deposit - Deposits of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and/or other materials carried by moving surface water, such as streams, and deposited at points of weak water flow; alluvium. alluvial valley floor (AVF) - An area of unconsolidated stream-laid deposits holding streams with water availability sufficient for subirrigation or flood irrigation agricultural activities (see 30 CFR 701.5). alluvium - Sorted or semi-sorted sediment consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel, or other unconsolidated rock material deposited in comparatively recent geologic time by a stream or other body of running water in the bed of that stream or on its flood plain or delta. alternative - In terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, one of several substitute or alternate proposals that a federal agency is considering in an environmental analysis. ambient - Surrounding conditions (or environment) in a given place and time. ANFO – An explosive blasting agent commonly used in open cut mining to aid in the removal of consolidated overburden, composed of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. annual precipitation - The quantity of water that falls yearly in the form of rain, hail, sleet, and snow. anthropogenic - A direct result of human activities or are the result of natural processes that have been affected by human activities (IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA 1997). approximate original contour - Post-mining surface configuration achieved by backfilling and grading of mined-out areas so that the reclaimed land surface resembles the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining (see 30 CFR 701.5). Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 7-1

7.0 Glossary aquatic - Living or growing in or on the water. aquifer - A layer of permeable rock, sand, or gravel that stores and transmits water in sufficient quantities for a specific use. In hydrology, a rock layer or sequence that contains water and releases it in appreciable amounts. The rocks contain water-filled pores that, when connected, allow water to flow through their matrix. A confined aquifer is overlain by a rock layer that does not transmit water in any appreciable amount or that is impermeable. There probably are few truly confined aquifers. In an unconfined aquifer the upper surface (water table) is open to the atmosphere through permeable overlying material. An aquifer also may be called a water-bearing stratum, lens, or zone. aquitard - A confining bed that retards but does not totally prevent the flow of water to or from an adjacent aquifer; a leaky confining bed. area source – A plant site that does not emit any single HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants) at a rate of 10 tons or greater per year, or any combination of HAPs at a rate of 25 tons or greater per year. ash - The residual non-combustible matter in coal that comes from included silt, clay, silica, or other substances. The lower the ash content, the better the quality of the coal. avian - Of, relating to, or derived from birds. backfill - The operation of refilling an excavation. Also, the material placed in an excavation when it is refilled. baseline - Conditions, including trends, existing in the human environment before a proposed action is begun; a benchmark state from which the environmental consequences of an action are forecast; the no-action alternative. beneficial impact - An apparent direct or indirect advantageous effect. bentonite – An absorptive and colloidal clay used especially as a sealing agent or suspending agent formed by the decomposition of volcanic ash which has the ability to absorb large amounts of water and to expand to several times its normal volume; used in adhesives, cements and ceramic fillers. biogenic – Pertaining to a deposit resulting from the physiological activities of organisms. bonus - That value in excess of the rentals and royalties that is paid to the United States as part of the consideration for receiving a lease for publicly owned minerals [see 43 CFR 3400.0-5(c)].

7-2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

7.0 Glossary buffer zone - An area between two different land uses that is intended to resist, absorb, or otherwise preclude development or intrusion between the two use areas. bypass coal - An isolated part of a coal deposit that is not leased and that can only be economically mined in an environmentally sound manner as a part of continued mining by an existing adjacent operation [see 43 CFR 3400.0.5(d)]. carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) – Measures for describing how much global warming a given type and amount of greenhouse gas may cause, using the functionally equivalent amount or concentration of carbon dioxide as the reference. CO2e is expressed as parts per million by volume. carbon sink - A natural or manmade reservoir that accumulates and stores some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period. cast blasting – Commonly used in open cut mining to throw the overburden some distance in a controlled direction using a blasting agent (ANFO). climate change - A change in long-term weather patterns, i.e. warmer or colder temperatures or an increase or decrease in annual amounts of rainfall or snowfall. clinker (scoria) - Baked and fused rock resulting from in-place burning of coal deposits. coal bed natural gas (CBNG) - Natural gas (methane) that is generated during the coal-forming process. colluvium - Rock fragments, sand, or soil material that accumulates at the base of slopes; slope wash. confluence - The point at which two or more streams meet. contiguous - Lands or legal subdivisions having a common boundary, lands having only a common corner are not contiguous. cooperating agency - An agency which has jurisdiction by law in an action being analyzed in an environmental document and who is requested to participate in the NEPA process by the agency that is responsible for preparing the environmental document [see 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5]. crucial wildlife habitat - Parts of the habitat necessary to sustain a wildlife population during periods of their life cycle. It may be a limiting factor on the population, such as nesting habitat or winter habitat. cultural resources - The remains of human activity, occupation, or endeavor reflected in districts, sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 7-3

7.0 Glossary works of art, architecture, and natural features that reveal the nature of historic and prehistoric human events. These resources consist of (1) physical remains, (2) areas where significant human events occurred, and (3) the environment immediately surrounding the resource. cumulative impact - The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). decibel - A unit of sound measurement. loudness for every increase of 10 decibels. In general, a sound doubles in

deciview - A general measure of view impairment (13 deciview equals a view of approximately 60 miles) caused by pollution. A 10 percent change in extinction corresponds to 1.0 dv. desorb – To remove by the reverse of adsorption or absorption. dip - The angle at which a rock layer is inclined from the horizontal. direct (or primary) impact - An impact caused by an action that occurs at the same time and place as the action (see 40 CFR 1508.8). discharge - Any of the ways that ground water comes out of the surface, including through springs, creeks, or being pumped from a well. dissected upland - An upland or high area in which a large part of the original surface has been deeply cut into by surface water flow. dragline - A type of excavating crane that casts a rope- or cable-hung bucket a considerable distance, collects the dug material by pulling the bucket toward itself on the ground with a second rope or cable, elevates the bucket, and dumps the material on a backfill bank or pile. eolian – Deposits which are due to the transporting action of the wind. ephemeral stream - A stream that flows occasionally because of surface runoff, and is not influenced by permanent ground water. erosion - The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice or other geologic agents. evapotranspiration - The sum total of water lost from the land by evaporation and plant transpiration. 7-4 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

7.0 Glossary excavation (archeological) - The scientifically controlled recovery of subsurface materials and information from a cultural site. Recovery techniques are relevant to research problems and are designed to produce maximum knowledge about the site's use, its relation to other sites and the natural environment, and its significance in the maintenance of the cultural system. fair market value - The amount in cash, or in terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which in all probability a coal deposit would be sold or leased by a knowledgeable owner willing but not obligated to sell or lease to a knowledgeable purchaser who desires but is not obligated to buy or lease. floodplain - The relatively flat area or lowland adjoining a body of flowing water, such as a river or stream, that is covered with water when the river or stream overflows its banks. forage - Vegetation used for food by wildlife, particularly big game wildlife, and domestic livestock. formation (geologic) - A rock body distinguishable from other rock bodies and useful for mapping or description. Formations may be combined into groups or subdivided into members. fossil - The remains or traces of an organism or assemblage of organisms that have been preserved by natural processes in the earth's crust. Many minerals that may be of biologic origin are not considered to be fossils (e.g. oil, gas, asphalt, limestone). geometric mean - The nth root of the product of the values of n positive numbers. global warming - An average increase in the Earth's temperature, which in turn causes changes in climate. greenhouse effect - A theory that certain gases (so-called greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere impede the release of radiation from the earth, trapping heat in the atmosphere like glass over a greenhouse. groundwater - Subsurface water that fills available openings in rock or soil materials to the extent that they are considered water saturated. habitat - A place where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and grows. habituation - The process of becoming accustomed to, or used to, something; acclimation.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

7-5

7.0 Glossary hazardous materials - Substance which, because of its potential for corrosivity, toxicity, ignitability, chemical reactivity, or explosiveness, may cause injury to persons or damage to property. hazardous waste - Those materials defined in Section 101 (14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, and listed in 40 CFR § 261. A used or discarded material that can damage the environment and be harmful to health. Hazardous wastes include heavy metals and toxic chemicals used in industrial products and processes as well as infectious medical wastes and radioactive materials such as spent nuclear fuel rods. heterogenous - Made up of dissimilar constituents. human environment - The natural and physical environment in which humans preside or have an impact and the relationship of people with the surrounding environment (see 30 CFR 1508.14). hydraulic conductivity - The capacity of a medium to transmit water; permeability coefficient. Expressed as the volume of water at the prevailing temperature that will move in unit time under a unit hydraulic gradient through a unit area. Units include gallons per day per square foot, centimeters per second. hydraulic - Pertaining to fluid in motion, or to movement or action caused by water. hydric soil - A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation. Hydric soils that occur in areas having positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology are wetland soils. hydrocarbon - Any organic compound, gaseous, liquid, or solid, consisting solely of carbon and hydrogen. hydrology - The science dealing with the behavior of water as it occurs in the atmosphere, on the surface of the ground, and underground. hydrophytic vegetation - The plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. When hydrophytic vegetation comprises a community where indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology also occur, the area has wetland vegetation. impermeable - Not capable of transmitting fluids or gasses in appreciable quantities. 7-6 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

7.0 Glossary incised - Having a margin that is deeply and sharply notched. indirect (or secondary) impact - A reasonably foreseeable impact resulting from an action but occurring later in time than or removed in distance from that action (see 40 CFR 1508.8). in-place coal reserves - The estimated volume of all of the coal reserves in a lease without considering economic or technological factors that might restrict mining. in-situ leach mining (ISL) - Removal of the valuable components of a mineral deposit through chemical leaching without physical extraction of the rock. (ISL), also called in-situ recovery (ISR) or solution mining, is a process of recovering minerals such as copper and uranium through boreholes drilled into the deposit. The process initially involves drilling of holes into the ore deposit. Explosive or hydraulic fracturing may be used to create open pathways in the deposit for solution to penetrate. Leaching solution is pumped into the deposit where it makes contact with the ore. The solution bearing the dissolved ore content is then pumped to the surface and processed. This process allows the extraction of metals and salts from an ore body without the need for conventional mining involving drill-and-blast, open-cut or underground mining. interbedded - Layers of one type of rock, typically thin, that are laid between or that alternate with layers of another type of rock. interburden - A layer of sedimentary rock that separates two mineable coal beds. interdisciplinary - Characterized by participation or cooperation among two or more disciplines or fields of study. intermittent stream - A stream that does not flow year-round but has some association with ground water for surface or subsurface flow. laminated - Consolidated or unconsolidated sediment that is characterized by thin (less than 1 cm thick) layers. land and resource management plan (LRMP) - A land use plan that directs the use and allocation of U.S. Forest Service lands and resources. lead agency - The agency or agencies preparing or having taken primary responsibility for preparing an environmental document (see 40 CFR 1508.16). lease (mineral) - A legal document executed between a mineral owner or lessor and another party or lessee which grants the lessee the right to extract minerals from the tract of land for which the lease has been obtained [see 43 CFR 3400.0-5(r)]. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 7-7

7.0 Glossary lek - A traditional breeding area for grouse species where territorial males display and establish dominance. lenticular - Term describing a body of rock or earth that thins out in all directions from the center like a double convex optical lens. limb (geologic) - One side of a fold (syncline or anticline). limestone - A sedimentary rock consisting chiefly of calcium carbonate. lineament - A linear topographic feature of regional extent that is believed to reflect crustal structure. loadout facilities - The mine facilities used to load the mined coal for transport out of the mine. loam - A rich, permeable soil composed of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, and organic matter. maintenance tract - A federal coal tract that would continue or extend the life of an existing coal mine. major federal action - An action with effects that may be major and which is potentially subject to federal control and responsibility (see 40 CFR 1508.18). major sources – Those sources that emit more than 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons of all hazardous air pollutants combined. The determination of major is based on all sources of hazardous air pollutants at the site, and not just the equipment affected by the MACT standard. maximum economic recovery - The requirement that, based on standard industry operating practices, all profitable portions of a leased federal coal deposit must be mined. MER determinations will consider existing proven technology; commercially available and economically feasible equipment; coal quality, quantity, and marketability; safety, exploration, operating, processing, and transportation costs; and compliance with applicable laws and regulations [see 43 CFR 3480.0-5(a)(24)]. meteorological - Related to the science dealing with the atmosphere and its phenomena, especially as relating to weather. methane - A colorless, odorless, and flammable gaseous hydrocarbon; the It is the product of simplest hydrocarbon; chemical formula = CH4. decomposition of organic matter and of the carbonization of coal, is used as a fuel and as a starting material in chemical synthesis, and is the simplest of the alkanes, constituent of natural gas and is also found associated with crude oil and coal. 7-8 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

7.0 Glossary mineable coal - Coal that can be economically mined using present day mining technology. mineral rights - The rights of one who owns the mineral estate (subsurface). mining permit - A permit to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations issued by the state regulatory authority pursuant to a state program or by the Secretary pursuant to a federal program (see 30 CFR 701.5). mitigation - An action to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, replace, or rectify the impact of a management practice. mudstone - A hardened sedimentary rock consisting of clay. It is similar to shale but lacks distinct layers. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) - A list of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology and culture maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. Expanded as authorized by Section 2(b) of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 462) and Section 101(a)(1) (A) of the National Historic Preservation Act. native species – Native species refer to wild animals and plants that have evolved in a particular region and environment. Native species are the most adapted to the area and are more disease and drought resistant than non native species. Native plants provide the greatest benefits to wildlife because the native wildlife evolved with native plants. Often the food provided by native plants is the most nutritious to our native wildlife. natural gas - Combustible gases (such as hydrocarbons) or mixtures of combustible gases and non-combustible gases (such as helium) that are in a gaseous phase at atmospheric conditions of temperature and pressure. NEPA process - All measures necessary for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (see 40 CFR 1508.21). no action alternative - An alternative where no activity would occur. The development of a no action alternative is required by regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1502.14). The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for estimating the effects of other alternatives. outcrop - A rock formation that appears at or near the surface; the intersection of a rock formation with the surface. overburden - Overburden is the term used in mining to describe material that lies above (excluding topsoil) the area of economic interest, e.g., the rock and soil that lies above the coal seam. Also known as 'waste'. Overburden is distinct from tailings, the material that remains after economically valuable components have been extracted from the generally finely milled ore. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 7-9

7.0 Glossary Overburden is removed during surface mining, but is typically not contaminated with toxic components and may be used to restore a mining site to a semblance of its appearance before mining began. Overburden may also be used as a term to describe all soil and ancillary material above the bedrock horizon in a given area. oxides of nitrogen (NOX) - The generic term for a group of highly reactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. ozone - A gas that is created by a chemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. paleontological resource - A site containing evidence of plant or non-human animal life of past geological periods, usually in the form of fossil remains. peak discharge or flow - The highest discharge of water recorded over a specified period of time at a given stream location; also called maximum flow. Often thought of in terms of spring snowmelt, summer, fall or winter rainy season flows. perennial species (vegetation) - Vegetation that lives over from season to season. perennial stream - A stream or part of a stream that flows continuously during the calendar year as a result of groundwater discharge or surface runoff. permeability - The ability of rock or soil to transmit a fluid. permit application package - A proposal to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations on federal lands, including an application for a permit, permit revision, or permit renewal and all the information required by SMCRA, the applicable state program, any applicable cooperative agreement, and all other applicable laws and regulations including, with respect to federal leased coal, the Mineral Leasing Act and its implementing regulations. permit area - The area of land, indicated on the approved map submitted by the operator with his or her application, required to be covered by the operator’s performance bond under the regulations at 30 CFR Part 800 and which shall include the area of land upon which the operator proposes to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations under the permit, including all disturbed areas (see 30 CFR 701.5). physiography - Physical geography. playa - The sandy, salty, or mud-caked flat floor of a basin with interior drainage, usually occupied by a shallow ephemeral lake during or after rain or snow storms. 7-10 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

7.0 Glossary point source (pollution) - A point at which pollution is added to a system, either instantaneously or continuously. An example is a smokestack. pore volume - The amount of fluid necessary to fill the void space in an unsaturated porus medium (i.e., mine backfill). porosity - The percentage of the bulk volume of rock, sediment or soil that is not occupied by sediment or soil particles; the void space in rock or sediment. It may be isolated or connected. postmining topography - The relief and contour of the land that remains after mining has been completed. potentiometric surface - The surface that coincides with the static level of water in an aquifer. The surface is represented by the levels to which water from a given aquifer will rise under its full hydraulic head. predator - An animal that obtains food by killing and consuming other animals. prime or unique farmland - Those lands which are defined by the Secretary of Agriculture in 7 CFR part 657 (Federal Register Vol. 4 No. 21) and which have historically been used for cropland (see 30 CFR 701.5). proposed action - In terms of National Environmental Policy Act, the project, activity, or action that a federal agency proposes to implement or undertake and which is the subject of an environmental analysis. qualified surface owner - The natural person or persons (or corporation, the majority stock of which is held by a person or persons otherwise meeting the requirements of this section) who: (1) hold legal or equitable title to the surface of split estate lands; (2) have their principal place of residence on the land, or personally conduct farming or ranching operations upon a farm or ranch unit to be affected by surface mining operations; or received directly a significant portion of their income, if any, from such farming and ranching operations; and (3) have met the conditions of (1) and (2) above for a period of at least three years, except for persons who gave written consent less than three years after they met the requirements of both (1) and (2) above [see 43 CFR 3400.0-5(gg)]. raptor - Bird of prey, such as an eagle, falcon, hawk, owl, or vulture. recharge - The processes by which groundwater is absorbed into a zone of saturation.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

7-11

7.0 Glossary reclamation - Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to make it acceptable for designated uses. This normally involves regrading, replacement of topsoil, revegetation (with native plant life) and other work necessary to restore the disturbed area for post-mining use. In general where viable an attempt to put the terrain back to the pre-mining contours is also of paramount importance. record of decision - A document separate from, but associated with, an environmental impact statement that publicly and officially discloses the responsible official's decision on the proposed action (see 40 CFR 1505.2). recoverable coal - The amount of coal that (is economically feasible to recover) can actually be recovered for sale from the demonstrated coal reserve base. rental payment - Annual payment from a lessee to a lessor to maintain the lessee’s mineral lease rights. resource management plan - A land use plan, as prescribed by FLPMA, that directs the use and allocation of public lands and resources managed by BLM. Prior to selection of the RMP, different alternative management plans are compared and evaluated in an environmental impact statement (EIS) to determine which plan will best direct the management of the public lands and resources. revegetation - The reestablishment and development of self-sustaining plant cover following land disturbance. This may occur through natural processes, or the natural processes may be enhanced by human assistance through seedbed preparation, reseeding, and mulching. right of way - The right to pass over property owned by another. The strip of land over which facilities such as roadways, railroads, or power lines are built. riparian - The area adjacent to rivers and streams that lies between the stream channel and upland terrain and that supports specific vegetation influenced by perennial and/or intermittent water. royalty (mineral) - A share of production that is free of the expense of production. It is generally paid by a lessee to a lessor of a mineral lease as part of the terms of the lease. runoff - That portion of rainfall that is not absorbed; it may be used by vegetation, lost by evaporation, or it may find its way into streams as surface flow. salinity - Refers to the solids, such as sodium chloride (table salt) and alkali metals, that are dissolved in water. Often in non-saltwater areas, total dissolved solids is used as an equivalent term.

7-12

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

7.0 Glossary sandstone - A common sedimentary rock primarily composed of sand grains, mainly quartz, that are cemented together by other mineral material. scoping - A public informational process required by the National Environmental Policy Act to determine private and public concerns, scope of issues, and/or questions regarding a proposed action to be evaluated in an environmental impact analysis. scoria (clinker) - Baked and fused rock resulting from in-place burning of coal deposits. sedimentation pond - An impoundment used to remove solids from water in order to meet water quality standards or effluent limitations before the water leaves the permit area (see 30 CFR 701.5). semi-arid - A climate or region characterized by little yearly rainfall and by the growth of a number of short grasses and shrubs. severance tax - A tax on the removal of minerals from the ground. shale - A very fine-grained clastic rock or sediment consisting predominately of clay-sized particles that is laminated; lithified, layered mud. significant impact - A qualitative term used to describe the anticipated importance of impacts to the human and or the environment as a result of an action(s) either direct or indirect. siltstone - A fine-grained clastic rock consisting predominately of silt-sized particles. socioeconomics - The social and economic situation that might be affected by a proposed action. soil survey - The systematic examination, description, classification, and mapping of soils in an area, usually a county. Soil surveys are classified according to the level of detail of field examination. Order I is the most detailed and Order V is the least detailed. spontaneous combustion – The heating and slow combustion (self-ignition) of coal and coaly material initiated through chemical action (as oxidation (absorption of oxygen)). stipulations - Requirements that are part of the terms of a mineral lease. Some stipulations are standard on all Federal leases. Other stipulations may be applied to specific leases at the discretion of the surface management agency to protect valuable surface resources or uses existing on those leases.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

7-13

7.0 Glossary storage coefficient - The volume of water that can be released from storage per unit surface area of a saturated confined aquifer, per unit decline in the component of hydraulic head normal to the surface. It is calculated by taking the product of the specific storage and the aquifer thickness. stratigraphic - Of, relating to, or determined by stratigraphy, which is the branch of geology dealing with the study of the nature, distribution, and relations of layered rocks in the earth’s crust. stripping ratio - The unit amount of overburden that must be removed to gain access to a similar unit amount of coal. subirrigation - In alluvial valley floors, the supplying of water to plants from underneath, or from a semi-saturated or saturated subsurface zone where water is available for use by vegetation (see 30 CFR 701.5). subbituminous - A lower rank of coal (35-45 percent carbon) with a heating value between that of bituminous and lignite, usually 8,300-11,500 Btu per pound. Sub bituminous coal contains a high percentage of volatile matter and moisture. surface disturbance - Any disturbance by direct or indirect actions that alters the soil surface. surface rights - Rights to the surface of the land, does not include rights to oil, gas, or other subsurface minerals or subsurface rights. suspended solids - The very fine soil particles that remain in suspension in water for a considerable period of time without contact with the stream or river channel bottom. tectonic fracture - Fractures caused by deformation of the earth’s crust. threatened and endangered species - These species of plants or animals classified as threatened or endangered pursuant to Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. Any species which is in danger of extinction, or is likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Category 1 - Substantial biological information on file to support the appropriateness of proposing to list as endangered or threatened. Category 2 - Current information indicates that proposing to list as endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, but substantial biological information is not on file to support an immediate ruling (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). topography - Physical shape of the ground surface; the configuration of land surface including its relief, elevation, and the position of its natural and manmade features. 7-14 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

7.0 Glossary topsoil - The upper portion of a soil, usually dark colored and rich in organic material. It is more or less equivalent to the upper portion of an A horizon in an ABC soil. total dissolved solids (TDS) - The total quantity in milligrams per liter of dissolved materials in water. transmissivity - The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit width of an aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient. Equals the hydraulic conductivity multiplied by the aquifer thickness. Values are given in units of gallons per day per foot. transpiration - The discharge of water vapor by plants. truck & shovel - A mining method used to remove overburden and coal in a strip mining operation. Truck and shovel operations use large bucketequipped digging and loading machines (shovels) and large dump trucks to remove overburden instead of using a dragline for overburden removal. unconfined aquifer - An aquifer where the water table is exposed to the atmosphere through openings in the overlying materials. unsuitability criteria - The 20 criteria described in 43 CFR 3461, the application of which results in an assessment of federal coal lands as suitable or unsuitable for surface coal mining. uranium - A very hard, heavy, metallic element that is crucial to development of atomic energy. vegetation type - A kind of existing plant community with distinguishable characteristics described in terms of the present vegetation that dominates an area. vertebrate fossils - The fossilized remains of animals that possessed a backbone; examples are fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals. vesicular - Rock containing many small cavities that were formed by the expansion of a bubble of gas or steam during the solidification of the rock. visual resources - The physical features of a landscape that can be seen (e.g., land, water, vegetation, structures, and other features). visual resource management - The systematic means to identify visual values, establish objectives which provide the standards for managing those values, and evaluate the visual impacts of proposed projects to ensure that objectives are met. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 7-15

7.0 Glossary volatile matter - In coal, those substances, other than moisture, that are given off as gas or vapor during combustion. volatile organic compound - Organic chemical compounds that have high enough vapor pressures under normal conditions to significantly vaporize and enter the atmosphere. waterfowl - A bird that frequents water, especially a swimming bird such as a duck or swan. wetlands - Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient, under normal circumstances, to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands include marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes, river overflows, mud flats, wet meadows, seeps, and springs [see 33 CFR 328.3(a)(7)(b)]. wild and scenic river - Rivers or sections of rivers designated by Congressional actions under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as wild, scenic, or recreational by an act of the Legislature of the state or states through which they flow. Wild and scenic rivers may be classified and administered under one or more of the following categories: wild river areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. scenic river areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. recreational river areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. wilderness - An area of undeveloped Federal land designated wilderness by Congress, retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions and that (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable, (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, (3) has at least 5,000 acres or is of sufficient size to make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and (4) also may contain features that are of ecological, geological, scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. These characteristics were identified by Congress in the Wilderness Act of 1964.

7-16

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

8.0 Index 8.0 INDEX

agriculture ......................................... ES11, ES-45, 1-5, 2-16, 2-71, 2-93, 2-99, 3-2, 3-32, 3-127, 3-142, 3-143, 3-144, 3-145, 3-149, 3-251, 4-62, 4-65, 4-82, 4-84, 4-110, 5-1, 5-9, D-7, G1-5, G7-12, H-1, H-57, H-99, H-140, H-182, H-223, H-244 alluvial valley floor or AVF .................. ES-27, ES-45, ES-55, 1-7, 2-71, 2-72, 2-93, 2-99, 3-2, 3-101, 3-142, 3-143, 3-144, 3-145, 3-146, 3-147, 3-148, 3-149, 3-150, 3-158, 4-4, 4-65, 4-66, 5-5, 5-7, B-3, B-6, B-9, B-12, B-15, B-18, G7-8 blasting .............................................. ES-12, ES-30, ES-35, ES-53, ES-54, 1-11, 1-12, 1-14, 1-24, 2-13, 2-40, 2-48, 2-51, 2-55, 2-71, 2-92, 3-36, 3-46, 3-47, 3-50, 3-57, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 3-81, 3-84, 3-265, 3-266, 3-267, 3-306, 4-36, 4-57, 4-128, 5-6, F-8, F-17, F-18 bonus payment or bonus bid payment ....................................... ES-15, ES-16, ES-17, ES-18, ES-19, ES-20, ES-21, ES-22, ES-23, ES-24, ES-25, ES-26, ES-55, 2-78, 2-79, 2-80, 2-81, 2-82, 2-83, 2-84, 2-85, 2-86, 2-87, 2-88, 2-89, 3-282, 3-283, 3-285 coal bed natural gas or CBNG ............ ES-27, ES-29, ES-30, ES-31, ES-36, ES-44, ES-57, 1-22, 1-24, 2-8, 2-67, 2-68, 2-91, 2-99, 2-100, 3-23, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-36, 3-64, 3-95, 3-96, 3-98, 3-99, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-104, 3-108, 3-110, 3-112, 3-113, 3-116, 3-126, 3-127, 3-132, 3-133, 3-134, 3-135, 3-137, 3-138, 3-139, 3-140, 3-141, 3-153, 3-154, 3-155, 3-156, 3-157, 3-169, 3-175, 3-177, 3-203, 3-208, 3-212, 3-214, 3-215, 3-216, 3-217, 3-228, 3-235, 3-236, 3-237, 3-238, 3-240, 3-241, 3-243, 3-246, 3-247, 3-260, 3-263, 3-267, 3-302, 3-303, 3-308, 4-1, 4-17, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-42, 4-46, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-53, 4-56, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 8-1

8.0 Index coal bed natural gas or CBNG ............ 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, (Continued) 4-67, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-80, 4-81, 4-85, 4-90, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-96, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-108, 4-122, 4-123, 5-4, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-10, E-11, E-12, E-13, E-14, E-15, E-16, F-14, F-16, G1-11, G1-14, G1-16, G2-10, G2-11, G2-13, G2-15, G3-12, G3-15, G3-17, G4-10, G4-11, G4-14, G4-15, G4-16, G5-12, G5-13, G5-16, G5-18, G6-11, G6-12, G5-15, G6-17, G7-2, G7-3, G7-8, G7-9, H-43, H-45, H-49, H-72, H-84, H-85, H-87, H-91, H-113, H-126, H-128, H-129, H-132, H-155, H-167, H-168, H-170, H-195, H-207, H-208, H-210, H-211, H-234, H-235 Environmental Protection Agency or EPA.................................................... ES-10, ES-30, ES-35, ES-57, 1-25, 2-70, 2-75, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-44, 3-45, 3-47, 3-57, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-77, 3-78, 3-82, 3-83, 3-150, 3-151, 3-263, 3-265, 3-304, 4-46, 4-110, 4-112, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 5-2, 5-9, F-1, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-9, F-10, F-12, F-15, F-16, F-17, F-18 fair market value ................................
ES-10, 1-4, 1-25, 2-13, 2-19, 2-21, 2-26, 2-28, 2-33, 2-37, 2-40, 2-46, 2-50, 2-57, 2-60, 2-64, 2-67, 3-247, 5-2 fugitive dust ....................................... ES-30, ES-31, 2-15, 2-42, 3-36, 3-44,
3-45, 3-47, 3-54, 3-57, 4-40, 4-89, F-8, F-11, F-17 grazing ............................................... ES-51, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-14, 1-24, 2-72, 2-73, 2-94, 2-95, 3-13, 3-168, 3-169, 3-170, 3-173, 3-180, 3-221, 3-245, 3-246, 3-248, 3-249, 3-251, 3-525, 3-253, 3-302, 4-7, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 5-5, G1-13, G1-17, G1-18, G2-12, G2-17, G2-18, G3-14, G3-19, G3-20, G4-13, G4-14, G4-18, G4-19, G5-15, G5-16, G5-20, G5-21, G6-14, 8-2 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

8.0 Index grazing ............................................... G6-15, G6-19, G6-20, G7-2, H-50, (Continued) H-92, H-133, H-175, H-215, H-235 human health .................................... ES-35, ES-51, 1-24, 2-91, 2-92, 3-38,
3-247, 3-300, 3-303, 3-304, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-127, F-18 hunting .............................................. ES-52, ES-62, 3-198, 3-242, 3-244, 3-245, 3-247, 3-249, 4-82, 4-84, 4-85, H-66, H-69, H-110, H-111, H-150, H-152, H-190, H-192, H-193, H-212, H-232, H-235 3-243, 3-303, H-108, H-153, H-229,

migratory birds................................... ES-27, 2-95, 3-2, 3-200, 3-209,
3-219, G1-7, G2-6, G2-7, G3-8, G4-7, G5-7, G5-8, G6-7 mitigation........................................... ES-48, ES-52, ES-55, ES-56, 1-19, 2-14, 2-16, 2-23, 2-30, 2-33, 2-41, 2-43, 2-52, 2-54, 2-62, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 2-72, 2-73, 2-74, 3-1, 3-15, 3-22, 3-31, 3-34, 3-45, 3-60, 3-64, 3-69, 3-74, 3-75, 3-82, 3-85, 3-116, 3-132, 3-141, 3-149, 3-151, 3-158, 3-159, 3-166, 3-172, 3-173, 3-192, 3-195, 3-196, 3-212, 3-214, 3-217, 3-218, 3-220, 3-248, 3-249, 3-253, 3-255, 3-257, 3-259, 3-261, 3-262, 3-268, 3-277, 3-279, 3-280, 3-281, 3-301, 3-304, 4-38, 4-42, 4-48, 4-58, 4-64, 4-69, 4-88, 4-113, D-1, D-2, D-7, D-8, F-8, F-9, F-10, G1-6, G1-8, G1-15, G2-6, G2-7, G2-15, G3-8, G3-9, G3-17, G4-6, G4-8, G4-16, G5-7, G5-9, G5-18, G6-6, G6-8, G6-9, G6-17, G7-1, G7-2, G7-4, H-43, H-51, H-53, H-55, H-64, H-67, H-85, H-93, H-94, H-95, H-97, H-105, H-109, H-126, H-134, H-136, H-138, H-147, H-150, H-168, H-176, H-177, H-178, H-180, H-187, H-190, H-208, H-216, H-218, H-220, H-221, H-227, H-230, H-239, H-240 MLA mining plan ................................ 1-18, 1-19, 2-68, 3-31, A-1, G7-1
monitoring plan.................................. 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 2-72, 2-73, 2-74, 3-22, 3-117 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 8-3

8.0 Index nitrogen oxides or NOx ........................
ES-31, ES-35, 1-24, 2-92, 3-36, 3-64, 3-65, 3-67, 3-84, 3-304, 4-123, F-8, F-14, F-17 nitrogen dioxide or NO2 ......................
2-71, 2-98, 3-36, 3-38, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 3-77, 3-82, 3-304, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-48, 6-14, 6-22, 6-24, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-8, F-9, F-14, F-17, F-18 PM10 ...................................................
ES-30, ES-31, ES-35, ES-58, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-44, 3-45, 3-47, 3-50, 3-54, 3-57, 3-60, 3-63, 3-64, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-73, 3-304, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-46, 4-48, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-7, F-8, F-9, F-10, F-12, F-14, F-15, F-16 power plant(s)..................................... ES-31, 1-17, 1-24, 2-68, 2-92, 3-36,
3-38, 3-70, 3-71, 3-73, 3-97, 3-277, 3-305, 4-8, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-20, 4-25, 4-28, 4-36, 4-38, 4-40, 4-48, 4-56, 4-68, 4-69, 4-71, 4-83, 4-89, 4-90, 4-93, 4-99, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-115, 4-116, 4-118, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, F-8, G7-2, G7-4, H-235 reclamation ........................................
ES-11, ES-28, ES-44, ES-45, ES-46, ES-47, ES-48, ES-49, ES-51, ES-52, ES-53, ES-54, ES-56, ES-60, 1-5, 1-18, 1-19, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 2-22, 2-27, 2-28, 2-40, 2-41, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-61, 2-65, 2-67, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 2-72, 2-73, 2-74, 2-90, 2-93, 2-94, 2-95, 2-96, 2-98, 2-100, 2-101, 3-2, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-13, 3-15, 3-22, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-34, 3-60, 3-74, 3-82, 3-85, 3-97, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-107, 3-111, 3-116, 3-117, 3-128, 3-129, 3-132, 3-141, 3-142, 3-144, 3-145, 3-146, 3-149, 3-158, 3-159, 3-160, 3-162, 3-163, 3-164, 3-165, 3-166, 3-167, 3-169, 3-170, 3-171, 3-172, 3-173, 3-176, 3-177, 3-181, 3-190, 3-195, 3-207, 3-208, 3-210, 3-212, 3-213, 3-214, 3-217, 3-218, 3-220, 3-246, 3-247, 3-248, 8-4 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

8.0 Index reclamation ........................................ 3-249, 3-257, 3-258, 3-261, 3-262,
(Continued) 3-267, 3-277, 3-280, 3-281, 3-302, 3-303, 3-304, 3-308, 4-7, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-22, 4-33, 4-35, 4-36, 4-50, 4-55, 4-57, 4-61, 4-62, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-86, 4-89, 4-119, A-1, B-2, B-3, B-5, B-6, B-8, B-9, B-11, B-12, B-14, B-15, B-17, B-18, D-2, D-3, F-16, F-18, G-3, G-4, G1-6, G1-11, G1-15, G1-18, G2-6, G2-11, G2-15, G2-17, G3-7, G3-13, G3-17, G3-19, G4-6, G4-11, G4-16, G4-18, G5-7, G5-13, G5-18, G5-20, G5-21, G6-6, G6-12, G6-17, G6-19, G7-1, G7-2, G7-3, G7-4, G7-8, G7-9, H-46, H-49, H-50, H-52, H-53, H-54, H-55, H-57, H-62, H-63, H-67, H-70, H-71, H-72, H-87, H-88, H-91, H-92, H-93, H-94, H-95, H-96, H-98, H-104, H-105, H-108, H-111, H-113, H-114, H-129, H-130, H-132, H-133, H-135, H-136, H-137, H-138, H-140, H-145, H-146, H-150, H-153, H-155, H-171, H-174, H-175, H-176, H-177, H-179, H-180, H-181, H-186, H-187, H-190, H-193, H-195, H-196, H-211, H-213, H-215, H-217, H-218, H-220, H-222, H-226, H-227, H-229, H-233, H-234, H-235, H-236, H-238, H-239 reclamation bond ............................... ES-47, ES-52, 2-72, 2-90, 3-10, 3-171, 3-173, 3-248, 3-249, 4-7, 4-32, 4-44, 4-59, 4-60, 4-81, 4-82, 4-84, 4-85, 5-1, 5-5, F-6 recreation........................................... ES-27, ES-51, ES-55, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-14, 2-95, 2-101, 3-2, 3-79, 3-127, 3-128, 3-137, 3-221, 3-248, 3-249, 3-303, 4-32, 4-44, 4-59, 4-60, 4-81, 4-82, 4-84, 4-85, 5-4, B-1, B-4, B-7, B-10, B-13, B-16, F-6

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

8-5

8.0 Index royalty................................................ ES-15, ES-16, ES-17, ES-18, ES-19,
ES-20, ES-21, ES-22, ES-23, ES-24, ES-25, ES-26, ES-55, 1-5, 1-16, 2-67, 2-68, 2-73, 2-78, 2-79, 2-80, 2-81, 2-82, 2-83, 2-84, 2-85, 2-86, 2-87, 2-88, 2-89, 3-31, 3-282, 3-283, 3-301, 4-104, 4-105, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, D-4 sage-grouse ........................................
ES-47, ES-49, ES-52, 1-24, 3-171, 3-174, 3-196, 3-197, 3-198, 3-199, 3-200, 3-201, 3-202, 3-203, 3-204, 3-205, 3-206, 3-207, 3-208, 3-209, 3-210, 3-211, 3-213, 3-214, 3-218, 3-246, 3-247, 3-267, 3-302, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-84, B-3, B-6, B-9, B-12, B-15, B-18, G7-5, H-4, H-6, H-8, H-10, H-12, H-14, H-21, H-23, H-25, H-47, H-58, H-59, H-60, H-61, H-62, H-63, H-64, H-89, H-100, H-101, H-102, H-103, H-104, H-105, H-131, H-142, H-143, H-144, H-145, H-146, H-147, H-172, H-183, H-184, H-185, H-186, H-187, H-195, H-223, H-224, H-225, H-226, H-227, H-234, H-237, H-240, H-241, H-243 T&E species ....................................... ES-55, 3-2, 3-219, 3-308, 5-4, G-1,
G-3, G1-6, G1-7, G1-9, G1-11, G1-19, G1-20, G2-6, G2-8, G2-11, G2-19, G3-8, G3-10, G3-13, G3-21, G4-6, G4-7, G4-9, G4-11, G4-20, G5-7, G5-10, G5-13, G5-22, G6-6, G6-7, G6-10, G6-13, G6-21, G7-5 total dissolved solids or TDS...............
ES-44, 2-92, 3-86, 3-91, 3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-100, 3-101, 3-106, 3-111, 3-115, 4-57, 4-61, 4-77 total suspended solids or TSS.............
3-126 U.S. Forest Service or USDA-FS..........
4-68, 4-82, D-7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or USFWS............................................... ES-45, ES-47, ES-48, ES-49, ES-50, ES-51, 2-95, 3-152, 3-153, 3-154, 3-155, 3-173, 3-176, 3-181, 3-182, 3-191, 3-194, 3-198, 3-200, 3-209, 3-210, 3-211, 3-217, 3-218, 3-220, 4-78, 5-1, B-2, B-5, B-8, B-9, B-11, B-12, B-14, B-15, B-17, B-18, G1-5, 8-6 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

8.0 Index U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or USFWS............................................... G1-6, G1-7, G1-8, G1-11, G1-12, (Continued) G1-13, G1-14, G1-15, G1-16, G1-17, G1-18, G2-5, G2-6, G2-7, G2-9, G2-10, G2-11, G2-12, G2-13, G2-14, G2-15, G2-16, G2-18, G3-7, G3-8, G3-9, G3-11, G3-12, G3-13, G3-14, G3-15, G3-16, G3-17, G3-18, G3-20, G4-6, G4-7, G4-8, G4-11, G4-12, G4-13, G4-15, G4-16, G4-17, G4-18, G4-19, G5-6, G5-7, G5-8, G5-9, G5-13, G5-14, G5-15, G5-16, G5-17, G5-18, G5-19, G5-20, G5-21, G6-6, G6-7, G6-8, G6-9, G6-13, G6-14, G6-15, G6-16, G6-17, G6-18, G6-19, G6-20, G7-2, G7-10, G7-12, G7-13, H-44, H-45, H-46, H-51, H-53, H-55, H-64, H-67, H-86, H-88, H-93, H-94, H-97, H-106, H-109, H-127, H-128, H-130, H-134, H-136, H-138, H-147, H-150, H-169, H-171, H-176, H-177, H-180, H-188, H-190, H-209, H-211, H-216, H-218, H-220, H-221, H-227, H-230, H-240, H-244 wetland(s)........................................... ES-27, ES-45, ES-55, 2-71, 2-72, 2-93, 2-100, 3-2, 3-137, 3-150, 3-151, 3-152, 3-153, 3-154, 3-155, 3-156, 3-157, 3-158, 3-159, 3-160, 3-171, 3-173, 3-214, 3-218, 4-67, 4-70, 4-73, 4-82, 5-4, 5-5, 5-7, A-1, G1-7, G1-11, G1-14, G1-15, G2-6, G2-7, G2-10, G2-11, G2-14, G2-15, G3-8, G3-12, G3-13, G3-16, G3-17, G4-7, G4-11, G4-15, G4-16, G5-7, G5-8, G5-12, G5-13, G5-17, G5-18, G6-7, G6-12, G6-16, G6-17, G7-13, H-32, H-43, H-48, H-49, H-50, H-74, H-85, H-90, H-91, H-92, H-115, H-127, H-131, H-132, H-133, H-157, H-167, H-168, H-173, H-174, H-197, H-207, H-209, H-214, H-238, H-239 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality or WDEQ................................................ ES-11, ES-35, ES-36, ES-45, ES-46, ES-47, ES-60, 1-5, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 2-12, 2-14, 2-21, 2-27, 2-39, 2-41, 2-50, 2-51, 2-59, Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 8-7

8.0 Index Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality or WDEQ................................................ 2-66, 2-68, 2-70, 2-71, 2-75, 2-76, (Continued) 2-93, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-13, 3-15, 3-31, 3-36, 3-37, 3-39, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-50, 3-54, 3-57, 3-60, 3-63, 3-64, 3-66, 3-67, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 3-77, 3-78, 3-81, 3-82, 3-85, 3-86, 3-90, 3-95, 3-96, 3-101, 3-102, 3-104, 3-107, 3-108, 3-110, 3-111, 3-113, 3-115, 3-116, 3-117, 3-126, 3-127, 3-129, 3-132, 3-133, 3-135, 3-141, 3-142, 3-143, 3-144, 3-145, 3-146, 3-148, 3-149, 3-150, 3-158, 3-159, 3-160, 3-161, 3-162, 3-167, 3-170, 3-171, 3-172, 3-173, 3-174, 3-176, 3-180, 3-191, 3-194, 3-195, 3-200, 3-204, 3-209, 3-249, 3-280, 3-304, 3-305, 4-6, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-27, 4-40, 4-42, 4-43, 4-48, 4-50, 4-51, 4-53, 4-55, 4-57, 4-65, 4-67, 4-69, 4-70, 4-78, 4-119, 5-5, 5-6, 5-9, F-1, F-3, F-4, F-8, F-9, F-10, F-11, F-12, F-14, F-15, F-18, G1-7, G1-8, G1-10, G1-15, G1-18, G2-7, G2-9, G2-10, G2-15, G2-17, G3-9, G3-11, G3-17, G3-19, G4-6, G4-7, G4-8, G4-16, G4-18, G5-8, G5-9, G5-18, G5-20, G6-8, G6-9, G6-17, G6-19, G7-1, G7-4, G7-11, H-16, H-23, H-25, H-43, H-48, H-51, H-61, H-62, H-65, H-84, H-89, H-92, H-103, H-104, H-106, H-126, H-131, H-134, H-144, H-145, H-148, H-168, H-175, H-184, H-185, H-186, H-188, H-208, H-216, H-224, H-225, H-226, H-228, H-239, H-243, H-244

8-8

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

APPENDIX A FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITTING
REQUIREMENTS AND AGENCIES

Appendix A

APPENDIX A: FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES & PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS1 Agency 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 Explosives Use and Storage Permit Explosives Manufacturer’s License Explosives Use and Storage Permit Radio Permit: Ambulance Mobile Relay System Radio License Radioactive By-Products Material License Authorization of Impacts to Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. Hazardous Waste Shipment Notification Radio Tower Facilities Construction Permits

Lease/Permit/Action

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

Department of Environmental Quality/Solid Waste Management Program State Engineer’s Office Industrial Siting Council
1

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

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

A-1

APPENDIX B UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
NORTH HIGHLIGHT FIELD, SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD,
WEST HILIGHT FIELD, WEST JACOBS RANCH,
NORTH PORCUPINE, AND SOUTH PORCUPINE
LBA STUDY AREAS

Appendix B APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE NORTH HIGHLIGHT FIELD LBA STUDY AREA
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. TBNG lands are included in the North Hilight Field LBA study area. The TBNG is not a proclaimed National Forest. FINDINGS FOR THE NORTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA STUDY AREA None of the federal lands determined to be unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present on the North Hilight Field LBA study area. 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.

Portions of the BNSF & UP railroad ROW, 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 North Hilight Field LBA study area. Therefore, there area no unsuitable findings under Criterion 2 for the North Hilight Field LBA study area. Highway 450, I-90, and the cemetery are not located on the North Hilight Field LBA study area. No occupied dwellings or schools are located on the study area. Portions of the ROWs of the Shroyer, Hilight, Small, and Jacobs roads, all county roads, are located on the tract as applied for and/or under Alternative 2. The Small and Jacobs roads have been vacated by the Campbell County Commissioners. Therefore, the portions of the North Hilight Field LBA study area within the ROWs of the Shroyer and Hilight roads and the associated 100-ft buffer zones are designated unsuitable 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 North Hilight Field LBA study area.

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.

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.

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.

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 5 for the North Hilight Field LBA study area.

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 North Hilight Field LBA study area. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for the North Hilight Field LBA study area.

Draft EIS, Wright 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 THE NORTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA STUDY AREA There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 7 for the North Hilight Field LBA study area. The “Standard Archeological Stipulation” should be applied if this tract is leased. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 8 for the North Hilight Field LBA study area.

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.

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 North Hilight Field LBA study area.

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 North Hilight Field LBA study area.

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 North Hilight Field LBA study area. 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 North Hilight Field LBA study area. 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 North Hilight Field LBA study area. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 13 for the North Hilight Field LBA study area.

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

Draft EIS, Wright 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 THE NORTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA STUDY AREA There is currently one occupied and one unoccupied/abandoned (no activity for 10 consecutive years) sage-grouse lek identified on lands within the North Hilight Field LBA study area. There are currently no other occupied or unoccupied sage-grouse leks within 2 miles of the North Hilight Field LBA 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 ¼-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 North Hilight Field LBA study area.

17.

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 17 for the North Hilight Field LBA study area

18.

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 18 for the North Hilight Field LBA study area.

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 North Hilight Field LBA study area with characteristics indicating potential significance to farming. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 for the North Hilight Field LBA study area.

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 North Hilight Field LBA study area.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

B-3

Appendix B APPENDIX B.

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SOUTH HIGHLIGHT FIELD LBA STUDY AREA
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. TBNG lands are included in the South Hilight Field LBA study area. The TBNG is not a proclaimed National Forest. FINDINGS FOR THE SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA STUDY AREA None of the federal lands determined to be unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present on the South Hilight Field LBA study area. Therefore, there are no unsuitable findings under this criterion.

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line ROW, the Wyoming State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 ROW that were determined to be unsuitable are not located on the South Hilight Field LBA study area. A portion of the north-south BNSF & UP railroad ROW that was found to be unsuitable for mining is located on the western boundary of tract as applied for and under Alternative 2. Therefore, this portion of the BNSF & UP railroad ROW was designated unsuitable and the lease will be stipulated to exclude mining within the ROW. Highway 450, I-90, and the cemetery are not located on the South Hilight Field LBA study area. No occupied dwellings or schools are located on the study area. Portions of the ROWs of the Hilight and Reno roads, both county roads, are located on the tract as applied for and/or under Alternative 2. Therefore, the portions of the South Hilight Field LBA study area within the ROWs of the Hilight and Reno roads and the associated 100-ft buffer zones are designated unsuitable 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 South Hilight Field LBA study area.

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

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 5 for the South Hilight Field LBA study area.

The vegetation monitoring sites and the Hoe Creek site are not located on the South Hilight Field LBA study area. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for the South Hilight Field LBA study area.

B-4

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

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 SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA STUDY AREA There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 7 for the South Hilight Field LBA study area. The “Standard Archeological Stipulation” should be applied if this tract is leased. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 8 for the South Hilight Field LBA study area.

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 South Hilight Field LBA study area.

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 South Hilight Field LBA study area.

11.

There are currently no bald or golden eagle nests (active or inactive) on the South Hilight Field LBA study area. 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 South Hilight Field LBA study area. 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 South Hilight Field LBA study area. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 13 for the South Hilight Field LBA study area.

14.

Evaluate suitability during consultation with USFWS.

Draft EIS, Wright 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 SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD STUDY AREA There are currently are no occupied (active within the last 10 years) or unoccupied (destroyed or abandoned) sage-grouse leks indentified on lands within the South Hilight Field LBA study area. There is currently one unoccupied (destroyed) sage-grouse lek located on an existing Black Thunder Mine lease within 2 miles of the South Hilight Field LBA study area. Evaluate this criterion prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with WGFD. 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 South Hilight Field LBA study area.

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.

17.

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 17 for the South Hilight Field LBA study area.

18.

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 18 for the South Hilight Field LBA study area.

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 South Hilight Field LBA study area with characteristics indicating potential significance to farming. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 for the South Hilight Field LBA study area.

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 South Hilight Field LBA study area.

B-6

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix B APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE WEST HILIGHT FIELD LBA STUDY AREA
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. TBNG lands are included in the West Hilight Field LBA study area. The TBNG is not a proclaimed National Forest. FINDINGS FOR WEST HILIGHT FIELD LBA STUDY AREA None of the federal lands determined to be unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present on the West Hilight Field LBA study area. Therefore, there are no unsuitable findings under this criterion.

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, and the I-90 ROW that were determined to be unsuitable are not located on the West Hilight Field LBA study area. A portion of the north-south BNSF & UP railroad ROW that was found to be unsuitable for mining is located on the eastern boundary of the tract configured under Alternative 2. Therefore, this portion of the BNSF & UP railroad ROW was designated unsuitable and the lease will be stipulated to exclude mining within the ROW. I-90 and the cemetery are not located on the West Hilight Field LBA study area. No occupied dwellings or schools are located on the study area. The West Hilight Field LBA study area includes a portion of Highway 450 west of the intersection with the north-south main BNSF & UP railroad trunk line, which was not designated unsuitable for mining under Criterion 2. However, a portion of the Highway 450 ROW is located on the tract as applied for and under Alternatives 2 and 3. A portion of the ROW of the Hilight Road, a county road, is also located on the tract configured under Alternatives 2 and 3. Therefore, the portions of the West Hilight Field LBA study area within the ROWs of Highway 450 and Hilight Road and the associated 100-ft buffer zones are designated unsuitable and the lease will be stipulated to exclude mining within these areas unless permits to move the highway and road are approved by Wyoming Department of Transportation and Campbell County Commissioners, respectively. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 4 for the West Hilight Field LBA study area.

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

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 5 for the West Hilight Field LBA study area.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

B-7

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. FINDINGS FOR WEST HILIGHT FIELD LBA STUDY AREA The vegetation monitoring sites and the Hoe Creek site are not located on the West Hilight Field LBA study area. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for the West Hilight Field LBA study area.

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.

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 West Hilight Field LBA study area. The “Standard Archeological Stipulation” should be applied if this tract is leased. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 8 for the West Hilight Field LBA study area.

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 West Hilight Field LBA study area.

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 Hilight Field LBA study area.

11.

There are currently no bald eagle nests (active or inactive) on the West Hilight Field LBA study area. There is currently one active golden eagle nest within ¼ mile of the West Hilight Field LBA study area. Evaluate suitability prior to lease issuance during consultation with USFWS. There are no identified roost sites on the West Hilight Field LBA study area. 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.

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 Hilight Field LBA study area. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 13 for the West Hilight Field LBA study area.

B-8

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

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. FINDINGS FOR WEST HILIGHT FIELD LBA STUDY AREA Evaluate suitability during 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 ¼-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.

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 is currently one undetermined (no documented activity for the last 10 years, but insufficient information to designate occupied) sage-grouse lek identified on lands within the West Hilight Field LBA study area, and one undetermined sagegrouse lek located within 2 miles of the West Hilight Field LBA 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.

17.

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 17 for the West Hilight Field LBA study area.

18.

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 18 for the West Hilight Field LBA study area.

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 Hilight Field LBA study area with characteristics indicating potential significance to farming. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 for the West Hilight Field LBA study area.

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 Hilight Field LBA study area.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

B-9

Appendix B APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA RANCH LBA STUDY AREA FOR THE WEST JACOBS

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. No TBNG lands are included in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area. The TBNG is not a proclaimed National Forest.

FINDINGS FOR THE WEST RANCH LBA STUDY AREA

JACOBS

None of the federal lands determined to be unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present on the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area. Therefore, there are no unsuitable findings under this criterion.

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line ROW, the Wyoming State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 ROW that were determined to be unsuitable are not located on the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area. A portion of the north-south BNSF & UP railroad ROW that was found to be unsuitable for mining is located on the eastern boundary of the tract as applied for and under Alternative 2. Therefore, this portion of the BNSF & UP railroad ROW was designated unsuitable and the lease will be stipulated to exclude mining within the ROW. I-90 and the cemetery are not located on the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area. No occupied dwellings or schools are located on the study area. The West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area includes a portion of Highway 450 west of the intersection with the north-south main BNSF & UP railroad trunk line, which was not designated unsuitable for mining under Criterion 2. However, a portion of the Highway 450 ROW is located on the tract as applied for and under Alternative 2. A portion of the ROW of the Hilight Road, a county road, is also located on the tract as applied for and under Alternative 2. Therefore, the portions of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area within the ROWs of Highway 450 and Hilight Road and the associated 100-ft buffer zones are designated unsuitable and the lease will be stipulated to exclude mining within these areas unless permits to move the highway and road are approved by Wyoming Department of Transportation and Campbell County Commissioners, respectively. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 4 for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area.

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

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 5 for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area.

B-10

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

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

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

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.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 8 for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 9 for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area.

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 Jacobs Ranch LBA study area.

11.

There are currently no bald eagle nests (active or inactive) on the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area. There is currently one active golden eagle nest on lands within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area. Evaluate suitability prior to lease issuance during consultation with USFWS. There are no identified roost sites on the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area. 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.

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 Jacobs Ranch LBA study area. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 13 for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

B-11

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 are currently are no occupied (active within the last 10 years) or unoccupied (destroyed or abandoned) sage-grouse leks identified on lands within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area. There are currently two undetermined (no documented activity for the last 10 years, but insufficient information to designate occupied) sagegrouse leks identified on lands adjacent to the LBA tract: one approximately 1 mile south-southwest and one approximately 1.3 miles south-southwest of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area. Evaluate this criterion prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with WGFD. 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 Jacobs Ranch LBA study area.

16.

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 ¼-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.

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.

17.

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 17 for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area.

18.

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 18 for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area.

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 Jacobs Ranch LBA study area with characteristics indicating potential significance to farming. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA study area.

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 Jacobs Ranch LBA study area.

B-12

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix B APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE NORTH PORCUPINE LBA STUDY AREA
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. TBNG lands are included in the North Porcupine LBA study area. The TBNG is not a proclaimed National Forest. FINDINGS FOR THE NORTH PORCUPINE LBA STUDY AREA None of the federal lands determined to be unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present on the North Porcupine LBA study area. Therefore, there are no unsuitable findings under this criterion.

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line ROW, the Wyoming State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 ROW that were determined to be unsuitable are not located on the North Porcupine LBA study area. A portion of the BNSF & UP railroad ROW that was found to be unsuitable for mining crosses the tract as applied for and under Alternative 2. Therefore, this portion of the BNSF & UP railroad ROW was designated unsuitable and the lease will be stipulated to exclude mining within the ROW. Highway 450, I-90, and the cemetery are not located on the North Porcupine LBA study area. No occupied dwellings or schools are located on the study area. Portions of the ROWs of the Antelope, Matheson, and Mackey roads, all county roads, are located on the tract as applied for and under Alternative 2. The relocation of the Antelope Road and a portion of the Matheson Road within the LBA study area have been approved by the Campbell County Commissioners. Therefore, the portions of the North Porcupine LBA study area within the ROWs of the Mackey Road and a portion of the Matheson Road 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 permits to move the roads are approved by Campbell County Board of Commissioners. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 4 for the North Porcupine LBA study area.

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

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 5 for the North Porcupine LBA study area.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

B-13

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. FINDINGS FOR THE NORTH PORCUPINE LBA STUDY AREA The vegetation monitoring sites and the Hoe Creek site are not located on the North Porcupine LBA study area. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for the North Porcupine LBA study area.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 7 for the North Porcupine LBA study area. The “Standard Archeological Stipulation” should be applied if this tract is leased. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 8 for the North Porcupine LBA study area.

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 North Porcupine LBA study area.

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 North Porcupine LBA study area.

11.

There are currently no bald eagle nests (active or inactive) on the North Porcupine LBA study area. There are currently two active golden eagle nests on lands within the North Porcupine LBA study area. Evaluate suitability prior to lease issuance during consultation with USFWS. There are no identified roost sites on the North Porcupine LBA study area. 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.

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 North Porcupine LBA study area. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 13 for the North Porcupine LBA study area.

B-14

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

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. FINDINGS FOR THE NORTH PORCUPINE LBA STUDY AREA 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 is currently one occupied (active within the last 10 years) sage-grouse lek and no unoccupied (destroyed or abandoned) sage-grouse leks identified on lands within the North Porcupine LBA study area. There are currently two occupied sage-grouse leks identified on lands adjacent to the LBA tract: both are approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the LBA study area. There is also one unoccupied/abandoned (no activity for 10 consecutive years) sage-grouse lek identified on lands adjacent to the LBA tract: approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the LBA study area. Evaluate this criterion prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with WGFD. 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 North Porcupine LBA study area.

16.

Federal lands in Floodplains. 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 ¼-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.

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.

17.

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 17 for the North Porcupine LBA study area.

18.

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 18 for the North Porcupine LBA study area.

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 North Porcupine LBA study area with characteristics indicating potential significance to farming. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 for the North Porcupine LBA study area.

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 North Porcupine LBA study area.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

B-15

Appendix B APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SOUTH PORCUPINE LBA STUDY AREA
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. TBNG lands are included in the South Porcupine LBA study area. The TBNG is not a proclaimed National Forest. FINDINGS FOR THE SOUTH PORCUPINE LBA STUDY AREA None of the federal lands determined to be unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present on the South Porcupine LBA study area. Therefore, there are no unsuitable findings under this criterion.

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line ROW, the Wyoming State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 ROW that were determined to be unsuitable are not located on the South Porcupine LBA study area. A portion of the BNSF & UP railroad ROW that was found to be unsuitable for mining crosses the tract configured under Alternative 2. Therefore, this portion of the BNSF & UP railroad ROW was designated unsuitable and the lease will be stipulated unsuitable to exclude mining within the ROW. Highway 450, I-90, and the cemetery are not located on the South Porcupine LBA study area. No occupied dwellings or schools are located on the study area. Portions of the ROW of the Antelope Road, a county road, are located on the tract as applied for and under Alternative 2. The relocation of a portion of the Antelope Road within the LBA study area has been approved by the Campbell County Commissioners. Therefore, the portions of the South Porcupine LBA study area within the ROW of a portion of the Antelope Road 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 Co. Board of Commissioners. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 4 for the South Porcupine LBA study area.

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

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 5 for the South Porcupine LBA study area.

B-16

Draft EIS, Wright 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. FINDINGS FOR THE SOUTH PORCUPINE LBA STUDY AREA The vegetation monitoring sites and the Hoe Creek site are not located on the South Porcupine LBA study area. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for the South Porcupine LBA study area.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 7 for the South Porcupine LBA study area. The “Standard Archeological Stipulation” should be applied if this tract is leased. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 8 for the South Porcupine LBA study area.

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 South Porcupine LBA study area.

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 South Porcupine LBA study area.

11.

There are currently no bald or golden eagle nests (active or inactive) on the South Porcupine LBA study area. 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 South Porcupine LBA study area. 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 South Porcupine LBA study area. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 13 for the South Porcupine LBA study area.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

B-17

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. FINDINGS FOR THE SOUTH PORCUPINE LBA STUDY AREA Evaluate suitability during 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.

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 are currently are no occupied (active within the last 10 years) or unoccupied (destroyed or abandoned) sage-grouse leks identified on lands within the South Porcupine LBA study area or on lands within 2 miles of the LBA 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.

17.

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 17 for the South Porcupine LBA study area.

18.

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

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 18 for the South Porcupine LBA study area.

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 South Porcupine LBA study area with characteristics indicating potential significance to farming. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 for the South Porcupine LBA study area.

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 South Porcupine LBA study area.

B-18

Draft EIS, Wright 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

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

C-1

APPENDIX D BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
SPECIAL COAL LEASE STIPULATIONS,
U.S. FOREST SERVICE SPECIAL STIPULATIONS,
AND FORM 3400-12 COAL LEASE

Appendix D BLM will attach the following special stipulations to each Wright 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

Final EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application

D-1

Appendix D measures can be implemented as part of an approved mining and reclamation 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 D-2 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix D 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. (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 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 and gas operations on those lands covered by Federal mineral leases so as to obtain maximum resource recovery.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

D-3

Appendix D (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. (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 D-4 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix D 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 The following special stipulation (h)(1) will be added to the West Hilight Field and West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tracts: (1) No mining activity of any kind may be conducted within Wyoming State Highway 450 right-of-way and associated 100-feet buffer zone while that public road remains in its current (2009) location. 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 this public highway is approved by the appropriate authority (Wyoming Department of Transportation), the lessee shall recover all legally and economically recoverable coal from all leased lands within the foregoing rightof-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. The following special stipulation (h)(2) will be added to each Wright area LBA tract: (2) No mining activity of any kind may be conducted within Campbell County Road [Shroyer (CR 116), Reno (CR 83), Hilight (CR 52), Mackey (CR 69), Matheson, or Antelope (CR4)] rights-of-way and associated 100-feet buffer zones while those public roads remain in their current (2009) locations. 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 respective road(s) is approved by the appropriate authority (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. (i) RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY

The following special stipulation will be added to the South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts:

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

D-5

Appendix D No mining activity of any kind may be conducted on those portions of the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way that cross federally administered lands. The lessee shall recover all legally and economically recoverable coal from all leased lands not within the foregoing right-of-way. 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.

D-6

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix D The North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts reconfigured under Alternative 2 (the BLM study area, which is BLM’s preferred alternative) include National Forest System Lands. U.S. Forest Service will attach the following special stipulations to each Wright LBA tract that is leased: NOTICE FOR LANDS OF THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM UNDER
JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
The permittee must comply with all the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture set forth in Title 36, Chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations governing the use and management of the National Forest System (NFS) when not inconsistent with the rights granted by the Secretary of the Interior in the permit. The Secretary of Agriculture’s rules and regulations must be complied with for (1) all use and occupancy of the NFS prior to approval of an exploration plan by the Secretary of the Interior, (2) uses of all existing improvements, such as forest development roads, within and outside the area permitted by the Secretary of the Interior, and (3) use and occupancy of the NFS not authorized by an exploration plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior. All matters related to this stipulation are to be addressed to: District Ranger 2250 East Richards Douglas, WY 82633 Telephone: 307-358-4690 who is the authorized representative of the Secretary of Agriculture.

NOTICE CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES – The Forest Service (USFS) is responsible for assuring that the leased lands are examined to determine if cultural resources are present and to specify mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking the surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by this lease, the lessee or operator, unless notified to the contrary by the USFS, shall: 1. Contact the USFS to determine if a site specific cultural or paleontological resource inventory is required. If a survey is required, then: 2. Engage the services of a cultural resource specialist and/or paleontologist acceptable to the USFS to conduct a cultural resource or paleontological inventory of the area of proposed surface disturbance. The operator may elect to inventory an area larger than the area of proposed disturbance to cover possible site relocation which may result from environmental or other

Final EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application

D-7

Appendix D considerations. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the USFS for review and approval at the time a surface disturbing plan of operation is submitted. 3. Implement mitigation measures required by the USFS and BLM to preserve or avoid destruction of cultural paleontological resource or values. Mitigation may include relocation of proposed facilities, testing, salvage, and recordation of other protective measures. All costs of the inventory and mitigation will be borne by the lessee or operator, and all data and materials salvaged will remain under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government as appropriate. The discovery of any antiquities or other objects of historic or scientific interest, including but not limited to, historic or prehistoric ruins, fossils, or artifacts as the result of any operation conducted within the lease boundaries on Forest System Land shall immediately be brought to the attention of the District Ranger. The permittee will cease operations in that area until authorized to proceed by the District Ranger. FOREST SERVICE REGION 2 SENSITIVE SPECIES – The USFS is responsible for assuring that the leased land is examined prior to undertaking any surfacedisturbing activities to determine effects upon any plant or animal species listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester. The findings of this examination may result in some restrictions to the operator’s plan or even disallow use and occupancy. ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES – The USFS is responsible for assuring that the leased land is examined prior to undertaking any surfacedisturbing activities to determine effects upon any plant or animal species listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, or their habitats. The findings of this examination may result in some restriction to the operator’s plans or even disallow use and occupancy that would be in violation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by detrimentally affecting endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The lessee/operator may, unless notified by the USFS that the examination is not necessary, conduct the examination of leased lands at this discretion and cost. This examination must be done by or under the supervision of a qualified resource specialist approved by the USFS. An acceptable report must be provided to the USFS identifying the anticipated effects of a proposed action on endangered or threatened species or their habitats, and the anticipated effects and impacts to USFS Regions 2 Sensitive Species that may occur or have habitat in the area.

D-8

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

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.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

D-9

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)

D-10

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

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)

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

D-11

APPENDIX E CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS AND
COAL BED NATURAL GAS WELLS
CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION
LOCATED WITHIN THE BLM STUDY AREAS
FOR THE:
NORTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT
SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT
WEST HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT
WEST JACOBS RANCH LBA TRACT
NORTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT
SOUTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT

Appendix E
CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
NORTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA

API Number (Short) 521991 521992 522016 522106 522107 522283 522148 522224 522245 522502 522160 522031 523523 521956 521959 522568 521925 525086 521845 522082 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 237,029 18,459 221,248 75,417 71,076 458,182 989,790 20,914 330,822 443,628 174,929 265,769 114,032 304,134 232,520 839,971 115,489 337,257 484,888 81,417 Cumulative Production Oil (BBL) 6,861 6,880 11,732 3,076 3,369 21,197 42,294 783 19,247 9,904 10,188 11,895 18,464 13,360 32,256 25,608 72,057 12,566 8,007 1,702

Company M & K Oil Company, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc. Primary Natural Resources, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc. Primary Natural Resources, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc. M & K Oil Company, Inc C & H Well Service M & K Oil Company, Inc M & K Oil Company, Inc

Well Name/No. So Hilight Unit No. 1-41 So Hilight Unit No. 4-41 Central Hilight Unit No. 227 So Hilight Unit No. 11-53 So Hilight Unit No. 19-53 So Hilight Unit No. 18-20 So Hilight Unit No. 12-40 So Hilight Unit No. 20-40 So Hilight Unit No. 14-25 So Hilight Unit No. 23-12 So Hilight Unit No. 22-39 So Hilight Unit No. 13-39 Royar Fed No. 1 Pamela No. 1 Central Hilight Unit No. 226 Pamela No. 1-A Mills No. 17 Springen No. 1 So Hilight Unit No. 8-43 So Hilight Unit No. 9-17

TWP 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N 44N

RNG 70W 70W 70W 70W 70W 70W 70W 70W 70W 70W 70W 70W 70W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W

Location NWNW Sec. 17 NWSW Sec. 17 NWSW Sec 18 NWNE Sec 19 NWSE Sec 19 NWSW Sec 19 NWNW Sec 20 NWSW Sec 20 NWNE Sec 21 NWSE Sec 21 NWSW Sec 21 NWNW Sec 21 NWSW Sec 22 NWSW Sec 13 NWSE Sec 13 NWSW Sec 13 NWSE Sec 23 SENW Sec 23 NWNW Sec 24 NWNE Sec 24

WOGCC Status PR PR PR GL GL GL GL GL GL GL GL GL GL GL PR GL PR GL GL GL

Status Codes: PR = Pumping Rods, GL = Gas Lift

Conventional oil and gas well data from WOGCC 12/13/07

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

E-1

Appendix E
CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA

API Number (Short) 525150 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 318,792 Cumulative Production Oil (BBL) 18,548

Company M & K Oil Company, Inc

Well Name/No. Porcupine Fed W30501 No. 1

TWP 42N

RNG 71W

Location NWSW Sec. 2

WOGCC Status GL

CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
WEST HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA

API Number (Short) 527612 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 0 Cumulative Production Oil (BBL) 1,051

Company M & K Oil Company, Inc

Well Name/No. Burton Reno No. 1

TWP 43N

RNG 71W

Location NESW Sec. 15

WOGCC Status PR

CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
WEST JACOBS RANCH LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA

API Number (Short) 521868 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 70,631 Cumulative Production Oil (BBL) 4,631

Company M & K Oil Company, Inc

Well Name/No. South Hilight Unit No. 34-50

TWP 44N

RNG 71W

Location NWSE Sec. 27

WOGCC Status GL

CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
SOUTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA

API Number (Short) 526100 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 307,397 Cumulative Production Oil (BBL) 14,297

Company Abraxas Petroleum Corporation

Well Name/No. Frazier No. 11-12

TWP 41N

RNG 71W

Location NWNW Sec. 12

WOGCC Status PR

Status Codes: PR = Pumping Rods, GL = Gas Lift

Conventional oil and gas well data from WOGCC 12/13/07

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E
CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
NORTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA

API Number (Short) 527391 524326 527941 521995 526728 522962 522996 526471 525697 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 1,161,304 58,427 56,191 1,216 791,926 2,802,254 726,144 155,690 160,820 Cumulative Production Oil (BBL) 9,720 33,412 52,861 23,944 24,745 67,697 14,958 10,317 7,671

Company DNR Oil and Gas, Inc. DNR Oil and Gas, Inc. Berenergy Peabody Natural Gas LLC Peabody Natural Gas LLC Peabody Natural Gas LLC Chaco Energy Company Chaco Energy Company Adair Company LLC

Well Name/No. Fed. W-093721C No. 19-16 Gamberg No. 1 Janzen Fed 04315 No. 34-26 WYO A 050890 No. 1 Federal No. 29-2 Federal No. 1-29 Federal No. 1-23 Exxon W-67034 No. 1-27 Quillback W-67220 No. 1-34

TWP 42N 42N 42N 42N 42N 42N 42N 42N 42N

RNG 70W 70W 70W 70W 70W 70W 71W 71W 71W

Location SESE Sec. 19 SWNW Sec. 26 SWSE Sec. 26 SWNE Sec. 27 NWNW Sec. 29 NWNW Sec. 29 NWSE Sec. 23 SENW Sec. 23 SWNW Sec. 34

WOGCC Status FL PR PR GL FL FL FL FL FL

Status Codes: FL = Flowing, PR = Pumping Rods, GL = Gas Lift

Conventional oil and gas well data from WOGCC 12/13/07

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

E-3

Appendix E
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
NORTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA

API Number (Short) 537396 537399 537400 537861 537909 537854 542731 542732 532169 532170 532171 532172 532174 537397 537398 540283 540273 542582 546007 548075 548082 549757 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 2,082 16,884 58,978 70,806 63,766 36,338 112,412 104,829 43,334 26,299 1,178 15,390 98,202 105,841 72,283 68,507 75,379 102,100 81,487 108,211 108,222 129,649 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 51,387 127,775 402 4,711 116,255 20 190 3,434 90 416,906 35,448 81,940 819 147,656 41,400 36,346 29,174 29,231 12,865 0 0 125,512

Company 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 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 C & H WELL SERVICING INC C & H WELL SERVICING INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC

Well Number No. 22-19 No. 11-19 No. 24-19 No. 31-19 No. 13-19 No. 33-19 No. 11-20 No. 13-20 No. 22-13 No. 31-13 No. 42-13 No. 33-13 No. 11-13 No. 24-13 No. 13-13 No. 44-13 No. 31-14 No. 42-14 C No. 21-14 No. 14-11 No. 14-13 No. 33-14

TWP 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

RNG 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Location SE NW Sec. 19 NW NW Sec. 19 SE SW Sec. 19 NW NE Sec. 19 NW SW Sec. 19 NW SE Sec. 19 NW NW Sec. 20 NW SW Sec. 20 SE NW Sec. 13 NW NE Sec. 13 SE NE Sec. 13 NW SE Sec. 13 NW NW Sec. 13 SE SW Sec. 13 NW SW Sec. 13 SE SE Sec. 13 NW NE Sec. 14 SE NE Sec. 14 NE NW Sec. 14 NE SW Sec. 14 SW SW Sec. 14 NW SE Sec. 14

WOGCC Status SI FL PS PS PS FL PS PS PS SI SI SI PS PS PS PS SI PS PS FL FL FL

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
NORTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA (Continued)

API Number (Short) 549758 549759 537863 537864 537913 537914 548079 548080 537432 537433 537865 537866 537867 537868 540188 539749 543700 540280 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 60,988 101,965 118,869 209,025 281,455 327,456 108,221 108,222 103,052 67,124 163,687 115,256 129,140 93,209 580,267 176,273 0 313,785 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 353,569 47,869 436,101 118,101 48,898 79 0 0 5,570 54,154 143,249 147,133 135,633 657,198 8,428 47,766 1,228 7,162

Company PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC C & H WELL SERVICING INC C & H WELL SERVICING 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

Well Number No. 12-14 No. 44-14 No. 42-23 No. 44-23 No. 31-23 No. 33-23 No. 23-3 No. 23-5 No. 31-24 No. 42-24 No. 11-24 No. 22-24 No. 33-24 No. 44-24 No. 24-24 No. 13-24 No. 23-24 No. 44-26

TWP 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

RNG 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Location SW NW Sec. 14 SE SE Sec. 14 SE NE Sec. 23 SE SE Sec. 23 NW NE Sec. 23 NW SE Sec. 23 NE NW Sec. 23 SW NW Sec. 23 NW NE Sec. 24 SE NE Sec. 24 NW NW Sec. 24 SE NW Sec. 24 NW SE Sec. 24 SE SE Sec. 24 SE SW Sec. 24 NW SW Sec. 24 NE SW Sec. 24 SE SE Sec. 26

WOGCC Status PS PS PS PS PR FL FL FL PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS SI FL

Status Codes: FL = Flowing, PR = Pumping Rods, PS = Pumping Submersible, SI = Shut in CBNG well status from WOGCC database 5/14/08 Cumulative production from WOGCC database 9/25/08

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

E-5

Appendix E
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA

API Number (Short) 549558 549559 549560 549561 531964 532513 532517 532598 533456 533363 533368 532593 532594 532596 532597 532605 532606 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 0 0 0 0 3,249 616,055 176,776 218,395 221,343 447,631 340,328 199,725 303,551 357,528 303,748 268,076 236,807 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 0 0 0 0 600,630 272,492 408,343 875,111 642,943 396,015 621,280 566,180 927,640 803,101 320,611 111,517 1,345,069

Company LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC

Well Number No. 21-2-4271 No. 23-2-4271 No. 12-2-4271 No. 14-2-4271 No. 14-23 No. 14-26 No. 22-26 No. 44-26 No. 32-26 No. 41-35 No. 32-35 No. 31-35 No. 22-35 No. 12-35 No. 11-35 No. 43-35 No. 42-35

TWP 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

RNG 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Location NE NW Sec. 2 NE SW Sec. 2 SW NW Sec. 2 SW SW Sec. 2 SW SW Sec. 23 SW SW Sec. 26 SE NW Sec. 26 SE SE Sec. 26 SW NE Sec. 26 NE NE Sec. 35 SW NE Sec. 35 NW NE Sec. 35 SE NW Sec. 35 SW NW Sec. 35 NW NW Sec. 35 NE SE Sec. 35 SE NE Sec. 35

WOGCC Status SI SI SI SI SI PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS SI SI PS

Status Codes: PS = Pumping Submersible, SI = Shut in CBNG well status from WOGCC database 5/14/08 Cumulative production from WOGCC database 9/25/08

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
WEST HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA

API Number (Short) 544726 531544 544720 544721 544723 544724 544725 531545 534488 544719 547010 547011 547012 547013 549585 549586 549587 537926 537927 537929 544755 544756 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 139,443 382,039 263,551 194,270 301,841 327,622 215,636 361,643 284,569 247,875 363,597 628,046 385,379 524,969 200,213 202,748 82,471 482,068 676,559 148,393 241,484 412,204 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 750,268 1,261,797 0 0 0 0 0 35,203 94 0 817,081 24,307 306,552 939,012 459,197 308,545 800,265 370,211 672,135 202,421 295,553 407,837

Company LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC

Well Number No. 41-8-4371 No. 1-41-9 No. 43-9-4371 No. 34-9-4371 No. 23-9-4371 No. 21-9-4371 No. 12-9-4371 No. 1-21-10 No. 23-10 No. 12-10-4371 No. 15-23 No. 15-21 No. 15-14 No. 15-12 No. 15-43 No. 15-41 No. 15-34 No. 43-17-4371 No. 34-17-4371 No. 21-17-4371 No. 14-17-4371 No. 12-17-4371

TWP 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

RNG 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Location NE NE Sec. 8 NE NE Sec. 9 NE SE Sec. 9 SW SE Sec. 9 NE SW Sec. 9 NE NW Sec. 9 SW NW Sec. 9 NE NW Sec. 10 NE SW Sec. 10 SW NW Sec. 10 NE SW Sec. 15 NE NW Sec. 15 SW SW Sec. 15 SW NW Sec. 15 NE SE 1 Sec. 5 NE NE Sec. 15 SW SE Sec. 15 NE SE Sec. 17 SW SE Sec. 17 NE NW Sec. 17 SW SW Sec. 17 SW NW Sec. 17

WOGCC Status SI PS PS FL FL FL FL FL SI FL PS PS PS PS PS PS SI PS PS PS PS SI

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

E-7

Appendix E
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
WEST HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA (Continued)

API Number (Short) 539634 540744 540745 532638 534873 534874 540747 532267 532630 532632 532633 532634 540324 549926 549934 549935 549936 549937 549938 549939 532526 533644 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 320,736 517,505 657,924 175,391 90,259 184,428 189,027 265,929 285,134 417,164 460,243 637,195 403,631 53,920 148,092 114,007 77,960 96,592 133,522 104,009 452,139 157,570 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 596,744 0 1,620 1,289,146 1,249,701 1,553,507 1,729,050 1,452,517 549,711 249,697 623,707 376,045 226,929 199,427 68,258 40,252 294,032 2,610 278,454 5,841 797,018 1,636,134

Well Number No. 11-20-4371 No. 34-21 No. 43-21 No. 34-22 No. 32-22 No. 41-22 No. 23-22 No. 21-27 No. 32-27 No. 34-27 No. 42-27 No. 43-27 No. 14-28-4371 No. 12-28-4371 No. 21-28-4371 No. 23-28-4371 No. 32-28-4371 No. 34-28-4371 No. 41-28-4371 No. 43-28-4371 No. 41-34 No. 13-34

TWP 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

RNG 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Location NW NW Sec. 20 SW SE Sec. 21 NE SE Sec. 21 SW SE Sec. 22 SW NE Sec. 22 NE NE Sec. 22 NE SW Sec. 22 NE NW Sec. 27 SW NE Sec. 27 SW SE Sec. 27 SE NE Sec. 27 NE SE Sec. 27 SW SW Sec. 28 SW NW Sec. 28 NE NW Sec. 28 NE SW Sec. 28 SW NE Sec. 28 SW SE Sec. 28 NE NE Sec. 28 NE SE Sec. 28 NE NE Sec. 34 NW SW Sec. 34

WOGCC Status PS PS PS FL SI SI SI PS PS PS PS PS PS SI FL FL FL FL FL FL PS SI

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
WEST HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA (Continued)

API Number (Short) 533645 533165 533166 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 591,286 757,031 153,682 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 1,348,240 547,344 586,568

Company LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC

Well Number No. 23-34 No. 11-34 No. 21-34

TWP 43 43 43

RNG 71 71 71

Location NE SW Sec. 34 NW NW Sec. 34 NE NW Sec. 34

WOGCC Status FL PS FL

Status Codes: FL = Flowing, PS = Pumping Submersible, SI = Shut in CBNG well status from WOGCC database 5/14/08 Cumulative production from WOGCC database 9/25/08

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

E-9

Appendix E
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
WEST JACOBS RANCH LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA

API Number (Short) 544732 544734 544735 544736 544737 544738 534479 534480 534481 534482 544727 544728 544729 544730 534483 534484 534485 534486 534487 536461 536462 536463 536468 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 69,015 88,465 305,019 85,596 130,906 107,823 276,480 244,175 272,435 389,513 91,385 150,202 144,050 178,124 160,706 342,966 105,879 236,036 103,930 134,895 207,564 121,352 140,747 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 0 0 0 0 0 0 741,724 921,871 428,107 419,575 0 0 0 0 1,279,469 855,108 1,278,400 936,645 1,750,111 895,782 988,172 935,229 1,039,248

Well Number No. 41-3-4371 No. 32-3-4371 No. 23-3-4371 No. 21-3-4371 No. 14-3-4371 No. 12-3-4371 No. 13-4 No. 24-4 No. 33-4 No. 44-4 No. 41-4-4371 No. 32-4-4371 No. 21-4-4371 No. 12-4-4371 No. 22-5 No. 24-5 No. 33-5 No. 42-5 No. 44-5 No. 11-5-4371 No. 13-5-4371 No. 31-5-4371 No. 42-6-4371

TWP 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

RNG 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Location NE NE Sec. 3 SW NE Sec. 3 NE SW Sec. 3 NE NW Sec. 3 SW SW Sec. 3 SW NW Sec. 3 NW SW Sec. 4 SE SW Sec. 4 NW SE Sec. 4 SE SE Sec. 4 NE NE Sec. 4 SW NE Sec. 4 NE NW Sec. 4 SW NW Sec. 4 SE NW Sec. 5 SE SW Sec. 5 NW SE Sec. 5 SE NE Sec. 5 SE SE Sec. 5 NW NW Sec. 5 NW SW Sec. 5 NW NE Sec. 5 SE NE Sec. 6

WOGCC Status FL FL FL FL FL FL PS PS PS PS FL FL FL FL PS PS SI PS FL PS PS PS PS

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
WEST JACOBS RANCH LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA (Continued)

API Number (Short) 536469 546005 546006 548076 548081 535949 535950 535951 535952 535953 535954 535955 535957 535958 546021 548077 548078 549578 549579 549580 542192 542193 543423 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 210,541 201,111 129,156 13,583 120,581 387,655 494,602 379,406 426,420 354,121 567,605 364,184 124,471 157,982 151,381 120,590 120,599 367,647 274,756 255,934 93,595 89,958 834,425 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 842,192 286,494 367,593 0 0 710,720 476,591 0 496,503 621,485 0 439,626 915,554 683,308 91,398 0 0 32,654 247,047 26,215 1,531,265 729,731 11,924

Company LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC C & H WELL SERVICING INC C & H WELL SERVICING INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC C & H WELL SERVICING INC C & H WELL SERVICING INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT COMPANY WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT COMPANY COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC

Well Number No. 44-6-4371 No. 23-15-4471 No. 14-15-4471 No. 15-15 No. 15-9 No. 34-20-4471 No. 43-20-4471 No. 12-21-4471 No. 14-21-4471 No. 21-21-4471 No. 23-21-4471 No. 32-21-4471 No. 41-21-4471 No. 43-21-4471 No. 21-22-4471 No. 22-1 No. 22-7 No. 14-22 No. 23-22 No. 34-22 No. 43-27-4471 No. 34-27-4471 No. 12-27

TWP 43 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

RNG 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Location SE SE Sec. 6 NE SW Sec. 15 SW SW Sec. 15 SW SE Sec. 15 NE SE Sec. 15 SW SE Sec. 20 NE SE Sec. 20 SW NW Sec. 21 SW SW Sec. 21 NE NW Sec. 21 NE SW Sec. 21 SW NE Sec. 21 NE NE Sec. 21 NE SE Sec. 21 NE NW Sec. 22 NE NE Sec. 22 SW NE Sec. 22 SW SW Sec. 22 NE SW Sec. 22 SW SE Sec. 22 NE SE Sec. 27 SW SE Sec. 27 SW NW Sec. 27

WOGCC Status PS PS FL SI FL PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS FL FL PS PS PS PS PS PS

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

E-11

Appendix E
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
WEST JACOBS RANCH LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA (Continued)

API Number (Short) 543424 534527 549581 549582 534528 534529 534521 534525 535959 535960 535961 535963 535964 535965 535966 535967 535968 534522 534523 546026 546027 546033 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 364,271 212,140 123,936 187,737 704,547 463,893 342,040 378,924 372,262 372,901 532,859 261,157 306,880 355,889 297,850 619,777 219,136 201,310 295,813 167,907 106,873 181,844 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 945,167 954,009 1,717,295 391,852 512,816 433,868 1,794 454,369 575,436 544,767 631,155 1,228,824 1,177,938 883,960 1,015,025 418,818 1,223,387 1,135,249 1,402,139 216,260 736,700 324,556

Company COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC

Well Number No. 21-27 No. 23-27 No. 32-27 No. 41-27 No. 23-28 No. 34-28 No. 43-28 No. 14-28 No. 12-28-4471 No. 21-28-4471 No. 32-28-4471 No. 12-29-4471 No. 14-29-4471 No. 21-29-4471 No. 23-29-4471 No. 32-29-4471 No. 41-29-4471 No. 34-29 No. 43-29 No. 43-30-4471 No. 41-30-4471 No. 42-31-4471

TWP 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

RNG 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Location NE NW Sec. 27 NE SW Sec. 27 SW NE Sec. 27 NE NE Sec. 27 NE SW Sec. 28 SW SE Sec. 28 NE SE Sec. 28 SW SW Sec. 28 SW NW Sec. 28 NE NW Sec. 28 SW NE Sec. 28 SW NW Sec. 29 SW SW Sec. 29 NE NW Sec. 29 NE SW Sec. 29 SW NE Sec. 29 NE NE Sec. 29 SW SE Sec. 29 NE SE Sec. 29 NE SE Sec. 30 NE NE Sec. 30 SE NE Sec. 31

WOGCC Status PS SI PS PS SI PS PS PS SI PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS FL SI PS

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
WEST JACOBS RANCH LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA (Continued)

API Number (Short) 534535 534536 534537 534538 534539 534875 534876 534877 534878 534879 534880 534881 534524 549583 549584 544712 544713 544714 544715 544716 544717 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 290,498 621,996 310,217 287,555 388,317 430,396 303,919 593,893 215,367 418,934 200,906 436,217 206,604 536,090 387,165 349,252 59,208 59,637 332,425 77,875 48,888 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 988,703 882,067 1,589,150 626,905 850,984 338,006 800,171 826,723 601,659 342,822 0 570,150 912,817 68,793 14,983 21,277 28,339 299,634 41,665 30,209 67,960

Company LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC

Well Number No. 23-32 No. 32-32 No. 34-32 No. 41-32 No. 43-32 No. 14-33 No. 21-33 No. 23-33 No. 32-33 No. 34-33 No. 41-33 No. 43-33 No. 12-33 No. 32-34 No. 41-34 No. 43-34-4471 No. 34-34-4471 No. 23-34-4471 No. 21-34-4471 No. 14-34-4471 No. 12-34-4471

TWP 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

RNG 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Location NE SW Sec. 32 SW NE Sec. 32 SW SE Sec. 32 NE NE Sec. 32 NE SE Sec. 32 SW SW Sec. 33 NE NW Sec. 33 NE SW Sec. 33 SW NE Sec. 33 SW SE Sec. 33 NE NE Sec. 33 NE SE Sec. 33 SW NW Sec. 33 SW NE Sec. 34 NE NE Sec. 34 NE SE Sec. 34 SW SE Sec. 34 NE SW Sec. 34 NE NW Sec. 34 SW SW Sec. 34 SW NW Sec. 34

WOGCC Status SI PS PS PS PS PS FL SI PS PS PS PS PS PS PS FL SI SI PS PS SI

Status Codes: FL = Flowing, PS = Pumping Submersible, SI = Shut in CBNG well status from WOGCC database 5/14/08 Cumulative production from WOGCC database 9/25/08

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

E-13

Appendix E
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
NORTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA

API Number (Short) 553824 553826 553069 553070 553827 553828 553830 553831 554339 554340 554341 546208 546595 554333 551233 551256 551257 553799 553800 553802 553803 553804 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 158,844 162,640 150,317 107,068 109,341 150,425 131,326 168,747 89,236 159,249 99,629 98,106 165,500 44,028 126,879 119,343 132,170 91,009 106,161 102,721 92,012 171,448 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 94,832 129,535 120,810 5,755 55,394 38,735 22,922 6,501 224,189 1,121 44,967 224,138 129,992 0 4,258 86,484 3,171 0 1,178 128 174,071 2,095

Company BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION

Well Number No. 14-19-4270 No. 43-19-4270 No. 23-19-4270 No. 32-19-4270 No. 12-20-4270 No. 14-20-4270 No. 23-20-4270 No. 34-20-4270 No. 12-21-4270 No. 14-21-4270 No. 23-21-4270 No. 21-30 No. 11-30 No. 41-30-42-70 No. 43-22-42-71 No. 32-22-42-71 No. 34-22-42-71 No. 12-23-4271 No. 14-23-4271 No. 23-23-4271 No. 32-23-4271 No. 34-23-4271

TWP 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42

RNG 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Location SW SW Sec. 19 NE SE Sec. 19 NE SW Sec. 19 SW NE Sec. 19 SW NW Sec. 20 SW SW Sec. 20 NE SW Sec. 20 SW SE Sec. 20 SW NW Sec. 21 SW SW Sec. 21 NE SW Sec. 21 NE NW Sec. 30 NW NW Sec. 30 NE NE Sec. 30 NE SE Sec. 22 SW NE Sec. 22 SW SE Sec. 22 SW NW Sec. 23 SW SW Sec. 23 NE SW Sec. 23 SW NE Sec. 23 SW SE Sec. 23

WOGCC Status FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
NORTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA (Continued)

API Number (Short) 553806 553066 554344 554302 549603 549605 549606 554299 554301 551234 551235 551236 551237 552018 552019 552020 552021 554295 554296 554297 554298 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 119,511 89,066 203,172 36,334 192,600 347,164 301,557 103,061 94,838 100,862 128,032 129,910 120,939 90,190 112,325 104,917 119,577 71,181 84,036 65,396 94,308 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 55,932 73,802 96,245 18,985 399,035 371,250 361 17,939 4,090 217,113 45 39,872 260,318 12,922 146,873 4 203 983 0 35,057 0

Company BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC

Well Number No. 43-23-4271 No. 12-24-4271 No. 34-24-4271 No. 41-25-42-71 No. 23-26 No. 12-26 No. 14-26 No. 41-26-42-71 No. 21-26-42-71 No. 12-27-42-71 No. 14-27-42-71 No. 21-27-42-71 No. 23-27-42-71 No. 12-34-42-71 No. 21-34-42-71 No. 32-34-42-71 No. 41-34-42-71 No. 23-35-42-71 No. 21-35-42-71 No. 14-35-42-71 No. 12-35-42-71

TWP 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42

RNG 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Location NE SE Sec. 23 SW NW Sec. 24 SW SE Sec. 24 NE NE Sec. 25 NE SW Sec. 26 SW NW Sec. 26 SW SW Sec. 26 NE NE Sec. 26 NE NW Sec. 26 SW NW Sec. 27 SW SW Sec. 27 NE NW Sec. 27 NE SW Sec. 27 SW NW Sec. 34 NE NW Sec. 34 SW NE Sec. 34 NE NE Sec. 34 NE SW Sec. 35 NE NW Sec. 35 SW SW Sec. 35 SW NW Sec. 35

WOGCC Status FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL SI FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL

Status Codes: FL = Flowing, SI = Shut in CBNG well status from WOGCC database 5/14/08 Cumulative production from WOGCC database 9/25/08

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

E-15

Appendix E
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
SOUTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT AS APPLIED FOR AND LANDS ADDED BY BLM’S STUDY AREA (Continued)

API Number (Short) 554303 554304 554305 554306 554226 554212 551248 551249 553817 553818 553819 554210 Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 92,735 14,027 72,611 54,434 62,256 61,213 114,053 148,753 74,985 96,934 93,435 74,705 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 1,482 190,852 1,936 102,432 15,237 19,834 331,115 1 11,673 69 45,785 16

Company PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION BILL BARRETT CORPORATION YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION

Well Number No. 23-1-41-71 No. 21-1-41-71 No. 14-1-41-71 No. 12-1-41-71 No. 8 No. 2 No. 34-11-41-71 No. 43-11-41-71 No. 12-12-4171 No. 14-12-4171 No. 23-12-4171 No. 1

TWP 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41

RNG 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Location NE SW Sec. 1 NE NW Sec. 1 SW SW Sec. 1 SW NW Sec. 1 NE SE Sec. 10 NE SW Sec. 11 SW SE Sec. 11 NE SE Sec. 11 SW NW Sec. 12 SW SW Sec. 12 NE SW Sec. 12 SW SW Sec. 13

WOGCC Status FL SI FL FL FL SI FL FL FL FL FL FL

Status Code: FL = Flowing, SI = Shut-In CBNG well status from WOGCC 5/14/08 Cumulative production data from WOGCC 9/25/08

E-16

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

APPENDIX F SUPPLEMENTAL AIR QUALITY INFORMATION

Appendix F F-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 EIS focuses on potential air quality impacts specific to the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines and the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts (Figure F-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), Task 3A (Cumulative Air Quality Effects), and Task 3A Supplemental (Cumulative Air Quality Effects for 2015) Reports of the Powder River Basin Coal Review, prepared by the ENSR Corporation for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming High Plains District Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office, September 2005 (Tasks 1A and 3A) and October 2008 (Task 3A Supplemental). F-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 State Implementation Plan (SIP). WDEQ/AQD has also been delegated authority by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement federal programs of the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990 (CAAA). 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. F-2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires 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 CAA established NAAQS for six pollutants, known as “criteria” pollutants, which “…cause or contribute to air pollution which may be reasonably anticipated to Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications F-1

Appendix F

14 16

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 (Proposed or Under Construction)
14 90

Crook County

GILLETTE

MOORCROFT

Campbell County

Caballo West Belle Ayr North
Campbell County

Belle Ayr Mine

Johnson County

Maysdorf II

Cordero Rojo Mine

West Coal Creek

Coal Creek Mine

Weston County

Caballo Mine

116

NORTH HILIGHT FIELD WEST JACOBS RANCH
RENO JUNCTION

WRIGHT

SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD
387

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

NORTH PORCUPINE SOUTH PORCUPINE
387

Campbell County Converse County

West Antelope II Antelope Mine

Weston County Converse County Niobrara County

SCALE: 1"= 10 MILES

To Douglas 46 Miles

Figure F-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts.

F-2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

To Newcastle 29 Miles

WEST HILIGHT FIELD

Jacobs Ranch Mine
450

Appendix F endanger public health or welfare and the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources.” The six, present-day criteria pollutants are lead, 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 diameter of 10 microns or less 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 F-1. The Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards, or 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. F-2.2 Attainment/Non-Attainment Area Designations Pursuant to the CAA, 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 general Wright 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 general Wright analysis area, is a moderate non-attainment area for PM10 due to localized sources and activity within the town. There are no other nonattainment areas within 150 miles of the project area.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

F-3

Appendix F Table F-1.
Criteria Pollutant Carbon monoxide Nitrogen dioxide Ozone Sulfur dioxide

PM10 8 PM2.5 8
1 2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix F F-2.3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Under requirements of the CAA, EPA has established Prevention of Significant Deterioration (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 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, 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 F-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 Wright analysis area. The closest Class I area to the general Wright analysis area is Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota, located about 91 miles to the east. The next closest Class I area is the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation (tribal federal Class I area), located about 132 miles to the north-northwest. The closest sensitive Class II areas are the Devils Tower National Monument and the Jewel Cave National Monument, which are approximately 70 miles north-northeast and 74 miles east of the general Wright 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 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications F-5

Appendix F Table F-2. Approximate Distances and Directions from the General Wright Analysis Area to Mandatory Federal PSD Class I, Tribal Federal PSD Class I, and Federal PSD Class II Areas. Direction to Receptor E WSW W NW W WNW WNW NW W NNE NNE NNW W E WNW N NNW WNW SE E NW E WNW NW NNE NNW SSE E E WSW SE

Distance (miles) Mandatory Federal PSD Class I Area Badlands Wilderness Area1 143 Bridger Wilderness Area 199 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 207 Gates of the Mountain Wilderness Area 382 Grand Teton National Park 254 North Absaroka Wilderness Area 213 Red Rocks Lake Wilderness Area 320 Scapegoat Wilderness Area 426 Teton Wilderness Area 221 Theodore Roosevelt National Park (North Unit) 290 Theodore Roosevelt National Park (South Unit) 242 U.L. Bend Wilderness Area 290 Washakie Wilderness Area 187 Wind Cave National Park 91 Yellowstone National Park 235 Tribal Federal PSD Class I Fort Peck Indian Reservation 301 Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation 132 Federal PSD Class II Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area 224 Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 114 Badlands National Park 121 Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 166 Black Elk Wilderness Area 88 Cloud Peak Wilderness Area 93 Crow Indian Reservation 124 Devils Tower National Monument 70 Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 327 108 Fort Laramie National Historic Site 74 Jewel Cave National Monument Mount Rushmore National Memorial 94 Popo Agie Wilderness Area 194 Soldier Creek Wilderness Area 106 Receptor Area
1

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.

F-6

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix F 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. F-2.4 Best Available Control Technology All sources being permitted within Wyoming must meet state-specific best available control technol ogy (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. F-2.5 New Source Performance Standards The new source performance standards (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. F-2.6 Federal Operating Permit Program The CAAA 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 tons per year (tpy) of any regulated pollutant, 10 tpy of any single hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAPs, from applicable sources. The 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 (PTE) for PM10 under the existing air quality permits for the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines were well below the 100 tpy applicability threshold.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

F-7

Appendix F F-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 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 nitrogen oxides (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 F-8 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix F 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. 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 WDEQ/AQD has recently required all mines in the PRB to “submit and justify a background PM10 concentration with each permit application” (WDEQ/AQD 2006). A site specific PM10 background concentration of 14.91 µg/m3 was developed in the modeling analysis for the Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch mines, while a background concentration of 15.0 µg/m3 was developed for the North Antelope Rochelle 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 14.0 µg/m3 for the Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch mines and a NO2 background concentration of 20.0 µg/m3 for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. 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 mandated 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, detailed 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 short-term 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 required 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).

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

F-9

Appendix F The Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle 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, 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 Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch mines used a background concentration of 14.0 µg/m3 for PM10 and the North Antelope Rochelle Mine used a background concentration of 20.0 µg/m3. These concentrations are based on recently monitored values in Gillette, Wyoming and at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines, and include all sources operating at the time the value was measured, including existing coal mine operations located around Gillette. F-2.8 Natural Events Action Plan 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 (WMA) to develop a Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP) 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 NEAP recognizes that certain NAAQS exceedances due to natural events are uncontrollable. While all practical mitigation measures need to 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 NEAP 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 F-10 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix F can implement continuously so that they are in place before a high wind event occurs. These measures are not current requirements 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 long-term out-of-pit overburden and topsoil stockpiles that have been graded. 5. Applying non-vegetative barriers such as gravel or other large-diameter 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 NEAP 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 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. 8. The mine operator will evaluate ordering contractors to increase water, reduce operating equipment or shut down haulage. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications F-11

Appendix F 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 NEAP 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 the 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 NEAP 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 NEAP 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 NEAP or as a future update of the plan. F-3.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY WDEQ monitors air quality through an extensive network of air quality monitors throughout the state. Particulate matter is generally measured as PM10. The eastern portion of the PRB has an extensive network of PM10 monitors operated by the mining industry due to the density of coal mines in the region (Figure F-2). There are also monitors in Sheridan, Gillette, Arvada and Wright, Wyoming. This network is sited to measure ambient air quality and to infer impacts from specific sources. Source-specific monitors may also be used for developing trends in PM10 concentrations. WDEQ uses data from this monitoring network to identify potential air quality problems and to anticipate issues related to air quality. With this information, the WDEQ can stop or reverse trends that negatively affect the ambient air. Part of that effort has resulted in the formation of a coalition involving the counties, coal companies and coal bed methane operators to focus on minimizing dust from roads. The WDEQ may also take enforcement action to remedy a situation where monitoring shows a violation of any standard. If a monitored standard is exceeded at a specific source, the state agency may initiate enforcement against that source. In those instances, the state agency may use a negotiated settlement agreement to seek corrective action. WDEQ operates two visibility monitoring stations in the PRB, both of which are IMPROVE sites. One of these sites is located north of Gillette. This site F-12 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix F
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 F-2. Active Particulate Monitoring Stations in Northeastern Wyoming.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

F-13

Appendix F includes a nephelometer, a transmissometer, an aerosol monitor (IMPROVE protocol), and meteorological instruments to measure wind speed, direction, temperature, and relative humidity. The site is also equipped with a digital camera and analyzers for ozone and nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, NOx). The second visibility monitoring station is located west of Buffalo and includes a nephelometer, a transmissometer, an aerosol monitor (IMPROVE), meteorological instruments to measure wind speed, direction, temperature, and relative humidity, plus a digital camera. Air quality monitoring equipment for NO2 within the PRB includes a WARMS operated by the BLM to detect sulfur and nitrogen concentrations near Buffalo, Sheridan, and Newcastle and a NADP monitoring system for precipitation chemistry in Newcastle. F-3.1 Regional Particulate Emissions The federal and state standards for particulate matter pollutant are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2.1 of this EIS. WDEQ/AQD requires monitoring data to document the air quality at all of the PRB mines. Each mine monitored PM10 for a 24-hour period every 6 days at multiple monitoring sites through the end of 2001. This frequency was increased by the WDEQ/AQD to a 24-hour period every 3 days beginning in 2002. Available monitoring data for total suspended particles (TSP) began in 1980 and data for PM10 began in 1989. Through 2004, approximately 57,000 TSP samples had been collected and approximately 47,555 PM10 samples had been collected through 2007, making the eastern PRB one of the most intensely monitored areas for particulates in the county. Table F-3 summarizes the annual arithmetic average of data from 1980 through 2007 for sites located at Campbell and Converse County mining operations. As indicated in Table F-3, the long-term trend in particulate emissions remained relatively flat through 1998. The overall average annual TSP 3 from 1980 through 2003, with annual averages concentration was 37.7 µg/m ranging between 27.8 µg/m3 and 57.5 µg/m3. There were increases in 1988 and 1996, which may have been the result of fires in the region during those years. Increases from 1999 to 2003 may be related to drought conditions as well as increases in coal and overburden production and increases in other natural resource development activities, including CBNG, during that period. Annual average PM10 concentrations from 1989 through 1998 were relatively flat, ranging from 12.9 µg/m3 to 16.5 µg/m3, with an overall average of 15.4 µg/m3. Annual average PM10 concentrations from 1999 through 2007 were increased slightly, but were similarly relatively flat, ranging from 20.0 µg/m3 to 27.2 µg/m3, with an overall average of 23.2 µg/m3. The 1980-1998 time period was associated with significant growth in the surface coal mining industry in the eastern PRB. Coal production increased from about 59 million tons per year (mmtpy) to over 293 mmtpy (an increase of F-14 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix F Table F-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 Antelope now combined with Rochelle), and Antelope. 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 Wyoming Mining Association for WDEQ/AQD. 1997 through 2007 PM10 emissions data from EPA AirData database (EPA 2009b). 1997 through 2003 TSP emissions data from WDEQ/AQD (available upon request). 1997 through 2007 production data from WDEQ/AQD (Shamley 2008a) and Wyoming Department of Employment/State Inspector of Mines (1997-2007).

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

F-15

Appendix F 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 proportionately larger annual increase in overburden production is due to the fact that the mines are gradually moving into areas of higher stripping ratios 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 this 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. The average annual PM10 concentration increased from 15.9 µg/m3 in 1998 to 21.6 µg/m3 in 1999 and peaked in 2001 at 27.2 µg/m3. The monitored concentrations have decreased since 2001; in 2004, the average annual concentration was 20.0 µg/ m3. 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 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 miles per hour, which could have qualified as a high wind event under the NEAP. Of the 11 exceedances reported within the PRB in 2007, five have been flagged 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 flagged as an exceptional event under the NEAP (Shamley 2008b). 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 F-16 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix F town of Wright; the remaining three valid exceedances occurred in the group of mines located north of Gillette (Figure F-1). Emissions control measures that are used to control particulate emissions at the PRB mines, including the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle mines, are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2.3 of this EIS. County roads are also responsible for some portion of the fugitive dust related to transportation. To help address this problem, the Campbell County Commissioners, oil and gas production companies, and coal mine operators have formed a coalition to implement the most effective dust control measures on a number of county roads. Measures taken have ranged from the implementation of speed limits to paving of heavily traveled roads. The coalition has utilized chemical treatments to control dust as well as closing roads where appropriate or necessary and rebuilding existing roads to higher specifications. The coalition requested money from the Wyoming State Legislature to fund acquisition of Rotomill (ground up asphalt) to be mixed with gravel for use in treating some of the roads in the PRB. The Rotomill/gravel mixture has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing dust; the life of the mixture on treated roads is estimated to be from 5 to 6 years (Bott 2006). F-3.2 Regional NO2 Concentrations The federal and state standards for NO2 are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.3.1 of this EIS. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 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 the 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 2009a). The primary direct source of emissions of NOx during coal mining operations is tailpipe emissions from large mining equipment and other vehicle traffic inside the mine permit area. 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 of 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications F-17

Appendix F 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. In the mid-to late-1990s, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (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. 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. 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. 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. 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. F-4.0 REFERENCES CITED All references cited within this appendix are included within Section 6.0 of this EIS.

F-18

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

APPENDIX G BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE WRIGHT AREA COAL
LEASE APPLICATIONS EIS
NORTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT
SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT
WEST HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT
WEST JACOBS RANCH LBA TRACT
NORTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT
SOUTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT

Appendix G TABLE OF CONTENTS
G-1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................ G-1 G-1.1 Description of General Analysis Areas.................................. G-4 General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts........................................................................... G-2

Figure G-1.

SECTION G1, NORTH HIGHLIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT G1-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... G1-1 G1-1.1 The Proposed Action .......................................................... G1-1 G1-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action .................................... G1-4 G1-1.2.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................ G1-4 G1-1.2.2 Alternative 2 (BLM’s Preferred Alternative) ........... G1-4 CONSULTATION TO DATE .......................................................... G1-5

G1-2.0 G1-3.0

SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT................................................................. G1-7
G1-3.1 Threatened Species.......................................................... G1-12 G1-3.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses.............................................. G1-12 G1-3.2 Endangered Species......................................................... G1-16 G1-3.2.1 Black-footed ferret ............................................. G1-16 G1-3.2.2 Blowout penstemon ........................................... G1-18 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ............................................ G1-19
Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract ......................... G1-20 North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.......................... G1-2 Surface Ownership Within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract.................................................................................. G1-3 T&E Species Survey Area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract.................................................................................. G1-9

G1-4.0

Table G1-1.

Figure G1-1. Figure G1-2. Figure G1-3.

SECTION G2, SOUTH HIGHLIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT G2-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... G2-1 G2-1.1 The Proposed Action .......................................................... G2-1 G2-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action .................................... G2-1 G2-1.2.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................ G2-1 G2-1.2.2 Alternative 2 (BLM’s Preferred Alternative) ........... G2-4 G-i

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G G2-2.0 G2-3.0 CONSULTATION TO DATE .......................................................... G2-5

SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT................................................................. G2-7
G2-3.1 Threatened Species.......................................................... G2-11 G2-3.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses.............................................. G2-11 G2-3.2 Endangered Species......................................................... G2-15 G2-3.2.1 Black-footed ferret ............................................. G2-15 G2-3.2.2 Blowout penstemon ........................................... G2-18 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ............................................ G2-19
Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract......................... G2-19 South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ......................... G2-2 Surface Ownership Within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract.................................................................................. G2-3 T&E Species Survey Area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract.................................................................................. G2-8

G2-4.0

Table G2-1.

Figure G2-1. Figure G2-2. Figure G2-3.

SECTION G3, WEST HIGHLIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT G3-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... G3-1
G3-1.1 The Proposed Action .......................................................... G3-1
G3-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action .................................... G3-1
G3-1.2.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................ G3-1 G3-1.2.2 Alternative 2 (BLM’s Preferred Alternative) ........... G3-4 G3-1.2.3 Alternative 3) ....................................................... G3-5 CONSULTATION TO DATE .......................................................... G3-7

G3-2.0 G3-3.0

SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT................................................................. G3-9 G3-3.1 Threatened Species.......................................................... G3-13
G3-3.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses.............................................. G3-13
G3-3.2 Endangered Species......................................................... G3-17
G3-3.2.1 Black-footed ferret ............................................. G3-17
G3-3.2.2 Blowout penstemon ........................................... G3-20
SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ............................................ G3-21
Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract........................... G3-21

G3-4.0

Table G3-1.

Figure G3-1. West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives ........................... G3-2
G-ii Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Figure G3-2. Figure G-3. Surface Ownership Within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract.................................................................................. G3-3 T&E Species Survey Area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract................................................................................ G3-10

SECTION G4, WEST JACOBS RANCH LBA TRACT G4-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... G4-1 G4-1.1 The Proposed Action .......................................................... G4-1 G4-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action .................................... G4-4 G4-1.2.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................ G4-4 G4-1.2.2 Alternative 2 (BLM’s Preferred Alternative) ........... G4-4 CONSULTATION TO DATE .......................................................... G4-5

G4-2.0 G4-3.0

SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT................................................................. G4-7
G4-3.1 Threatened Species.......................................................... G4-12 G4-3.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses.............................................. G4-12 G4-3.2 Endangered Species......................................................... G4-16 G4-3.2.1 Black-footed ferret ............................................. G4-16 G4-3.2.2 Blowout penstemon ........................................... G4-19 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ............................................ G4-20
Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract........................ G4-20 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternatives ........................ G4-2 Surface Ownership Within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract.................................................................................. G4-3 T&E Species Survey Area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract.................................................................................. G4-9

G4-4.0

Table G4-1.

Figure G4-1. Figure G4-2. Figure G4-3.

SECTION G5, NORTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT G5-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... G5-1 G5-1.1 The Proposed Action .......................................................... G5-1 G5-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action .................................... G5-3 G5-1.2.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................ G5-3 G5-1.2.2 Alternative 2 (BLM’s Preferred Alternative) ........... G5-3 CONSULTATION TO DATA .......................................................... G5-6 G-iii

G5-2.0

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G G5-3.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT................................................................. G5-8
G5-3.1 Threatened Species.......................................................... G5-13 G5-3.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses.............................................. G5-13 G5-3.2 Endangered Species......................................................... G5-18 G5-3.2.1 Black-footed ferret ............................................. G5-18 G5-3.2.2 Blowout penstemon ........................................... G5-21 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ............................................ G5-22
Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the North Porcupine LBA Tract............................. G5-22 North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives ............................. G5-2 Surface Ownership Within the North Porcupine LBA Tract.................................................................................. G5-4 T&E Species Survey Area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract................................................................................ G5-10

G5-4.0

Table G5-1.

Figure G5-1. Figure G5-2. Figure G5-3.

SECTION G6, SOUTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT G6-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... G6-1 G6-1.1 The Proposed Action .......................................................... G6-1 G6-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action .................................... G6-3 G6-1.2.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................ G6-3 G6-1.2.2 Alternative 2 (BLM’s Preferred Alternative) ........... G6-3 CONSULTATION TO DATE .......................................................... G6-5

G6-2.0 G6-3.0

SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT................................................................. G6-8
G6-3.1 Threatened Species.......................................................... G6-13 G6-3.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses.............................................. G6-13 G6-3.2 Endangered Species......................................................... G6-17 G6-3.2.1 Black-footed ferret ............................................. G6-17 G6-3.2.2 Blowout penstemon ........................................... G6-20 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ............................................ G6-21

G6-4.0

Table G6-1. Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the South Porcupine LBA Tract................................. G6-21 Figure G6-1. Figure G6-2. South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives............................. G6-2 Surface Ownership Within the South Porcupine LBA Tract.................................................................................. G6-4 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G-iv

Appendix G Figure G6-3. T&E Species Survey Area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract................................................................................ G6-10

SECTION G7, REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS,
CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL, AND CITED REFERENCES
G7-1.0 G7-2.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION ..................... G7-1
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................................................. G7-2

G7-3.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL ................................... G7-5 G7-3.1 North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts................. G7-5 G7-3.1.1 T&E Animal Species ............................................ G7-5 G7-3.1.2 T&E Vegetation Species ....................................... G7-5 G7-3.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract ........................................... G7-6 G7-3.2.1 T&E Animal Species ............................................ G7-6 G7-3.2.2 T&E Vegetation Species ....................................... G7-6 G7-3.1 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts.............................. G7-6 G7-3.3.1 T&E Animal Species ............................................ G7-6 G7-3.3.2 T&E Vegetation Species ....................................... G7-7 G7-4.0

REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .................................. G7-10

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G-v

Appendix G G-1.0 INTRODUCTION Between October 2005 and September 2006, operators of three existing coal mines in Campbell County, Wyoming filed applications with the BLM for federal coal reserves in six separate tracts as maintenance leases under the Leasing on Application regulations at 43 CFD 3425. The environmental impacts of leasing these six lease by application (LBA) tracts are being evaluated in one environmental impact statement (EIS), the Wright Area Coal (WAC) Lease Applications EIS. The six tracts, which are shown on Figure G-1, and the respective applicant mines are:
     

North Hilight Field LBA Tract adjacent to and north of the Black Thunder Mine; South Hilight Field LBA Tract adjacent to and southwest of the Black Thunder Mine; West Hilight Field LBA Tract west of the Black Thunder Mine; West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract west of the Jacobs Ranch Mine; North Porcupine LBA Tract adjacent to and north of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine; and South Porcupine LBA Tract adjacent to and southwest of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine.

The purpose of this Biological Assessment is to provide information about the potential effects that leasing these six LBA tracts would have on federally listed threatened and 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 (ESA) 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. 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 federally listed species (plant and animal) that are known to be present or that may be present within the area influenced by the Proposed Actions and the Alternatives to the Proposed Actions being evaluated by the BLM. This Biological Assessment was prepared in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA. Biological Assessment objectives are: 1. To comply with the requirements of the ESA that actions of federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed species.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G-1

Appendix G

14 16

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 (Proposed or Under Construction)
14 90

Crook County

GILLETTE

MOORCROFT

Campbell County

Caballo West Belle Ayr North
Campbell County

Belle Ayr Mine

Johnson County

Maysdorf II

Cordero Rojo Mine

West Coal Creek

Coal Creek Mine

Weston County

Caballo Mine

116

NORTH HILIGHT FIELD WEST JACOBS RANCH
RENO JUNCTION

WRIGHT

SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD
387

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

NORTH PORCUPINE SOUTH PORCUPINE
387

Campbell County Converse County

West Antelope II Antelope Mine

Weston County Converse County Niobrara County

SCALE: 1"= 10 MILES

To Douglas 46 Miles

Figure G-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts.

G-2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

To Newcastle 29 Miles

WEST HILIGHT FIELD

Jacobs Ranch Mine
450

Appendix G 2. To provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened or endangered species receive full consideration in the decision making process. If a decision is made to hold separate competitive lease sales for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, or South Porcupine 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 each of the six LBA tracts are listed in Appendix D of this 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 the tract would have to be disturbed in order to recover all of the coal in a 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G-3

Appendix G 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 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 Action 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 Action, the coal included in the tract would be mined by existing employees using existing facilities and roads. G-1.1 Description of General Analysis Areas The BLM study area for each of these six LBA tracts is defined as the original tract as applied for, plus all lands that BLM is considering adding to the tract. The general analysis area for each of these six LBA tracts is defined as the BLM study area plus surrounding lands within a ¼-mile perimeter that could be disturbed by mining the coal within the BLM study area where future mining disturbance could occur. The general analysis areas for the North and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts do not include lands within Black Thunder Mine’s current mine permit area, although the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract does include some lands within Black Thunder Mine’s current mine permit area. The general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract does not include lands within Jacobs Ranch Mine’s current mine permit area. The general analysis areas for both the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are almost entirely within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current mine permit area. The general Wright analysis area is defined as the area encompassing all six of these LBA tract general analysis areas.

G-4

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

SECTION G1
NORTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT

Appendix G G1-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES On October 7, 2005, Ark Land Company (ALC) filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in two separate tracts located north and southwest of and immediately adjacent to the Black Thunder Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming (Figure G-1). The tracts, which are referred to as the North Hilight Field and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts, were assigned case file numbers WYW164812 and WYW174596, respectively. The federal coal reserves were applied for as maintenance tracts for the Black Thunder Mine. BLM determined that the two tracts in the application would be processed separately and, if the decision is made to conduct a lease sale, would be offered for sale separately. G1-1.1 The Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, the tract as applied for by ALC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D of this EIS). The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the North Hilight Field lease application (Figure G1-1). The Proposed Action assumes that ALC would be the successful bidder on the North Hilight Field LBA Tract if it is offered for sale, and the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for an existing mine. The legal description of the proposed North Hilight Field LBA Tract coal lease lands as applied for by ALC under the Proposed Action is as follows: T.44N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 19: Lots 5 through 20; T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 23: Lots 1 through 16; Section 24: Lots 1 through 16; Section 26: Lots 1 through 16; Total:

656.88 acres

653.11 acres 653.44 acres 650.07 acres 2,613.50 acres

The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned and administered by the BLM. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11 of this EIS. Surface ownership is shown in Figure G1-2.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G1-1

Appendix G
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
BNSF & UP RR

Hili ght Road

Kee line

Road

Jacobs

Shroyer Road

Road

Small Road
26
25

T. 44
N.

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

T. 43
N. 3

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

S ta
11

Hig

hwa y

450

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure G1-1. North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

G1-2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
3 2 1 6
5
4
3 2

ck Bla

BNSF & UP RR

R oad

r de un Th

Hili ght

Kee line

Cre

Road

ek
15
14

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

No rth
Pr on g
3 2

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

Lit

tle

State

Highway 450

BNSF & UP RR

R oad

Th un de r
11
12
7 8
9
10
11

Hili ght

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

k ee Cr

LEGEND

Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC Arc Land Co. Thunder Basin National Grassland Jacobs Land & Livestock Mills Brothers Partnership Guy W. Edwards Trust Western RR Properties Inc. & BNRR

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure G1-2. Surface Ownership Within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G1-3

Appendix G G1-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action G1-1.2.1 Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, ALC’s application to lease the coal included in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would be rejected. The tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities or employment on the existing leases at the Black Thunder Mine. Portions of the surface of the LBA tract would probably be disturbed by both the Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch mines due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from existing contiguous leases. G1-1.2.2 Alternative 2 (BLM’s Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 2 for the North Hilight Field 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 Powder River Basin (PRB) and for this tract if it is offered for sale (Appendix D of this EIS). Alternative 2, holding a competitive coal sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 for the North Hilight Field 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 to extend the life of the adjacent existing Black Thunder Mine. Other assumptions are the same as for the Proposed Action. In evaluating the North Hilight Field coal lease application, BLM identified a study area that includes unleased federal coal adjacent to the northern and eastern edges of the tract as applied for (Figure G1-1). BLM is evaluating the potential that some or all of these lands could be added to the area to be offered for lease to provide for more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, and/or reduce the potential that some potentially mineable federal coal in this area would be bypassed if it is not included in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. Under Alternative 2, the area BLM is evaluating adding to the tract as applied for includes the following lands: T.44N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 17: Lots 1 through 16; Section 18: Lots 5 through 20; Section 20: Lots 1 through 16; Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Section 22: Lots 1 through 15; G1-4

654.17 655.14 651.07 658.37 606.85

acres acres acres acres acres

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 13: Lots 1 through 16; Section 14: Lots 1 through 16; Total: 655.53 acres 644.74 acres 4,525.87 acres

The legal description of BLM’s preferred configuration of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 2 (Figure G1-1) is as follows: T.44N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 17: Lots 1 through 16; Section 18: Lots 5 through 20; Section 19: Lots 5 through 20; Section 20: Lots 1 through 16; Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Section 22: Lots 1 through 15; T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 13: Lots 1 through 16; Section 14: Lots 1 through 16; Section 23: Lots 1 through 16; Section 24: Lots 1 through 16; Section 26: Lots 1 through 16; Total:

654.17 655.14 656.88 651.07 658.37 606.85

acres acres acres acres acres acres

655.53 644.74 653.11 653.44 650.07

acres acres acres acres acres

7,139.37 acres

The BLM study area includes lands (approximately 80.8 acres) on the Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG), which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Forest Service (USFS). G1-2.0 CONSULTATION TO DATE The locations of the existing Black Thunder Mine coal leases, the existing approved mine permit area, and the North Hilight Field LBA Tract are shown in Figure G1-1. The Black Thunder Mine and North Hilight Field LBA Tract 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 and listed in Appendix B of this EIS. BLM and USFS have applied these coal screens to federal coal lands in Campbell County several times, starting in the early 1980s. The North Hilight Field LBA Tract is located in the area covered by the USFS screening analysis published as Appendix F of the 1985 Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan. Most recently, in 1993, BLM, USFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) began the process of reapplying these screens to federal coal lands in Campbell, Converse, and Sheridan counties. The results of this Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G1-5

Appendix G 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. This analysis is referenced in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision (USFS 2001a) and adopted in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Thunder Basin National Grassland (USFS 2001b). The Record of Decision for the Thunder Basin National Grassland FEIS and LRMP was signed on July 31, 2002 (USFS 2002a). The North Hilight Field LBA Tract is located within Management Area 8.4, as identified in the 2002 Thunder Basin National Grassland LRMP, which is to be managed for mineral production and development. Consultation with USFWS was conducted as part of the 2002 LRMP. Consultation with 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 this EIS summarizes the unsuitability criteria, describes the general findings for the screening analyses discussed above, and presents a validation of these findings for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract based on the current information. Consultation with USFWS has previously been completed for the area included within the Black Thunder Mine’s existing approved mine permit area, shown in Figure G1-1, as part of the mine and reclamation plan approval process. This process began when the Black Thunder Mine was initially permitted in 1974 and has continued through 2008. The most recent Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern and Raptor Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the Black Thunder Mine was approved by the USFWS in 2007. USFWS maintains a list of “threatened” or “endangered” (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 (ESA), to provide a list of T&E species upon request for federal actions and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) compliance. According to USFWS information (USFWS 2009), three federally listed species could potentially occur in the general Wright analysis area
  

Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis): Threatened Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes): Endangered Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii): Endangered Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G1-6

Appendix G The effects upon these three species are described and analyzed in detail in this appendix. The bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus) was removed from listing as a threatened species in August 2007. Discussion on the bald eagle is included in Appendix H of this EIS as a sensitive species. USFWS provided BLM a listing of the T&E species that may be present in the Buffalo Field Office Area (northeastern Wyoming) in a memorandum letter from Brian T. Kelly, USFWS, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Chris Hanson, BLM Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming, dated August 8, 2007 (USFWS 2007), which included the black-footed ferret and Ute ladies’-tresses, but not blowout penstemon. Recently, blowout penstemon was added to the Campbell County listing (USFWS 2009). The August 8, 2007 memorandum stated that the USFWS focuses on three broad categories of trust resources: 1) T&E and candidate species, 2) migratory birds, and 3) wetlands and riparian areas. The memorandum stated that the Service would work with the BLM to ensure that species-specific protective measures and programs for the conservation and recovery of listed species as required by under the ESA are satisfied and carried out. Protective measures for migratory birds are provided pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the protection of wetlands is pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990, and Executive Order 11988. The memorandum also provided recommendations for biological assessments in compliance with NEPA, the protection of migratory birds, wetlands, and for other fish and wildlife resources (under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) provided BLM with scoping comments for the six LBA tracts included in the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS in a letter from John Emmerich, Deputy Director, WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Sarah Bucklin, BLM, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated July 5, 2007 (WGFD 2007). WGFD recommended consideration be given to possible impacts to big game species and their habitat, sage grouse, other sagebrush obligates, and nongame species that occur within the general Wright analysis area. G1-3.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Wildlife monitoring has been conducted annually for the Black Thunder Mine since 1983. This wildlife monitoring was designed to meet the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD), WGFD, and federal (USFWS) 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 annual wildlife monitoring program has been consistent since it began in 1983, with minor modifications in accordance with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. Areas covered by the wildlife surveys included the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G1-7

Appendix G mine’s permit area and a large perimeter around the permit boundary; therefore, the North Hilight Field LBA Tract has also received extensive coverage during baseline and annual wildlife monitoring surveys for over 25 years. All but the northern quarter of the tract as applied for has been included in the mine’s annual surveys since 2002. The Black Thunder Mine initiated baseline investigations expressly for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract in 2006, with annual monitoring continued in subsequent years. All or portions of the tract’s associated general analysis area (described in Section G 1.1), plus the additional “wildlife survey area” (described as a two-mile perimeter beyond the tract’s general analysis area) was included in these wildlife monitoring areas at the Black Thunder Mine and/or the neighboring Jacobs Ranch Mine. Black Thunder Mine initiated targeted surveys specifically for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract and its wildlife survey area in 2006 and 2007. Additional survey areas focusing on the North and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts were added in 2007 and 2008. Figure G1-3 depicts the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, the tract’s general analysis area, and the T&E animal species survey area. The approved Black Thunder Mine Permit 233-T7 (TBCC 2005) includes monitoring and mitigation measures that are required by SMCRA and Wyoming State Law. If the North Hilight Field LBA Tract is acquired by ALC, these monitoring and mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on the LBA tract when the Black Thunder 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. Continued site-specific surveys for the lease area and appropriate perimeter would be part of the mine permitting process if the tract is leased and proposed for mining. These monitoring and mitigation measures are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative) during the leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. Background information on wildlife in the vicinity of the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract was obtained from several sources, including the South Powder River Basin Coal FEIS (BLM 2003), records from the WGFD, BLM, USFWS and USFS, and personal contact with biologists from those four agencies. Site-specific data for the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract were obtained from several sources, including WDEQ/LQD mine permit applications and annual wildlife monitoring reports for the applicant and the neighboring (Jacobs Ranch) mines, which are on file with the WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. The LBA tract and adjacent areas consist primarily of uplands. The topography of the general analysis area, like the areas within the adjacent mines’ existing permit areas, is relatively subdued. The landscape consists primarily of gently rolling terrain broken by minor drainages and internallydrained playa areas. Drainage densities are quite low, and the playas are common topographic and hydrologic features. Much of the land surface does not contribute runoff to any stream, and playas have formed in the lowest G1-8 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
29 28 27 26

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
29 28 27 26 25 30

Cre

T.
45 N. T. 44 N.

Keeline Road

T. 45
N. T. 44 N.

Bl a

Fo r k

BNSF & UP RR

Wes t

Hilight Road

Th un de r

Ke elin e

Jacobs Road

Ro 13 ad
Cree

Shroyer Road
20 21 22 23 24 19 20

k
19

Nor th

PRAIRIE DOG COLONIES
29 28 27

S mall R oad
26

ng Pro

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

e ttl Li

State

Highway 450
Th un de r
12

ee Cr k
13

Li t

Sta

tle

High

way

450
30

Thu
30

nde r

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Creek

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
0 5000 10000 20000

General Analysis Area 2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary Prairie Dog Colony

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure G1-3. T&E Species Survey Area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G1-9

Appendix G portion of these non-contributing drainage areas. Land surface elevations range from about 4,690 to 5,170 feet above sea level and slopes range from essentially flat to over 50 percent within the general Wright analysis area. Gently rolling uplands comprise most of the general Wright analysis area; most of the land surface (between 75 and 90 percent, depending on the particular LBA tract) seldom exceeds a 5 percent slope. The steepest slopes typically occur near the highest elevations along the ridge lines and drainage divides and along the drainages, where channel incision has created some gullying. The average land surface slope over the entire general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract is approximately 3.4 percent. Surface mine lands, both active and reclaimed, dominate the landscape south and east of the North Hilight Field tract. Predominant wildlife habitat types classified in the general Wright analysis area generally correspond with the major vegetation communities defined during the vegetation baseline survey. In terms of relative acres of occurrence, the predominant vegetation types are the Big Sage Shrubland (approximately 42 percent), Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland (approximately 28 percent), and Crested Wheatgrass/Agricultural Pastureland (approximately 15 percent). Minor vegetation types, including saline grassland, rough breaks, disturbed lands and bottomlands account for approximately 10 percent of the six combined general analysis areas. Disturbed lands include road and utility rights-of-way, areas surrounding active construction sites and mining facilities, oil and gas facilities, and occupied and abandoned homesteads. Few trees occur in the general Wright analysis area due to the lack of water and suitable habitats; most trees are found primarily in windbreaks planted adjacent to ranching facilities. Reclaimed lands include areas that were recently disturbed for road construction, installation of oil and gas development-related facilities, and mining-associated activities. The North Hilight Field general analysis area and the existing Black Thunder Mine permit area are located in the Little Thunder Creek watershed. Typical of this semi-arid area, Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries are all ephemeral streams. Black Thunder Mine’s approved WDEQ/LQD mine permit allows disturbance of Little Thunder Creek and several of its tributaries, including North Prong Little Thunder Creek. Approximately 43 percent (3,031 acres) of the 7,139-acre BLM study area for the North Hilight Field tract drains toward playas that are formed by natural topographic depressions; the largest of which are the Hansen Lakes; and Springen Draw, an internally drained closed basin, drains the entire western portion of the tract’s general analysis area. Numerous in-channel stock reservoirs are scattered throughout the general Wright analysis area. Most of these stock ponds are many decades old and are constructed with earthen berms or dams. There are also a number of playas within the area. Those water bodies provide short-term habitat of variable quality for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and other aquatic species (birds, fish, herptiles) during spring but are less reliable, and often dry, during other seasons. G1-10 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G A preliminary wetland inventory of the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, based on USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping (1980), review of color infrared aerial photographs (WGCS 2002), and a field survey reconnaissance, was conducted in 2007. Some wetland areas previously mapped by the USFWS NWI have been recently altered due to coal bed natural gas (CBNG)-related water production within and upstream of the tract’s general analysis area. The NWI maps were consulted prior to the initiation of the preliminary wetland field survey; however, the boundaries of the existing potential wetlands vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries shown on the NWI maps. Due to the ephemeral nature of CBNG dewatering activities, the boundaries, and therefore wetland areas, are likewise ephemeral. A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation survey for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would be conducted and submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for verification as part of the mine permitting process, if the LBA tract is leased. Within the entire general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract (8,476.4 acres), the preliminary wetland inventory identified a total of 177.5 acres of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. (OWUS). These wetlands and OWUS were found within five general land categories: ephemeral streams, playas, ponds/reservoirs, isolated depressions, and excavated upland areas. These 177.5 acres are vegetated wetlands that consist of approximately 172.0 acres of palustrine emergent herbaceous wet meadow or marsh and approximately 5.5 acres of palustrine aquatic beds located along ephemeral stream channels and around ponds, playas and depressions. No areas of open water (pond or channel OWUS) were observed during this preliminary wetland inventory. At this time, a distinction has not been made between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional acreages of wetlands and OWUS since only the COE has the authorization to make such determination following the submittal and review of a formal wetland delineation as part of the mine permitting process. In Wyoming, once the delineation has been verified, it is made a part of the mine permit document. The reclamation plan is then revised to incorporate the replacement of at least equal types and numbers of jurisdictional wetland acreages. Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area, no designated critical, crucial, or unique habitats designated by USFWS for T&E species are present. The following discussion describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 on federally listed species.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G1-11

Appendix G G1-3.1 Threatened Species G1-3.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 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, central Washington, and Canada. Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 12 to 50 centimeters (5 to 20 inches) 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 generally 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 centimeters (18 inches) 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 late July through early September (Heidel 2007). 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).

G1-12

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G 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. The nearest population to the North Hilight Field LBA Tract is located on a tributary of Antelope Creek in northern Converse County. Areas of Ute ladies’-tresses potential habitat within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract were surveyed by Habitat Management Inc. on August 11-15, 2008, and no Ute ladies’-tresses orchids were found. Dormant plants typically persist underground for one to many years and can only be reliably documented after several years of repeated surveys (Lesica and Steele 1994). Recent USFWS guidelines therefore recommend that multiple surveys of all potentially suitable habitat be conducted within the last 3 years. In order to adequately determine the presence of the species, an additional survey by Habitat Management Inc. is scheduled during the known populations’ flowering period (mid-August to early September) in 2009. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G1-13

Appendix G Previous surveys have been conducted during the flowering period within the existing Black Thunder Mine permit area (e.g., for each of BLM’s EISs analyzing the environmental impacts of leasing the LBA tracts obtained by the mine since 1992, as listed in Table 1-1 of this EIS) and no Ute ladies’-tresses orchids were found during any of those surveys. Topographical and wetland delineation maps for the tract’s general analysis area were reviewed to identify all potential 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 involved walking entire lengths of the drainages documenting locations of potential habitat and searching for this species. Most of the suitable habitat within the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area and adjacent areas is found along the ephemeral stream channels that drain south toward North Prong Little Thunder Creek, north toward Black Thunder Creek, or toward internally drained playas. Limited portions of these drainages may receive recharge from bank storage making them locally intermittent. In response to surface discharge of groundwater associated with CBNG development on or upstream of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, streamflow occurrence is now more persistent and the duration of time that some playas and in-channel reservoirs hold water may be extended before going completely dry. Within the entire general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, the preliminary wetland inventory conducted in 2007 identified a total of 177.5 acres of wetlands and OWUS, which were all vegetated wetlands, and no areas of open water (pond or channel OWUS) were observed. According to the USFWS 2005 Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies’-tresses (Fertig et al. 2005), the number of populations, geographic ranges, acreages, and estimated population sizes of this species has increased significantly since it was listed in 1992. Much of this can be attributed to increased survey and project analysis work over much of the western United States and heightened awareness of the plant due to its protected status. When the orchid was listed as threatened in 1992, it had an estimated population size of 6,000 individuals. In 2005, additional survey work estimated the number of plants to be over 83,300. USFWS determined that a petition to remove the orchid from federal protection under the ESA provided substantial biological information, which indicated that removal may be warranted. As of December 2005, the Service was moving forward with the proposal to delist the Ute ladies’-tresses, but a final decision has not yet been made.

G1-14

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the North Hilight Field tract general analysis area, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’-tresses. Potential habitat for this species is marginal and currently present on the tract along several ephemeral drainages. Outside of these drainages, potential habitat is rare within the tract’s general analysis area. The nearest known Ute ladies’-tresses population is located on an Antelope Creek tributary approximately 28 miles southwest of the project area. As described above, Black Thunder Mine has conducted multiple orchid surveys of suitable habitat over multiple years during the known time of flowering using USFWS accepted techniques. All surveys at the Black Thunder Mine and other mines in this area have resulted in negative findings. Individual plants of this species do not necessarily produce annual flowering stalks or above-ground growth consistently from year to year. Single season surveys that meet the current USFWS survey guidelines may not detect this species due to its ability to persist below ground level or above ground without flowering. Areas of suitable habitat within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract were surveyed in August 2008 and no orchids were found. An additional survey of the tract’s general analysis area is scheduled during the flowering period (mid-August to early September) in 2009. It is unlikely that Ute ladies’-tresses populations would remain undetected during multiple surveys over multiple years, if they are present in the area. Nonetheless, if undetected populations are present on the ephemeral streams in the general analysis area, they would be lost due to surface disturbing activities. Jurisdictional wetlands located in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract that are destroyed by mining operations would be replaced in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as determined by the 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. 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G1-15

Appendix G water produced from CBNG development and water discharge on the surface may also alter stream morphology and hydrology. G1-3.2 Endangered Species G1-3.2.1 Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) 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 percent 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 Wyoming’s PRB, as well as USFS surveys for ferrets on the neighboring 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 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 Black Thunder Mine and North Hilight Field LBA Tract’s general analysis area are beyond the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and elsewhere in the general region (USFS 2002b, Grenier 2003). While the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract and its 2-mile wildlife study area (Figure G1-3) harbor some G1-16 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G small prairie dog colonies, black-footed ferrets have never been documented at the mine, nor the surrounding region, during surveys conducted over the last 30 plus years (1976 to present) by a variety of private, state, and federal entities. No black-footed ferret observations or scat have ever been documented in this LBA tract’s wildlife study area. On February 2, 2004, the USFWS declared that surveys for black-footed ferrets were no longer required in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming (USFWS 2004). Currently, four black-tailed prairie dog colonies encompassing a total of approximately 53.8 non-contiguous acres are located within 2 miles of the North Hilight Field tract (Figure G1-3). Of which, two colonies occur within the general analysis area itself and are approximately 3.4 and 19.5 acres in size. The other two colonies located in the surrounding 2-mile survey area are approximately 3.7 and 27.2 acres in size. All of these colonies were occupied during 2007. None of these four colonies within the 2-mile wildlife study area meet the 120-acre minimum threshold for supporting a breeding female ferret and her litter (Forrest et al. 1985) and none meet the 80-acre minimum requirement for black-footed ferret habitat (USFWS 1989). Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract general analysis area, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), would have no effect on black-footed ferrets. Given the documented absence of black-footed ferrets in the region, including the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, during specific surveys for this species, the lack of sizeable, contiguous prairie dog colonies within the LBA tract and surrounding areas, 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 for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would not result in any direct or indirect effects on black-footed 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. Based on more than 30 years of historic and recent survey efforts and other general analysis area data and information, it is unlikely that ferrets exist in the North Hilight Field tract general analysis area or surrounding wildlife survey area.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G1-17

Appendix G Cumulative Effects: Mineral development within black-tailed prairie dog colonies is a leading cause of potential 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 in colonies on reclaimed coal mined lands in northeastern Wyoming in recent years, whether by natural expansion or purposeful relocations (J&S 2008, IR 2007). 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. As indicated, coal mining and natural gas development have occurred in the general Wright analysis area for more than 30 years, with activities expected to increase in the immediate future. Leasing and mining lands in North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area would not contribute to cumulative adverse effects to black-footed ferrets within either the general analysis area or the region. No black-footed ferret populations exist within northeastern Wyoming or the TBNG. The USFWS issued a block clearance for this species in blacktailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming. The general analysis area and surrounding perimeter are beyond the focus area for future ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and in the general region (USFS 2002b, Grenier 2003). Furthermore, the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 would not conflict with any future objectives to manage the area for, or reintroduce black-footed ferrets into, the TBNG. G1-3.2.2 Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) 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 2007). 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, G1-18 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G coupled with impacts from insect outbreaks, drought, inbreeding, and potential over collection, has caused problems for the plant (University of Wyoming 2008). 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 2007). Threats to the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by vehicular traffic (University of Wyoming 2008). Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb with stems less than 30 centimeters (12 inches) tall. The inflorescence is 5 to 15 centimeters (2 to 6 inches) long and has six to ten compact whorls of milkyblue to pale lavender flowers. This species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current known 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 (University of Wyoming 2008). Existing Environment: The North Hilight Field LBA Tract is not within the documented historical range of the blowout penstemon. The tracts are located approximately 150 miles northwest of the known occurrences in Nebraska and approximately 150 miles northeast of the known occurrences in Wyoming. No suitable sand dunes (whether stable or active) are currently present in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), would have no effect on the blowout penstemon. Typical suitable habitat for this species within the tract’s general analysis area 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, off road vehicle use, and associated destabilization of the plant’s sand dune habitat. It could also be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of non-native species within its range. G1-4.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS Table G1-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in the area of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract that may result from implementing the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative). Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G1-19

Appendix G Table G1-1. Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. 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.

G1-20

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

SECTION G2
SOUTH HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT

Appendix G G2-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES On October 7, 2005, ALC filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in two separate tracts located north and southwest of and immediately adjacent to the Black Thunder Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming (Figure G 1). The tracts, which are referred to as the North Hilight Field and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts, were assigned case file numbers WYW164812 and WYW174596, respectively. The federal coal reserves were applied for as maintenance tracts for the Black Thunder Mine. BLM determined that the two tracts in the application would be processed separately and, if the decision is made to conduct a lease sale, would be offered for sale separately. G2-1.1 The Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, the tract as applied for by ALC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D of this EIS). The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the South Hilight Field lease application (Figure G2-1). The Proposed Action assumes that ALC would be the successful bidder on the South Hilight Field LBA Tract if it is offered for sale, and the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for an existing mine. The legal description of the proposed South Hilight Field LBA Tract coal lease lands as applied for by ALC under the Proposed Action is as follows: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 23: Lots 1 through 16; Section 26: Lots 1 through 16; Section 35: Lots 1 through 16; Total:

649.36 acres 667.69 acres 659.64 acres 1,976.69 acres

The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned and administered by the BLM. Much of the surface (approximately 83 percent) of the tract as applied for includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11 of this EIS. Surface ownership is shown in Figure G2-2. G2-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action G2-1.2.1 Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, ALC’s application to lease the coal included in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract would be rejected. The tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities or employment on the existing leases at the Black Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G2-1

Appendix G
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
8 9

Hilight Road

BNSF & UP RR

Sta te

Hig

hw ay

45 0

T. 43
N. T. 42
N.

Hilight Road

Edwards Road

Reno Road

Antel ope R oad

BNSF & UP RR

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure G2-1. South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

G2-2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
th Nor
8 9 10 11 12
7 8
9

Prong

Lit

tle
ek re r C de un Th

Lit

tle Th

de r
29

Creek

T. 43
N. T. 42
N.

Hilight Road

T. 43
N. T. 42
N.

Edwards Road

Reno Road

Antel ope R oad

BNSF & UP RR

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Western RR Properties Inc. & BNRR Thunder Basin National Grassland

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure G2-2. Surface Ownership Within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G2-3

Appendix G Thunder Mine. Portions of the surface of the LBA tract would probably be disturbed by the Black Thunder Mine due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from existing contiguous leases. G2-1.2.2 Alternative 2 (BLM’s Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 2 for the South Hilight Field 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 for this tract if it is offered for sale (Appendix D of this EIS). Alternative 2, holding a competitive coal sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 for the South Hilight Field 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 to extend the life of the adjacent existing Black Thunder Mine. Other assumptions are the same as for the Proposed Action. In evaluating the South Hilight Field coal lease application, BLM identified a study area that includes unleased federal coal adjacent to the southern edge of the tract as applied for (Figure G2-1). BLM is evaluating the potential that some or all of these lands could be added to the area to be offered for lease to provide for more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, and/or reduce the potential that some potentially mineable federal coal in this area would be bypassed if it is not included in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Under Alternative 2, the area BLM is evaluating adding to the tract as applied for includes the following lands: T.42N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 1: Lots 7 through 10 and 15 through 18; Section 2: Lots 5 through 20;

316.43 acres 629.26 acres

Total: 945.69 acres The legal description of BLM’s preferred configuration of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 2 (Figure G2-1) is as follows: T.42N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 1: Lots 7 through 10 and 15 through 18; 316.43 acres Section 2: Lots 5 through 20; 629.26 acres T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 23: Lots 1 through 16; Section 26: Lots 1 through 16; Section 35: Lots 1 through 16; G2-4

649.36 acres 667.69 acres 659.64 acres

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Total: 2,922.38 acres

Much of the surface (approximately 89 percent) of the BLM study area includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. G2-2.0 CONSULTATION TO DATE The locations of the existing Black Thunder Mine coal leases, the existing approved mine permit area, and the South Hilight Field LBA Tract are shown in Figure G2-1. The Black Thunder Mine and South Hilight Field LBA Tract 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 and listed in Appendix B of this EIS. BLM and USFS have applied these coal screens to federal coal lands in Campbell County several times, starting in the early 1980s. The South Hilight Field LBA Tract is located in the area covered by the USFS screening analysis published as Appendix F of the 1985 Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan. Most recently, in 1993, BLM, USFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 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. This analysis is referenced in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision (USFS 2001a) and adopted in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Thunder Basin National Grassland (USFS 2001b). The Record of Decision for the Thunder Basin National Grassland FEIS and LRMP was signed on July 31, 2002 (USFS 2002a). The South Hilight Field LBA Tract fall within Management Area 8.4, as identified in the 2002 Thunder Basin National Grassland LRMP, which is to be managed for mineral production and development. Consultation with USFWS was conducted as part of the 2002 LRMP. Consultation with 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 this EIS summarizes the unsuitability criteria, describes the general findings for the screening analyses discussed above, and presents a validation of these findings for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract based on the current information.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G2-5

Appendix G Consultation with USFWS has previously been completed for the area included within the Black Thunder Mine’s existing approved mine permit area, shown in Figure G2-1, as part of the mine and reclamation plan approval process. This process began when the Black Thunder Mine was initially permitted in 1974 and has continued through 2008. The most recent Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern and Raptor Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the Black Thunder Mine was approved by the USFWS in 2007. USFWS maintains a list of “threatened” or “endangered” (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 (ESA), to provide a list of T&E species upon request for federal actions and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) compliance. According to USFWS information (USFWS 2009), three federally listed species could potentially occur in the general Wright analysis area
  

Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis): Threatened Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes): Endangered Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii): Endangered

The effects upon these three species are described and analyzed in detail in this appendix. The bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus) was removed from listing as a threatened species in August 2007. Discussion on the bald eagle is included in Appendix H of this EIS as a sensitive species. USFWS provided BLM a listing of the T&E species that may be present in the Buffalo Field Office Area (northeastern Wyoming) in a memorandum letter from Brian T. Kelly, USFWS, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Chris Hanson, BLM Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming, dated August 8, 2007 (USFWS 2007), which included the black-footed ferret and Ute ladies’-tresses, but not blowout penstemon. Recently, blowout penstemon was added to the Campbell County listing (USFWS 2009). The August 8, 2007 memorandum stated that the USFWS focuses on three broad categories of trust resources: 1) T&E and candidate species, 2) migratory birds, and 3) wetlands and riparian areas. The memorandum stated that the Service would work with the BLM to ensure that species-specific protective measures and programs for the conservation and recovery of listed species as required by under the ESA are satisfied and carried out. Protective measures for migratory birds are provided pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the protection of wetlands is pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990, and Executive Order 11988. The memorandum also provided recommendations for biological assessments in compliance with the National Environmental Policy G2-6 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Act (NEPA), the protection of migratory birds, wetlands, and for other fish and wildlife resources (under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) provided BLM with scoping comments for the six LBA tracts included in the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS in a letter from John Emmerich, Deputy Director, WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Sarah Bucklin, BLM, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated July 5, 2007 (WGFD 2007). WGFD recommended consideration be given to possible impacts to big game species and their habitat, sage grouse, other sagebrush obligates, and nongame species that occur within the general Wright analysis area. G2-3.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Wildlife monitoring has been conducted annually for the Black Thunder Mine since 1983. This wildlife monitoring was designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal (USFWS) 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 annual wildlife monitoring program has been consistent since it began in 1983, with minor modifications in accordance with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. Areas covered by the wildlife surveys included the mine’s permit area and a large perimeter around the permit boundary; therefore, the South Hilight Field LBA Tract has also received extensive coverage during baseline and annual wildlife monitoring surveys for over 25 years. All but approximately 160 acres located in the southwestern corner of BLM’s study area for the South Hilight Field tract has been included in baseline inventories and annual wildlife surveys conducted for the Black Thunder Mine since 1983. Black Thunder Mine initiated targeted surveys specifically for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract and its wildlife survey area in 2006 and 2007. Additional surveys focusing on the wildlife survey areas for the North and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts were added in 2007 and 2008. Figure G2-3 depicts the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, the tract’s general analysis area, and the T&E animal species survey area. The approved Black Thunder Mine Permit 233-T7 (TBCC 2005) includes monitoring and mitigation measures that are required by SMCRA and Wyoming State Law. If the South Hilight Field LBA Tract is acquired by ALC, these monitoring and mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on the LBA tract when the Black Thunder 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. Continued site-specific surveys for the lease area and appropriate perimeter would be part of the mine permitting process if the tract is leased and proposed for mining. These monitoring and mitigation measures are considered to be part of the Proposed Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G2-7

Appendix G
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
25 30
29
28
27

S mall R oad
26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
25 30 29
28
27
26

rth No

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

ng Pro

Lit

tle
Th un de r
2

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

State Highway 450

PRAIRIE DOG COLONIES
7 8

C ek re

Li t

tle

Thu
27 26 25
30
29

nde r

Creek

T. 42 N.

Hili ght R oad

T. 43 36 N.

T. 43
N. T. 42
N.

Matheson Road

Edwards Road

R eno Road

Po rcu
13

B NS F & UP RR

pin e
18
17 16 15

PRAIRIE DOG COLONIES
14
13
18
17 16 15

Cre
24
19 20

ek
21 22

Antel ope

R oad

Reno Road

Mackey

Road

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
0 5000 10000 20000

General Analysis Area 2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary Prairie Dog Colony

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure G2-3. T&E Species Survey Area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract.

G2-8

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Action and Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative) during the leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. Background information on wildlife in the vicinity of the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract was obtained from several sources, including the South Powder River Basin Coal FEIS (BLM 2003), records from the WGFD, BLM, USFWS and USFS, and personal contact with biologists from those four agencies. Site-specific data for the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract were obtained from several sources, including WDEQ/LQD mine permit applications and annual wildlife monitoring reports for the applicant and the neighboring (Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle) mines, which are on file with the WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. The LBA tract and adjacent areas consist primarily of uplands. The topography of the general analysis area, like the areas within the adjacent mine’s existing permit area, is relatively subdued. The landscape consists primarily of gently rolling terrain broken by minor drainages and internallydrained playa areas. Drainage densities are quite low, and the playas are common topographic and hydrologic features. Much of the land surface does not contribute runoff to any stream, and playas have formed in the lowest portion of these non-contributing drainage areas. Land surface elevations range from about 4,690 to 5,170 feet above sea level and slopes range from essentially flat to over 50 percent within the general Wright analysis area. Gently rolling uplands comprise most of the general Wright analysis area; most of the land surface (between 75 and 90 percent, depending on the particular LBA tract) seldom exceeds a 5 percent slope. The steepest slopes typically occur near the highest elevations along the ridge lines and drainage divides and along the drainages, where channel incision has created some gullying. The average land surface slope over the entire general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract is approximately 2.5 percent. Surface mine lands, both active and reclaimed, dominate the landscape northeast, east, and southeast of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Predominant wildlife habitat types classified in the general Wright analysis area generally correspond with the major vegetation communities defined during the vegetation baseline survey. In terms of relative acres of occurrence, the predominant vegetation types are the Big Sage Shrubland (approximately 42 percent), Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland (approximately 28 percent), and Crested Wheatgrass/Agricultural Pastureland (approximately 15 percent). Minor vegetation types, including saline grassland, rough breaks, disturbed lands and bottomlands account for approximately 10 percent of the six combined general analysis areas. Disturbed lands include road and utility rights-of-way, areas surrounding active construction sites and mining facilities, oil and gas facilities, and occupied and abandoned homesteads. Few trees occur in the general Wright analysis area due to the lack of water and suitable habitats; most trees are found primarily in windbreaks planted adjacent to ranching facilities. Reclaimed lands include areas that were recently disturbed Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G2-9

Appendix G for road construction, installation of oil and gas development-related facilities, and mining-associated activities. The South Hilight Field general analysis area and the existing Black Thunder Mine permit area are located in the Little Thunder Creek watershed. Typical of this semi-arid area, Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries are all ephemeral streams. Little Thunder Creek flows easterly through and drains the northern portion of the BLM study area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Approximately 47 percent (1,364 acres) of the 2,922-acre BLM study area for the South Hilight Field tract drains toward playas that are formed by natural topographic depressions. The southwestern corner of the tract’s general analysis area is drained by Briggs Draw, an ephemeral tributary of Little Thunder Creek. Black Thunder Mine’s approved WDEQ/LQD mine permit allows disturbance of Little Thunder Creek and several of its tributaries. Numerous in-channel stock reservoirs are scattered throughout the general Wright analysis area. Most of these stock ponds are many decades old and are constructed with earthen berms or dams. There are also a number of playas within the area. Those water bodies provide short-term habitat of variable quality for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and other aquatic species (birds, fish, herptiles) during spring but are less reliable, and often dry, during other seasons. A preliminary wetland inventory of the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, based on USFWS NWI mapping (1980), review of color infrared aerial photographs (WGCS 2002), and a field survey reconnaissance, was conducted in 2007. Some wetland areas previously mapped by the USFWS NWI have been recently altered due to CBNG-related water production within and upstream of the general analysis area. The NWI maps were consulted prior to the initiation of the preliminary wetland field survey; however, the boundaries of the existing potential wetlands vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries shown on the NWI maps. Due to the ephemeral nature of CBNG dewatering activities, the boundaries, and therefore wetland areas, are likewise ephemeral. A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation survey for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract would be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the mine permitting process, if the LBA tract is leased. Within the entire general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract (3,367.9 acres), the preliminary wetland inventory identified a total of 55.1 acres of wetlands and OWUS. These wetlands and OWUS were found within five general land categories: ephemeral streams, playas, ponds/reservoirs, isolated depressions, and excavated upland areas. Of these 55.1 acres, approximately 52.3 acres are vegetated wetlands that consist of approximately 51.2 acres of palustrine emergent herbaceous wet meadow or marsh and approximately 1.1 acres of palustrine aquatic beds located along ephemeral stream channels and around ponds, playas and depressions. The remaining 2.8 acres are channel OWUS (open water in Little Thunder Creek). Little G2-10 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Thunder Creek was initially classified as a palustrine wetland by NWI, but currently meets the classification of a riverine, streambed system and is heavily influenced by CBNG discharge water. At this time, a distinction has not been made between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional acreages of wetlands and OWUS since only the COE has the authorization to make such determination following the submittal and review of a formal wetland delineation as part of the mine permitting process. In Wyoming, once the delineation has been verified, it is made a part of the mine permit document. The reclamation plan is then revised to incorporate the replacement of at least equal types and numbers of jurisdictional wetland acreages. Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area, no designated critical, crucial, or unique habitats designated by USFWS for T&E species are present. The following discussion describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 on federally listed species. G2-3.1 Threatened Species G2-3.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 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, central Washington, and Canada. Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 12 to 50 centimeters (5 to 20 inches) 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 generally 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G2-11

Appendix G 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 centimeters (18 inches) 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 late July through early September (Heidel 2007). 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 G2-12 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G 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. The nearest population to the South Hilight Field LBA Tract is located on a tributary of Antelope Creek in northern Converse County. Areas of Ute ladies’-tresses potential habitat within the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract were surveyed by Habitat Management Inc. on August 11-15, 2008, and no Ute ladies’-tresses orchids were found. Dormant plants typically persist underground for one to many years and can only be reliably documented after several years of repeated surveys (Lesica and Steele 1994). Recent USFWS guidelines therefore recommend that multiple surveys of all potentially suitable habitat be conducted within the last 3 years. In order to adequately determine the presence of the species, an additional survey by Habitat Management Inc. is scheduled during the known populations’ flowering period (mid-August to early September) in 2009. Previous surveys have been conducted during the flowering period within the existing Black Thunder Mine permit area (e.g., for each of BLM’s EISs analyzing the environmental impacts of leasing the LBA tracts obtained by the mine since 1992, as listed in Table 1-1 of this EIS) and no Ute ladies’-tresses orchids were found during any of those surveys. Topographical and wetland delineation maps for the tract’s general analysis area were reviewed to identify all potential 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 involved walking entire lengths of the drainages documenting locations of potential habitat and searching for this species. Most of the suitable habitat within the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area and adjacent areas is found along Little Thunder Creek, which flows from west to east through the northern portion of the tract. Nearly half of the study area drains toward playas that are formed by natural topographic depressions. All drainages within and around this area, including Little Thunder Creek, are ephemeral. Limited portions of these drainages may receive recharge from bank storage making them locally intermittent. In response to surface discharge of groundwater associated with CBNG development on or upstream of the South Hilight Field tract, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, streamflow occurrence in Little Thunder Creek is now more persistent, and the duration of time that some playas and inchannel reservoirs hold water may be extended before going completely dry. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G2-13

Appendix G Within the entire general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, the preliminary wetland inventory conducted in 2007 identified a total of 55.1 acres of wetlands and OWUS, including 52.3 acres of vegetated wetlands and 2.8 acres of channel OWUS (open water in Little Thunder Creek). According to the USFWS 2005 Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies’-tresses (Fertig et al. 2005), the number of populations, geographic ranges, acreages, and estimated population sizes of this species has increased significantly since it was listed in 1992. Much of this can be attributed to increased survey and project analysis work over much of the western United States and heightened awareness of the plant due to its protected status. When the orchid was listed as threatened in 1992, it had an estimated population size of 6,000 individuals. In 2005, additional survey work estimated the number of plants to be over 83,300. USFWS determined that a petition to remove the orchid from federal protection under the ESA provided substantial biological information, which indicated that removal may be warranted. As of December 2005, the Service was moving forward with the proposal to delist the Ute ladies’-tresses, but a final decision has not yet been made. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the South Hilight Field tract general analysis area, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’-tresses. Potential habitat for this species is marginal and currently present on the tract along a few ephemeral drainages, particularly Little Thunder Creek. Outside of these drainages, potential habitat is rare within the tract’s general analysis area. The nearest known Ute ladies’-tresses population is located on an Antelope Creek tributary approximately 23 miles southwest of the project area. As described above, Black Thunder Mine has conducted multiple orchid surveys of suitable habitat over multiple years during the known time of flowering using USFWS accepted techniques. All surveys at the Black Thunder Mine and other mines in this area have resulted in negative findings. Individual plants of this species do not necessarily produce annual flowering stalks or above-ground growth consistently from year to year. Single season surveys that meet the current USFWS survey guidelines may not detect this species due to its ability to persist below ground level or above ground without flowering. Areas of suitable habitat within the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract were surveyed in August 2008 and no orchids were found. An additional survey of the tract’s general analysis area is scheduled during the flowering period (mid-August to early September) in 2009. It is unlikely that Ute ladies’-tresses populations would remain undetected during multiple surveys over multiple years, if they are present in the area. Nonetheless, if undetected populations are present on the ephemeral streams in the general analysis area, they would be lost due to surface disturbing activities. G2-14 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Jurisdictional wetlands located in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract that are destroyed by mining operations would be replaced in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as determined by the 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. 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 from CBNG development and water discharge on the surface may also alter stream morphology and hydrology. G2-3.2 Endangered Species G2-3.2.1 Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) 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 percent 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G2-15

Appendix G 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 Wyoming’s PRB, as well as USFS surveys for ferrets on the neighboring 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 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 Black Thunder Mine and South Hilight Field LBA Tract’s general analysis area are beyond the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and elsewhere in the general region (USFS 2002b, Grenier 2003). While the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract and its 2-mile wildlife study area (Figure G2-3) harbor some small prairie dog colonies, black-footed ferrets have never been documented at the mine, nor the surrounding region, during surveys conducted over the last 30 plus years (1976 to present) by a variety of private, state, and federal entities. No black-footed ferret observations or scat have ever been documented in this LBA tract’s wildlife study area. On February 2, 2004, the USFWS declared that surveys for black-footed ferrets were no longer required in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming (USFWS 2004). Currently, seven black-tailed prairie dog colonies encompassing a total of approximately 177.2 non-contiguous acres are located within 2 miles of the South Hilight Field tract (Figure G2-3). Of which, just one colony occurs within the general analysis area itself and it is less than 1 acre in size. The other six colonies are located within or partially within the surrounding 2-mile survey area and range in size from approximately 2.0 to 89.1 acres. All of these colonies were occupied during 2007. None of these seven colonies within the 2-mile wildlife study area meet the 120-acre minimum threshold for supporting a breeding female ferret and her litter (Forrest et al. 1985), and one colony does meet the 80-acre minimum requirement for black-footed ferret habitat (USFWS 1989). Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract general analysis area, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), would have no effect on black-footed ferrets. Given the documented absence of black-footed ferrets in the region, including the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, during specific surveys for this species, the lack of sizeable, contiguous prairie dog colonies within the LBA tract and surrounding areas, the block clearance issued by USFWS for black-tailed G2-16 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G prairie dog colonies throughout the entire state, and the distance of the LBA area from future reintroduction sites, mining the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract would not result in any direct or indirect effects on black-footed 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. Based on more than 30 years of historic and recent survey efforts and other general analysis area data and information, it is unlikely that ferrets exist in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area or surrounding wildlife survey area. Cumulative Effects: Mineral development within black-tailed prairie dog colonies is a leading cause of potential 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 in colonies on reclaimed coal mined lands in northeastern Wyoming in recent years, whether by natural expansion or purposeful relocations (J&S 2008, IR 2007). 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. As indicated, coal mining and natural gas development have occurred in the general Wright analysis area for more than 30 years, with activities expected to increase in the immediate future. Leasing and mining lands in South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area would not contribute to cumulative adverse Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G2-17

Appendix G effects to black-footed ferrets within either the general analysis area or the region. No black-footed ferret populations exist within northeastern Wyoming or the TBNG. The USFWS issued a block clearance for this species in blacktailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming. The general analysis area and surrounding perimeter are beyond the focus area for future ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and in the general region (USFS 2002b, Grenier 2003). Furthermore, the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 would not conflict with any future objectives to manage the area for, or reintroduce black-footed ferrets into, the TBNG. G2-3.2.2 Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) 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 2007). 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 2008). 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 2007). Threats to the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by vehicular traffic (University of Wyoming 2008). Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb with stems less than 30 centimeters (12 inches) tall. The inflorescence is 5 to 15 centimeters (2 to 6 inches) long and has six to ten compact whorls of milkyblue to pale lavender flowers. This species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current known 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 (University of Wyoming 2008). Existing Environment: The South Hilight Field LBA Tract is not within the documented historical range of the blowout penstemon. The tracts are located approximately 150 miles northwest of the known occurrences in Nebraska and approximately 150 miles northeast of the known occurrences in Wyoming. No suitable sand dunes (whether stable or active) are currently present in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), would have no effect on the blowout penstemon. G2-18 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Typical suitable habitat for this species within the tract’s general analysis area 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, off road vehicle use, and associated destabilization of the plant’s sand dune habitat. It could also be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of non-native species within its range. G2-4.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS Table G2-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in the area of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract that may result from implementing the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative). Table G2-1. Status Threatened Endangered Endangered
1

Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Species Common Name Ute ladies’-tresses Black-footed ferret Blowout penstemon Potential Effects May affect1 No effect No effect

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G2-19

SECTION G3
WEST HILIGHT FIELD LBA TRACT

Appendix G G3-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES On January 17, 2006, ALC filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in a tract located west of the Black Thunder Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming (Figure G-1). The tract, which is referred to as the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, was assigned case file number WYW172388. The federal coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract for the Black Thunder Mine. G3-1.1 The Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, the tract as applied for by ALC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D of this EIS). The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the West Hilight Field lease application (Figure G3-1). The Proposed Action assumes that ALC would be the successful bidder on the West Hilight Field LBA Tract if it is offered for sale, and the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for an existing mine. The legal description of the proposed West Hilight Field LBA Tract coal lease lands as applied for by ALC under the Proposed Action is as follows: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 8: Lots 1, 2, and 7 through 16; Section 9: Lots 1 through 16; Section 10: Lots 3 through 6, and 11 through 14; Section 17: Lots 1 through 16; Section 20: Lots 1 through 4; Section 21: Lots 3 and 4 Total:

493.00 acres 655.31 acres 327.85 acres 650.17 acres 162.54 acres 81.65 acres 2,370.52 acres

The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned and administered by the BLM. A portion of the surface of the tract as applied for (approximately 30 percent) includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11 of this EIS. Surface ownership is shown in Figure G3-2. G3-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action G3-1.2.1 Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, ALC’s application to lease the coal included in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would be rejected. The tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities or employment on the existing leases at the Black Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G3-1

Appendix G
Hilight Road

R. 71 W.

Shroyer Road

Black Thunder Mine's Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area
29 28 27

Small Road
26

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

T. 44
N.

T. 43
2 N.

State Highway 450

LEGEND
18 17 16 15 14

Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary Existing Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for

Additional Area Evaluated Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative Additional Area Evaluated
Under Alternative 3

BNSF & UP RR

T. 43
N. T. 42 N.

T. 43
N. T. 42
N.
0 3000 6000
12000

Matheson Road

Hilight Road

Ed wa rd s 5
Ro ad

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

R. 71 W.

Figure G3-1. West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

G3-2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G
R. 71 W.
19 20 21 22 23

rth

Pr on g
30 29 28 27

Hilight Road

Small Road
26

L ittle

Th un de r

ek C re

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State Highway 450

LEGEND
Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for
11

West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative Area Added Under Alternative 3 (See Figure 3-43 for Surface Ownership) Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC

Little

Th un d

Arc Land Co.
Thunder Basin National Grassland
Bridle Bit Ranch Co.

k ee Cr
19 20 21 22 23

James R. & Irene Stuart Trusts
Thomas W. & Leah B. Edwards

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Matheson Road

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

3000

6000

12000

R. 71 W.

Edwards Road

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure G3-2. Surface Ownership Within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G3-3

Appendix G Thunder Mine. The surface of the LBA tract as applied for does not lie within any mine’s current permit area and would therefore not likely be disturbed by mining activities. G3-1.2.2 Alternative 2 (BLM’s Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 2 for the West Hilight Field 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 for this tract if it is offered for sale (Appendix D of this EIS). Alternative 2, holding a competitive coal sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 for the West Hilight Field 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 to extend the life of the existing Black Thunder Mine. Other assumptions are the same as for the Proposed Action. In evaluating the West Hilight Field coal lease application, BLM identified a study area that includes unleased federal coal adjacent to the eastern, southern, northeastern, and northwestern edges of the tract as applied for (Figure G3-1). BLM is evaluating the potential that some or all of these lands could be added to the area to be offered for lease to provide for more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, and/or reduce the potential that some potentially mineable federal coal in this area would be bypassed if it is not included in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. Under Alternative 2, the area BLM is evaluating adding to the tract as applied for includes the following lands: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 8: Lots 3 through 6; Section 10: Lots 1, 2, 7 through 10, 15, and 16; Section 15: Lots 1 through 16; Section 20: Lots 5 through 16; Section 21: Lots 1, 2, and 5 through 16; Section 22: Lots 1 through 16; Section 27: Lots 1 through 16; Section 28: Lots 1 through 16; Section 34: Lots 1 through 16; Total:

164.33 326.18 659.26 488.50 569.73 657.89 656.87 648.02 649.98

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

4,820.76 acres

The legal description of BLM’s preferred configuration of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 2 (Figure G3-1) is as follows: G3-4 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 8: Lots 1 through 16; Section 9: Lots 1 through 16; Section 10: Lots 1 through 16; Section 15: Lots 1 through 16; Section 17: Lots 1 through 16; Section 20: Lots 1 through 16; Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Section 22: Lots 1 through 16; Section 27: Lots 1 through 16; Section 28: Lots 1 through 16; Section 34: Lots 1 through 16; Total: 654.33 655.31 654.03 659.26 650.17 651.04 651.38 657.89 656.87 648.02 649.98 acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

7,191.28 acres

Approximately 40 percent of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 2 includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. G3-1.2.3 Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3 for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, BLM is considering adding some or all of the BLM study area, as discussed under Alternative 2 and some or all of Thunder Basin Coal Company’s (TBCC’s) Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area (Figure G3-1). Under Alternative 3, 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 for this tract if it is offered for sale (Appendix D of this EIS). Alternative 3 for the West Hilight Field 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 existing Black Thunder Mine. Other assumptions are the same as for the Proposed Action. In evaluating the West Hilight Field coal lease application, BLM identified a study area that includes unleased federal coal adjacent to the eastern, southern, northeastern, and northwestern edges of the tract as applied for (Figure G3-1). BLM is evaluating the potential that some or all of these lands could be added to the area to be offered for lease to provide for more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, and/or reduce the potential that some potentially mineable federal coal in this area would be bypassed if it is not included in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. Under Alternative 3, BLM is considering adding some or all of Black Thunder Mine’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area, which is entirely within Black Thunder Mine’s current permit area. Black Thunder Mine completed the construction of a new train loadout facility within their Northwest Rail Loop Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G3-5

Appendix G Amendment Area in 2008. This area is also entirely within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract; therefore, BLM has not included it within the study area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. However, this alternate tract configuration will preserve the option of delineating some or all of TBCC’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area into the West Hilight Field, and West Jacobs Ranch, or both LBA tracts. Under Alternative 3, the lands within TBCC’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area that BLM is evaluating adding to the Alternative 2 reconfiguration of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract are as follows: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 3: Lots 2, 5, and 8 through 19; T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 22: Lots 9, 10, 15, and 16; Section 27: Lots 1, 2, 7 through 10, 15, and 16; Section 34: Lots 1, 2, 7 through 10, 15, and 16; Total:

557.99 acres

164.25 acres 327.88 acres 328.73 acres 1,378.85 acres

557.99 654.33 655.31 654.03 659.26 650.17 651.04 651.38 657.89 656.87 648.02 649.98

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

164.25 acres 327.88 acres 328.73 acres 8,570.13 acres

Approximately 35 percent of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract under Alternative 3 includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. G3-6 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G G3-2.0 CONSULTATION TO DATE The locations of the existing Black Thunder Mine coal leases, the existing approved mine permit area, and the West Hilight Field LBA Tract are shown in Figure G3-1. The Black Thunder Mine and West Hilight Field LBA Tract 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 and listed in Appendix B of this EIS. BLM and USFS have applied these coal screens to federal coal lands in Campbell County several times, starting in the early 1980s. The West Hilight Field LBA Tract is located in the area covered by the USFS screening analysis published as Appendix F of the 1985 Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan. Most recently, in 1993, BLM, USFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 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. This analysis is referenced in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision (USFS 2001a) and adopted in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Thunder Basin National Grassland (USFS 2001b). The Record of Decision for the Thunder Basin National Grassland FEIS and LRMP was signed on July 31, 2002 (USFS 2002a). The West Hilight Field LBA Tract fall within Management Area 8.4, as identified in the 2002 Thunder Basin National Grassland LRMP, which is to be managed for mineral production and development. Consultation with USFWS was conducted as part of the 2002 LRMP. Consultation with 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 this EIS summarizes the unsuitability criteria, describes the general findings for the screening analyses discussed above, and presents a validation of these findings for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract based on the current information. Consultation with USFWS has previously been completed for the area included within the Black Thunder Mine’s existing approved mine permit area, shown in Figure G3-1, as part of the mine and reclamation plan approval process. This process began when the Black Thunder Mine was initially permitted in 1974 and has continued through 2008. The most recent Migratory Bird Species of Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G3-7

Appendix G Management Concern and Raptor Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the Black Thunder Mine was approved by the USFWS in 2007. USFWS maintains a list of “threatened” or “endangered” (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 (ESA), to provide a list of T&E species upon request for federal actions and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) compliance. According to USFWS information (USFWS 2009), three federally listed species could potentially occur in the general Wright analysis area
  

Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis): Threatened Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes): Endangered Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii): Endangered

The effects upon these three species are described and analyzed in detail in this appendix. The bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus) was removed from listing as a threatened species in August 2007. Discussion on the bald eagle is included in Appendix H of this EIS as a sensitive species. USFWS provided BLM a listing of the T&E species that may be present in the Buffalo Field Office Area (northeastern Wyoming) in a memorandum letter from Brian T. Kelly, USFWS, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Chris Hanson, BLM Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming, dated August 8, 2007 (USFWS 2007), which included the black-footed ferret and Ute ladies’-tresses, but not blowout penstemon. Recently, blowout penstemon was added to the Campbell County listing (USFWS 2009). The August 8, 2007 memorandum stated that the USFWS focuses on three broad categories of trust resources: 1) T&E and candidate species, 2) migratory birds, and 3) wetlands and riparian areas. The memorandum stated that the Service would work with the BLM to ensure that species-specific protective measures and programs for the conservation and recovery of listed species as required by under the ESA are satisfied and carried out. Protective measures for migratory birds are provided pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the protection of wetlands is pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990, and Executive Order 11988. The memorandum also provided recommendations for biological assessments in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the protection of migratory birds, wetlands, and for other fish and wildlife resources (under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).

G3-8

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) provided BLM with scoping comments for the six LBA tracts included in the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS in a letter from John Emmerich, Deputy Director, WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Sarah Bucklin, BLM, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated July 5, 2007 (WGFD 2007). WGFD recommended consideration be given to possible impacts to big game species and their habitat, sage grouse, other sagebrush obligates, and nongame species that occur within the general Wright analysis area. G3-3.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Wildlife monitoring has been conducted annually for the Black Thunder Mine since 1983. This wildlife monitoring was designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal (USFWS) 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 annual wildlife monitoring program has been consistent since it began in 1983, with minor modifications in accordance with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. Areas covered by the wildlife surveys included the mine’s permit area and a large perimeter around the permit boundary; therefore, the West Hilight Field LBA Tract has also received extensive coverage during baseline and annual wildlife monitoring surveys for over 25 years. The eastern half of BLM’s study area for the West Hilight Field tract has been included in baseline inventories and annual wildlife surveys conducted for the Black Thunder Mine since 1983. The balance of the BLM study area and the lands included under Alternative 3 were included in monitoring efforts beginning in 2002, and targeted surveys specifically for this LBA Tract and its wildlife survey area were conducted in 2006 and 2007. Figure G3-3 depicts the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, the tract’s general analysis area, and the T&E animal species survey area. The approved Black Thunder Mine Permit 233-T7 (TBCC 2005) includes monitoring and mitigation measures that are required by SMCRA and Wyoming State Law. If the West Hilight Field LBA Tract is acquired by ALC, these monitoring and mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on the LBA tract when the Black Thunder 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. Continued site-specific surveys for the lease area and appropriate perimeter would be part of the mine permitting process if the tract is leased and proposed for mining. These monitoring and mitigation measures are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative) during the leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. Background information on wildlife in the vicinity of the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract was obtained from several sources, including the South Powder River Basin Coal FEIS (BLM 2003), records from Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G3-9

Appendix G
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

PRAIRIE DOG
COLONIES
18

B NS F & UP RR

Hilight Road

T. 42 N.

Hili ght R oad

Matheson Road

B NS F & UP RR

Cre
23 24 19
20

ek
21 22

Antel ope R oad

S tate Highway 59
23 26

No rth
Pr on g

Small R oad
26

L it tle

Thu

T. 44 35
N. T. 43
2 N.

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

r nde

Cre

State Highway 450

e ttl Li

r de un Th

Cr ee k

General Analysis Area 2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary

PRAIRIE DOG
COLONIES

25 30 29 28
27 26 25
30

Prairie Dog Colony

T. 43 N.

T. 43
N. T. 42
N.

Edwards Road

R eno Road

Po rcu
14 13

pin e
18

0 26 25 30
29 28 27
26 25 30

5000

10000

20000

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure G3-3. T&E Species Survey Area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract.

G3-10

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G the WGFD, BLM, USFWS and USFS, and personal contact with biologists from those four agencies. Site-specific data for the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract were obtained from several sources, including WDEQ/LQD mine permit applications and annual wildlife monitoring reports for the applicant mine, which is on file with the WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. The LBA tract and adjacent areas consist primarily of uplands. The topography of the general analysis area, like the areas within the adjacent mines’ existing permit areas, is relatively subdued. The landscape consists primarily of gently rolling terrain broken by minor drainages and internallydrained playa areas. Drainage densities are quite low, and the playas are common topographic and hydrologic features. Much of the land surface does not contribute runoff to any stream, and playas have formed in the lowest portion of these non-contributing drainage areas. Land surface elevations range from about 4,690 to 5,170 feet above sea level and slopes range from essentially flat to over 50 percent within the general Wright analysis area. Gently rolling uplands comprise most of the general Wright analysis area; most of the land surface (between 75 and 90 percent, depending on the particular LBA tract) seldom exceeds a 5 percent slope. The steepest slopes typically occur near the highest elevations along the ridge lines and drainage divides and along the drainages, where channel incision has created some gullying. The average land surface slope over the entire general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract is approximately 2.2 percent. Surface mine lands, both active and reclaimed, dominate the landscape northeast, east and southeast of the West Hilight Field tract. Predominant wildlife habitat types classified in the general Wright analysis area generally correspond with the major vegetation communities defined during the vegetation baseline survey. In terms of relative acres of occurrence, the predominant vegetation types are the Big Sage Shrubland (approximately 42 percent), Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland (approximately 28 percent), and Crested Wheatgrass/Agricultural Pastureland (approximately 15 percent). Minor vegetation types, including saline grassland, rough breaks, disturbed lands and bottomlands account for approximately 10 percent of the six combined general analysis areas. Disturbed lands include road and utility rights-of-way, areas surrounding active construction sites and mining facilities, oil and gas facilities, and occupied and abandoned homesteads. Few trees occur in the general Wright analysis area due to the lack of water and suitable habitats; most trees are found primarily in windbreaks planted adjacent to ranching facilities. Reclaimed lands include areas that were recently disturbed for road construction, installation of oil and gas development-related facilities, and mining-associated activities. The West Hilight Field general analysis area and the existing Black Thunder Mine permit area are located in the Little Thunder Creek watershed. Typical of this semi-arid area, Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries are all ephemeral streams. Black Thunder Mine’s approved WDEQ/LQD mine permit allows Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G3-11

Appendix G disturbance of Little Thunder Creek and several of its tributaries. Approximately 24 percent (1,708 acres) of the 9,189-acre BLM study area for the West Hilight Field tract drains toward playas that are formed by natural topographic depressions; the largest of which is called Rochelle Lake. Most of the internally-drained areas located within the West Hilight Field general analysis area occur north of Little Thunder Creek. Little Thunder Creek flows easterly through the central portion of the West Hilight Field general analysis area, and its ephemeral tributaries, Briggs Draw and Black Butte Draw, drain the southern portion of the general analysis area. Numerous in-channel stock reservoirs are scattered throughout the general Wright analysis area. Most of these stock ponds are many decades old and are constructed with earthen berms or dams. There are also a number of playas within the area. Those water bodies provide short-term habitat of variable quality for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and other aquatic species (birds, fish, herptiles) during spring but are less reliable, and often dry, during other seasons. A preliminary wetland inventory of the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, based on USFWS NWI mapping (1980), review of color infrared aerial photographs (WGCS 2002), and a field survey reconnaissance, was conducted in 2007. Some wetland areas previously mapped by the USFWS NWI have been recently altered due to CBNG-related water production within and upstream of the general analysis area. The NWI maps were consulted prior to the initiation of the preliminary wetland field survey; however, the boundaries of the existing potential wetlands vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries shown on the NWI maps. Due to the ephemeral nature of CBNG dewatering activities, the boundaries, and therefore wetland areas, are likewise ephemeral. A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation survey for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the mine permitting process, if the LBA tract is leased. Within the entire general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract (9,188.6 acres), the preliminary wetland inventory identified a total of 262.7 acres of wetlands and OWUS. These wetlands and OWUS were found within five general land categories: ephemeral streams, playas, ponds/reservoirs, isolated depressions, and excavated upland areas. Of these 262.7 acres, approximately 252.8 acres are vegetated wetlands that consist of approximately 240.6 acres of palustrine emergent herbaceous wet meadow or marsh and approximately 12.2 acres of palustrine aquatic beds located along ephemeral stream channels and around ponds, playas and depressions. The remaining 9.9 acres are channel and pond OWUS (open water in Little Thunder Creek and Little Thunder Reservoir). Little Thunder Creek was initially classified as a palustrine wetland by NWI, but currently meets the classification of a riverine, streambed system and is heavily influenced by CBNG discharge water.

G3-12

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G At this time, a distinction has not been made between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional acreages of wetlands and OWUS since only the COE has the authorization to make such determination following the submittal and review of a formal wetland delineation as part of the mine permitting process. In Wyoming, once the delineation has been verified, it is made a part of the mine permit document. The reclamation plan is then revised to incorporate the replacement of at least equal types and numbers of jurisdictional wetland acreages. Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area, no designated critical, crucial, or unique habitats designated by USFWS for T&E species are present. The following discussion describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on federally listed species. G3-3.1 Threatened Species G3-3.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 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, central Washington, and Canada. Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 12 to 50 centimeters (5 to 20 inches) 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 generally 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G3-13

Appendix G range from 75-90 percent and is usually less than 45 centimeters (18 inches) 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 late July through early September (Heidel 2007). 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 G3-14 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Niobrara County. No occurrences have been recorded in Campbell County. The nearest population to the West Hilight Field LBA Tract is located on a tributary of Antelope Creek in northern Converse County. Areas of Ute ladies’-tresses potential habitat within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract were surveyed by Habitat Management Inc. on August 11-15, 2008, and no Ute ladies’-tresses orchids were found. Dormant plants typically persist underground for one to many years and can only be reliably documented after several years of repeated surveys (Lesica and Steele 1994). Recent USFWS guidelines therefore recommend that multiple surveys of all potentially suitable habitat be conducted within the last 3 years. In order to adequately determine the presence of the species, an additional survey by Habitat Management Inc. is scheduled during the known populations’ flowering period (mid-August to early September) in 2009. Previous surveys have been conducted during the flowering period within the existing Black Thunder Mine permit area (e.g., for each of BLM’s EIS analyzing the environmental impacts of leasing the LBA tracts obtained by the mine since 1992, as listed in Table 1-1 of this EIS) and no Ute ladies’-tresses orchids were found during any of those surveys. Topographical and wetland delineation maps for the tract’s general analysis area were reviewed to identify all potential 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 involved walking entire lengths of the drainages documenting locations of potential habitat and searching for this species. Most of the suitable habitat within the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area and adjacent areas is found along Little Thunder Creek, which flows from west to east through the central portion of the tract, and its ephemeral tributaries, Briggs Draw and Black Butte Draw, which drain the southern portion of the general analysis area. Nearly a quarter of the study area drains toward playas that are formed by natural topographic depressions; the largest of which is called Rochelle Lake. All drainages within and around this area, including Little Thunder Creek, are ephemeral. Limited portions of these drainages may receive recharge from bank storage making them locally intermittent. In response to surface discharge of groundwater associated with CBNG development on or upstream of the West Hilight Field tract, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, streamflow occurrence in Little Thunder Creek is now more persistent, and the duration of time that some playas and inchannel reservoirs hold water may be extended before going completely dry. Within the entire general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, the preliminary wetland inventory conducted in 2007 identified a total of 262.7 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G3-15

Appendix G acres of wetlands and OWUS, including approximately 252.8 acres of vegetated wetlands and 9.9 acres of channel and pond OWUS (open water in Little Thunder Creek and Little Thunder Reservoir). According to the USFWS 2005 Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies’-tresses (Fertig et al. 2005), the number of populations, geographic ranges, acreages, and estimated population sizes of this species has increased significantly since it was listed in 1992. Much of this can be attributed to increased survey and project analysis work over much of the western United States and heightened awareness of the plant due to its protected status. When the orchid was listed as threatened in 1992, it had an estimated population size of 6,000 individuals. In 2005, additional survey work estimated the number of plants to be over 83,300. USFWS determined that a petition to remove the orchid from federal protection under the ESA provided substantial biological information, which indicated that removal may be warranted. As of December 2005, the Service was moving forward with the proposal to delist the Ute ladies’-tresses, but a final decision has not yet been made. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the West Hilight Field tract general analysis area, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’-tresses. Potential habitat for this species is marginal and currently present on the tract along several ephemeral drainages, particularly Little Thunder Creek. Outside of these drainages, potential habitat is rare within the tract’s general analysis area. The nearest known Ute ladies’-tresses population is located on an Antelope Creek tributary approximately 20 miles southwest of the project area. As described above, Black Thunder Mine has conducted multiple orchid surveys of suitable habitat over multiple years during the known time of flowering using USFWS accepted techniques. All surveys at the Black Thunder Mine and other mines in this area have resulted in negative findings. Individual plants of this species do not necessarily produce annual flowering stalks or above-ground growth consistently from year to year. Single season surveys that meet the current USFWS survey guidelines may not detect this species due to its ability to persist below ground level or above ground without flowering. Areas of suitable habitat within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract were surveyed in August 2008 and no orchids were found. An additional survey of the tract’s general analysis area is scheduled during the flowering period (mid-August to early September) in 2009. It is unlikely that Ute ladies’-tresses populations would remain undetected during multiple surveys over multiple years, if they are present in the area. Nonetheless, if undetected populations are present on the ephemeral streams in the general analysis area, they would be lost due to surface disturbing activities.

G3-16

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Jurisdictional wetlands located in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract that are destroyed by mining operations would be replaced in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as determined by the 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. 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 from CBNG development and water discharge on the surface may also alter stream morphology and hydrology. G3-3.2 Endangered Species G3-3.2.1 Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) 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 percent 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G3-17

Appendix G 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 Wyoming’s PRB, as well as USFS surveys for ferrets on the neighboring 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 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 Black Thunder Mine and West Hilight Field LBA Tract’s general analysis area are beyond the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and elsewhere in the general region (USFS 2002b, Grenier 2003). While the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract and its 2-mile wildlife study area (Figure G1-3) harbor some small prairie dog colonies, black-footed ferrets have never been documented at the mine, nor the surrounding region, during surveys conducted over the last 30 plus years (1976 to present) by a variety of private, state, and federal entities. No black-footed ferret observations or scat have ever been documented in this LBA tract’s wildlife study area. On February 2, 2004, the USFWS declared that surveys for black-footed ferrets were no longer required in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming (USFWS 2004). Currently, eight black-tailed prairie dog colonies encompassing a total of approximately 167.5 non-contiguous acres are located within 2 miles of the West Hilight Field tract (Figure G3-3). Of which, one colony occurs within the general analysis area itself and it is approximately 89.1 acres in size. The other seven colonies are located within the surrounding 2-mile survey area and range in size from approximately 0.1 to 27.2 acres. All of these colonies were occupied during 2007. None of these eight colonies within the 2-mile wildlife study area meet the 120-acre minimum threshold for supporting a breeding female ferret and her litter (Forrest et al. 1985). One colony does meet the 80 acre minimum requirement for black-footed ferret habitat (USFWS 1989). Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract general analysis area, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), would have no effect on black-footed ferrets. Given the documented absence of black-footed ferrets in the region, including the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, during specific surveys for this species, the lack of sizeable, contiguous prairie dog colonies within the LBA tract and surrounding areas, the block clearance issued by USFWS for black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout the entire state, and the distance of the LBA G3-18 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G area from future reintroduction sites, mining the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would have no effect on black-footed 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. Based on more than 30 years of historic and recent survey efforts and other general analysis area data and information, it is unlikely that ferrets exist in the West Hilight Field tract general analysis area or surrounding wildlife survey area. Cumulative Effects: Mineral development within black-tailed prairie dog colonies is a leading cause of potential 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 in colonies on reclaimed coal mined lands in northeastern Wyoming in recent years, whether by natural expansion or purposeful relocations (J&S 2008, IR 2007). 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. As indicated, coal mining and natural gas development have occurred in the general Wright analysis area for more than 30 years, with activities expected to increase in the immediate future. Leasing and mining lands in West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area would not contribute to cumulative adverse effects to black-footed ferrets within either the general analysis area or the region. No black-footed ferret populations exist within northeastern Wyoming Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G3-19

Appendix G or the TBNG. The USFWS issued a block clearance for this species in blacktailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming. The general analysis area and surrounding perimeter are beyond the focus area for future ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and in the general region (USFS 2002b, Grenier 2003). Furthermore, the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 would not conflict with any future objectives to manage the area for, or reintroduce black-footed ferrets into, the TBNG. G3-3.2.2 Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) 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 2007). 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 2008). 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 2007). Threats to the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by vehicular traffic (University of Wyoming 2008). Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb with stems less than 30 centimeters (12 inches) tall. The inflorescence is 5 to 15 centimeters (2 to 6 inches) long and has six to ten compact whorls of milkyblue to pale lavender flowers. This species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current known 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 (University of Wyoming 2008). Existing Environment: The West Hilight Field LBA Tract is not within the documented historical range of the blowout penstemon. The tracts are located approximately 150 miles northwest of the known occurrences in Nebraska and approximately 150 miles northeast of the known occurrences in Wyoming. No suitable sand dunes (whether stable or active) are currently present in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), would have no effect on the blowout penstemon.

G3-20

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Typical suitable habitat for this species within the tract’s general analysis area 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, off road vehicle use, and associated destabilization of the plant’s sand dune habitat. It could also be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of non-native species within its range. G3-4.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS Table G3-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in the area of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract that may result from implementing the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative). Table G3-1. Status Threatened Endangered Endangered
1

Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. Species Common Name Ute ladies’-tresses Black-footed ferret Blowout penstemon Potential Effects May affect1 No effect No effect

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G3-21

SECTION G4
WEST JACOBS RANCH LBA TRACT

Appendix G G4-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES On March 22, 2006, Jacobs Ranch Coal Company (JRCC) filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in a tract located approximately 0.75 mile west of the Jacobs Ranch Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming. The tract, which is referred to as the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, is located approximately 2.5 miles east of Wright, Wyoming (Figure G-1). JRCC’s coal lease application was assigned case file number WYW172685. The federal coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract for the Jacobs Ranch Mine. G4-1.1 The Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, the tract as applied for by JRCC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D of this EIS). The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract lease application (Figure G4-1). The Proposed Action assumes that JRCC would be the successful bidder on the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract if it is offered for sale, and the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for an existing mine. The legal description of the proposed West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract coal lease lands as applied for by JRCC under the Proposed Action is as follows: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 3: Lots 2 and 5 through 19; Section 4: Lots 5 through 20; Section 5: Lots 5 through 20; T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 22: Lots 9 through 16; Section 27: Lots 1 through 16; Section 28: Lots 1 through 3 and 5 through 16; Section 29: Lots 5 through 15 and SE¼SE¼; Section 32: Lots 1 through 15 and SW¼SE¼; Section 33: Lots 1 through 15 and NE¼SE¼ ; Section 34: Lots 1 through 16; Total:

638.38 acres 639.50 acres 636.67 acres

326.99 658.21 608.43 478.10 643.83 653.02 661.24

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

5,944.37 acres

The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11 of this EIS. Surface ownership is shown in Figure G4-2.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G4-1

Appendix G
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
12 7 8

BNSF & UP RR

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
11 12 7

Hilight Road

Shroyer Road

Small Road
26 25 30

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

State

Highway 450

S ta
10 11

Hig hw ay

450
7

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

3000

6000

12000

Figure G4-1. West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternatives.

G4-2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G
Cree k

Co al

BNSF & UP RR

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

Hilight R oad

es t

Fo rk

Shroyer Road

Small Road
26
25

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

No rth

State Highway 450

Pr on g
7 8 9 10

Li tt le
11
12

r de un Th

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight R oad

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

L it tle
de un Th r
14 13

Cr ee k

William M. & Lois R. Chittenden Ark Land Co.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure G4-2. Surface Ownership Within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Alternatives.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G4-3

Appendix G G4-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action G4-1.2.1 Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, JRCC’s application to lease the coal included in the West Jacobs Ranch 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. Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities and employment on the existing leases at Jacobs Ranch Mine. No portion of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract will be disturbed under Jacobs Ranch Mine’s current mining plans in order to recover the coal in the mine’s existing coal leases. However, a portion of the LBA tract’s surface was recently disturbed during the construction of a new train loadout facility for the Black Thunder Mine within TBCC’s Northwest Rail Loop Amendment Area, which is located along the eastern side of the tract. Construction of the new coal loadout facilities was completed in 2008 (Figure G4-1). G4-1.2.2 Alternative 2 (BLM’s Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 2 for the West Jacobs Ranch 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. The modified tract would be subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB and for this tract if it is offered for sale (Appendix D of this EIS). Alternative 2, holding a competitive coal sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract assumes that JRCC 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 to extend the life of the existing Jacobs Ranch Mine. Other assumptions are the same as for the Proposed Action. In evaluating the West Jacobs Ranch coal lease application, BLM identified a study area that includes unleased federal coal adjacent to the northern and western edges of the tract as applied for (Figure G4-1). BLM is evaluating the potential that some or all of these lands could be added to area to be offered for lease to provide for more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, and/or reduce the potential that some of the potentially mineable federal coal in this area would be bypassed if it is not included in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. Under Alternative 2, the area BLM is evaluating adding to the tract as applied for includes the following lands: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 6: Lots 8, 15, 16, and 23; G4-4

163.05 acres

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 15: Lots 9 through 16; Section 20: Lots 9, 10, 14, and 15; Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Section 22: Lots 1 through 8; Section 28: Lot 4; Section 29: Lots 1 through 4; Section 30: Lots 5, 12, 13, and 20; Section 31: Lots 5, 12, 13, and 20; Total: 326.83 acres 161.38 acres 639.69 acres 320.85 acres 41.00 acres 159.36 acres 157.29 acres 162.40 acres 2,131.85 acres

The legal description of BLM’s preferred configuration of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract under Alternative 2 (Figure G4-1) is as follows: T.43N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 3: Lots 2 and 5 through 19; Section 4: Lots 5 through 20; Section 5: Lots 5 through 20; Section 6: Lots 8, 15, 16, and 23; T.44N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 15: Lots 9 through 16; Section 20: Lots 9, 10, 14, and 15; Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Section 22: Lots 1 through 16; Section 27: Lots 1 through 16; Section 28: Lots 1 through 16; Section 29: Lots 1 through 15 and SE¼SE¼; Section 30: Lots 5, 12, 13, and 20; Section 31: Lots 5, 12, 13, and 20; Section 32: Lots 1 through 15 and SW¼SE¼; Section 33: Lots 1 through 15 and NE¼SE¼ ; Section 34: Lots 1 through 16; Total: G4-2.0 CONSULTATION TO DATE The locations of the existing Jacobs Ranch Mine coal leases, the existing approved mine permit area, and the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract are shown in Figure G4-1. The Jacobs Ranch Mine and West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract 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 and listed in Appendix B of this EIS. BLM and USFS have Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G4-5

638.38 639.50 636.67 163.05

acres acres acres acres

326.83 161.38 639.69 647.84 658.21 649.43 637.46 157.29 162.40 643.83 653.02 661.24

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

8,076.22 acres

Appendix G applied these coal screens to federal coal lands in Campbell County several times, starting in the early 1980s. The West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is located in the area covered by the USFS screening analysis published as Appendix F of the 1985 Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan. Most recently, in 1993, BLM, USFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 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 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 this EIS summarizes the unsuitability criteria, describes the general findings for the screening analyses discussed above, and presents a validation of these findings for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract based on the current information. Consultation with USFWS has previously been completed for the area included within the Jacobs Ranch Mine’s existing approved mine permit area, shown in Figure G4-1, as part of the mine and reclamation plan approval process. This process began when the mine was initially permitted in 1975 and has continued through 2008. The most recent Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern and Raptor Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the Jacobs Ranch Mine was approved by the USFWS on July 25, 2002, which covered 2002 through 2009. Jacobs Ranch Mine will be resubmitting its plan to the USFWS in 2009 as part of the WDEQ/LQD mine permit renewal process. USFWS maintains a list of “threatened” or “endangered” (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 (ESA), to provide a list of T&E species upon request for federal actions and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) compliance. According to USFWS information (USFWS 2009), three federally listed species could potentially occur in the general Wright analysis area
  

G4-6

Appendix G The effects upon these three species are described and analyzed in detail in this appendix. The bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus) was removed from listing as a threatened species in August 2007. Discussion on the bald eagle is included in Appendix H of this EIS as a sensitive species. USFWS provided BLM a listing of the T&E species that may be present in the Buffalo Field Office Area (northeastern Wyoming) in a memorandum letter from Brian T. Kelly, USFWS, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Chris Hanson, BLM Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming, dated August 8, 2007 (USFWS 2007), which included the black-footed ferret and Ute ladies’-tresses, but not blowout penstemon. Recently, blowout penstemon was added to the Campbell County listing (USFWS 2009). The August 8, 2007 memorandum stated that the USFWS focuses on three broad categories of trust resources: 1) T&E and candidate species, 2) migratory birds, and 3) wetlands and riparian areas. The memorandum stated that the Service would work with the BLM to ensure that species-specific protective measures and programs for the conservation and recovery of listed species as required by under the ESA are satisfied and carried out. Protective measures for migratory birds are provided pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the protection of wetlands is pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990, and Executive Order 11988. The memorandum also provided recommendations for biological assessments in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the protection of migratory birds, wetlands, and for other fish and wildlife resources (under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) provided BLM with scoping comments for the six LBA tracts included in the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS in a letter from John Emmerich, Deputy Director, WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Sarah Bucklin, BLM, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated July 5, 2007 (WGFD 2007). WGFD recommended consideration be given to possible impacts to big game species and their habitat, sage grouse, other sagebrush obligates, and nongame species that occur within the general Wright analysis area. G4-3.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Wildlife baseline inventories and annual monitoring surveys have been conducted for the Jacobs Ranch Mine since 1980. This wildlife monitoring was designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal (USFWS) 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 wildlife monitoring program has been conducted in accordance with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. Areas covered by the wildlife surveys included the mine’s permit Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G4-7

Appendix G area and a large perimeter around the permit boundary; therefore, a portion of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract has been surveyed for several years because it is part of the survey area for the Jacobs Ranch and/or Black Thunder mines. The approved Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit 271-T5 (JRCC 2004) includes monitoring and mitigation measures for the Jacobs Ranch Mine that are required by SMCRA and Wyoming State Law. If the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is acquired by JRCC, these required monitoring and mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on the LBA tract when the Jacobs Ranch 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. Continued site-specific surveys for the lease area and appropriate perimeter would be part of the mine permitting process if the tract is leased and proposed for mining. These monitoring and mitigation measures are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative) during the leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. Background information on wildlife in the vicinity of the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract was obtained from several sources, including the South Powder River Basin Coal FEIS (BLM 2003), the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, records from the WGFD, BLM, USFWS and USFS, and personal contact with biologists from those four agencies. Site-specific data for the West Jacobs Ranch tract were obtained from several sources, including WDEQ/LQD mine permit applications and annual wildlife monitoring reports for the applicant and the neighboring (Jacobs Ranch and Black Thunder) mines, which are on file with the WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. Research and field surveys were conducted expressly for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract beginning in February of 2007 and continuing through August of 2008. Figure G4-3 depicts the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, the tract’s general analysis area, and the T&E animal species survey area. The LBA tract and adjacent areas consist primarily of uplands. The topography of the general analysis area, like the areas within the adjacent mines’ existing permit areas, is relatively subdued. The landscape consists primarily of gently rolling terrain broken by minor drainages and internallydrained playa areas. Drainage densities are quite low, and the playas are common topographic and hydrologic features. Much of the land surface does not contribute runoff to any stream, and playas have formed in the lowest portion of these non-contributing drainage areas. Land surface elevations range from about 4,690 to 5,170 feet above sea level and slopes range from essentially flat to over 50 percent within the general Wright analysis area. Gently rolling uplands comprise most of the general Wright analysis area; most of the land surface (between 75 and 90 percent, depending on the particular LBA tract) seldom exceeds a 5 percent slope. The steepest slopes typically occur near the highest elevations along the ridge lines and drainage divides G4-8 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

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

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
25 30

Cre e k

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Keeline Road

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Cre e k

C oal

es t

Fo rk

Hilight Road

y Ha

B NS F & UP RR

Jacobs R oad

Shroyer Road
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20

ay 387 hw Hig te S ta
34

S mall R oad
26

T. 44 33 N. T. 43 4 N.

PRAIRIE DOG COLONIES
31

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

No
State Highway 450

rth

Pr on g
11 12

Li e ttl

PRAIRIE DOG COLONIES
Th un de
18 17 16 15 14

r de un Th

Li t tle

State Hig hway 59

Creek

C os n e
28

Hili ght R oad

ty Road r Coun
27 26 25 30 29 28 27

B NS F & UP RR

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Boundary West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as Applied for West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
0 5000 10000 20000

General Analysis Area 2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary Prairie Dog Colony

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure G4-3. T&E Species Survey Area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G4-9

Appendix G and along the drainages, where channel incision has created some gullying. The average land surface slope over the entire general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch tract is approximately 4.1 percent. Surface mine lands, both active and reclaimed, dominate the landscape east of the West Jacobs Ranch tract. Predominant wildlife habitat types classified in the general Wright analysis area generally correspond with the major vegetation communities defined during the vegetation baseline survey. In terms of relative acres of occurrence, the predominant vegetation types are the Big Sage Shrubland (approximately 42 percent), Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland (approximately 28 percent), and Crested Wheatgrass/Agricultural Pastureland (approximately 15 percent). Other habitats present within and around the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract include bottomland grassland, rough breaks, playas, reservoirs/stockponds, and disturbed lands. Disturbance areas associated with oil and gas development (i.e., networks of road and utility rights-of-way, tank batteries and well pads) overlay much of the tract’s general analysis area and make up the majority of disturbed lands. Few trees are present due to the lack of water and suitable habitats, most of which are found primarily in shelterbelts planted adjacent to ranching facilities. Reclaimed lands include areas that were disturbed for road construction and the installation of oil and gas developmentrelated facilities. The existing Jacobs Ranch Mine permit area and the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract are located in the North Prong Little Thunder Creek watershed. North Prong Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries, Dry Fork Little Thunder Creek and School Section Draw, drain the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. North Prong Little Thunder Creek flows from the northwest to the southeast across the LBA tract. Springen Draw, an ephemeral tributary to an internally-drained playa, drains a small area in the northeastern corner of the West Jacobs Ranch general analysis area. Typical of this semi-arid area, Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries are all ephemeral streams. The current mine plan for the adjacent Black Thunder Mine allows disturbance of Little Thunder Creek and several of its tributaries, including North Prong Little Thunder Creek. Essentially all water courses in the tract’s general analysis area are receiving, or have received, discharge water from CBNG development and, as a result, the frequency and duration of streamflow events have increased and periods of no flow are less common. Numerous in-channel stock reservoirs are scattered throughout the general Wright analysis area. Most of these stock ponds are many decades old and are constructed with earthen berms or dams. Those water bodies provide short-term habitat of variable quality for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and other aquatic species (birds, fish, herptiles) during spring but are less reliable during other seasons. At least 33 distinct diked impoundments are located within the West Jacobs Ranch tract’s general analysis area. The shallow impoundments along Dry Fork Little Thunder Creek have seldom been completely dry in recent years. There are also a G4-10 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G number of playas within the area that provide seasonal habitat for waterbirds and other aquatic species. A preliminary wetland inventory of the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, based on USFWS NWI mapping and reconnaissance in the field, was conducted in 2007 and 2008. Some wetland areas previously mapped by the USFWS NWI have been recently altered due to coal bed natural gas (CBNG)-related water production within and upstream of the tract’s general analysis area. The NWI maps were consulted prior to the initiation of the preliminary wetland field survey; however, the boundaries of the existing potential wetlands vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries shown on the NWI maps. Due to the ephemeral nature of CBNG dewatering activities, the boundaries, and therefore wetland areas, are likewise ephemeral. A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation survey for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would be conducted and submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for verification as part of the mine permitting process, if the LBA tract is leased. Within the entire general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract (9,370.4 acres), the preliminary wetland inventory identified a total of 68.4 acres of wetlands and OWUS. These wetlands and OWUS were found within four general land categories: ponds/reservoirs, ephemeral streams, playas, and isolated depressions. Of these 68.4 acres, approximately 16.7 acres are vegetated wetlands, which include 4.7 acres around ponds, 7.8 acres along ephemeral streams, 1.7 acres on playas, and 2.5 acres in other depressions. The remaining 51.7 acres are pond or channel other waters (i.e., open water in reservoirs/stockponds, along ephemeral streams, and in playas). All of these wetlands and OWUS are classified as palustrine. Most of the wetlands have emergent vegetation, while most of the ponds and playas have aquatic beds and are seasonally or temporarily flooded. The vegetated wetlands are located primarily along the stream channels associated with Dry Fork and North Prong Little Thunder Creek. At this time, a distinction has not been made between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional acreages of wetlands and OWUS since only the COE has the authorization to make such determination following the submittal and review of a formal wetland delineation as part of the mine permitting process. In Wyoming, once the delineation has been verified, it is made a part of the mine permit document. The reclamation plan is then revised to incorporate the replacement of at least equal types and numbers of jurisdictional wetland acreages. Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area, no designated critical, crucial, or unique habitats designated by USFWS for T&E species are present. The following discussion describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 on federally listed species. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G4-11

Appendix G G4-3.1 Threatened Species G4-3.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 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, central Washington, and Canada. Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 12 to 50 centimeters (5 to 20 inches) 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 generally 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 centimeters (18 inches) 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 late July through early September (Heidel 2007). 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).

G4-12

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G 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. The nearest population to the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is located on a tributary of Antelope Creek in northern Converse County. Dormant plants typically persist underground for one to many years and can only be reliably documented after several years of repeated surveys (Lesica and Steele 1994). Recent USFWS guidelines therefore recommend that multiple surveys of all potentially suitable habitat be conducted within the last 3 years. In order to adequately determine the presence of the species, areas of suitable habitat within the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract were surveyed by Intermountain Resources in early and mid-August of 2007 and again in early and mid-August of 2008. These surveys were completed during the period that Ute ladies’-tresses orchids are known to flower in the region, and no Ute ladies’-tresses orchids were found. Previous surveys have Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G4-13

Appendix G been conducted during the flowering period within the existing adjacent Jacobs Ranch and Black Thunder mine permit areas (e.g., for each of BLM’s EISs analyzing the environmental impacts of leasing LBA tracts obtained by the mines since 1992) and no Ute ladies’-tresses orchids were found during any of those surveys. Topographical and wetland delineation maps for the tract’s general analysis area were reviewed to identify all potential 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 involved walking entire lengths of the drainages documenting locations of potential habitat and searching for this species. Most of the potentially suitable habitat within the West Jacobs Ranch tract’s general analysis area and adjacent areas is very limited and is mostly found along the CBNG-impacted bottomlands of North Prong Little Thunder Creek , Dry Fork Little Thunder Creek, and their tributaries. The quality of potential habitat in this area is poor for a number of key reasons:


The soils tend to be heavy and trend from moderately to very saline/sodic. The saline/sodic areas typically have monocultural stands of inland saltgrass (Distichlis spicata stricta), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) or alkali bulrush (Scirpus maritimus). Wet meadow habitat types are heavily colonized by aggressive rhizomatous graminoid plant species, including common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris), alkali cordgrass (Spartina gracilis), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyron smithii). These narrow riparian strips located between emergent aquatic vegetation and dry upland prairie may be too dense and too shaded by tall vegetation to provide suitable habitat. Surface discharge of groundwater associated with CBNG development within and upstream of the study area, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, has altered historic shallow groundwater and soil moisture conditions along all water courses, causing major shifts in plant community distributions. Livestock grazing, particularly during the wetter times of the year, has impacted the quality of riparian areas.



Conversely, in response to surface discharge of groundwater associated with CBNG development on or upstream of the West Jacobs Ranch tract, streamflow occurrence is now more persistent and the duration of time that some playas and in-channel reservoirs hold water may be extended before going completely G4-14 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G dry, which may improve the quality of potential habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses in those areas. Within the entire general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, the preliminary wetland inventory conducted in 2007 and 2008 identified a total of 68.4 acres of wetlands and OWUS, including approximately 16.7 acres are vegetated wetlands and 51.7 acres are pond or channel other waters (i.e., open water in reservoirs/stockponds, along ephemeral streams, and in playas). Most of the wetlands have emergent vegetation, while most of the ponds and playas have aquatic beds and are seasonally or temporarily flooded. The vegetated wetlands are located primarily along the stream channels associated with Dry Fork and North Prong Little Thunder Creek. According to the USFWS 2005 Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies’-tresses (Fertig et al. 2005), the number of populations, geographic ranges, acreages, and estimated population sizes of this species has increased significantly since it was listed in 1992. Much of this can be attributed to increased survey and project clearance work over much of the western United States and heightened awareness of the plant due to its protected status. When the orchid was listed as threatened in 1992, it had an estimated population size of 6,000 individuals. In 2005, additional survey work estimated the number of plants to be over 83,300. USFWS determined that a petition to remove the orchid from federal protection under the ESA provided substantial biological information, which indicated that removal may be warranted. As of December 2005, the Service was moving forward with the proposal to delist the Ute ladies’-tresses, but a final decision has not yet been made. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the West Jacobs Ranch tract’s general analysis area, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’-tresses. There is limited potential habitat for this species on the tract along the CBNGimpacted bottomlands of the North Prong Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries. However, the quality of the potential habitat is poor. Outside of the narrow riparian strips located along these impacted drainages, potential suitable habitat is rare or non-existent in the surveyed area. The nearest known Ute ladies’-tresses population is located on an Antelope Creek tributary approximately 28 miles southwest of the project area. As described above, the surrounding mines (Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope) have conducted multiple orchid surveys of suitable habitat within their existing permit areas over multiple years during the known time of flowering using USFWS accepted techniques. All surveys in this area of the Powder River Basin that have been conducted for the purpose of analyzing the environmental impacts of leasing and mining tracts of federal coal (Table 1-1 of this EIS) have resulted in negative findings. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G4-15

Appendix G Although individual plants of this species do not necessarily produce annual flowering stalks or above-ground growth consistently from year to year, it is unlikely that Ute ladies’-tresses populations would have remained undetected during multiple surveys over multiple years, if they were present in the area. Nonetheless, if undetected populations were present on the ephemeral streams in the general analysis area, they would be lost due to surface disturbing activities. Jurisdictional wetlands located in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract that are destroyed by mining operations would be replaced in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as determined by the 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. 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 from CBNG development and water discharge on the surface may also alter stream morphology and hydrology. G4-3.2 Endangered Species G4-3.2.1 Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) 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 percent 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, G4-16 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G 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 Wyoming’s PRB, as well as USFS surveys for ferrets on the neighboring 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 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 Jacobs Ranch Mine and West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract’s general analysis area are beyond the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and elsewhere in the general region (USFS 2002b, Grenier 2003). While the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract and its 2-mile wildlife study area (Figure G4-3) harbor some small prairie dog colonies, black-footed ferrets have never been documented at the mine, nor the surrounding region, during surveys conducted over the last 30 plus years (1976 to present) by a variety of private, state, and federal entities. No black-footed ferret observations or scat have ever been documented in this LBA tract’s wildlife study area. On February 2, 2004, the USFWS declared that surveys for black-footed ferrets were no longer required in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming (USFWS 2004). Currently, six black-tailed prairie dog colonies encompassing a total of approximately 78.3 non-contiguous acres are located within 2 miles of the West Jacobs Ranch tract (Figure G4-3). Of these, only one colony occurs within the general analysis area itself and is approximately 17.9 acres in size. The other five colonies located in the surrounding 2-mile survey area range in size from approximately 2.6 to 27.2 acres in size. All of these colonies were occupied during 2007. None of these six colonies within the 2-mile wildlife study area meet the 120-acre minimum threshold for supporting a breeding female ferret and her litter (Forrest et al. 1985) and none meet the 80-acre minimum requirement for black-footed ferret habitat (USFWS 1989). Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract general analysis area, if the tract is leased under Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G4-17

Appendix G the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), would have no effect on black-footed ferrets. Given the documented absence of black-footed ferrets in the region, including the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, during specific surveys for this species, the lack of sizeable, contiguous prairie dog colonies within the LBA tract and surrounding areas, 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 for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract would not effect the black-footed ferret. 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 30 years of historic and recent survey efforts and other general analysis area data and information, it is unlikely that ferrets exist in the West Jacobs Ranch tract general analysis area or surrounding wildlife survey area. Cumulative Effects: Mineral development within black-tailed prairie dog colonies is a leading cause of potential 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 in colonies on reclaimed coal mined lands in northeastern Wyoming in recent years, whether by natural expansion or purposeful relocations (J&S 2008, IR 2007). Potential ferret habitat is also affected by other impacts to prairie dog populations. Plague can infect and eliminate entire prairie dog colonies. G4-18 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Poisoning and recreational prairie dog shooting may locally reduce prairie dog populations, but seldom completely eliminate colonies. As indicated, coal mining and natural gas development have occurred in the general Wright analysis area for more than 30 years, with activities expected to increase in the immediate future. Leasing and mining lands in West Jacobs Ranch tract’s general analysis area would not contribute to cumulative adverse effects to black-footed ferrets within either the general analysis area or the region. No black-footed ferret populations exist within northeastern Wyoming or the TBNG. The USFWS issued a block clearance for this species in blacktailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming. The general analysis area and surrounding perimeter are beyond the focus area for future ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and in the general region (USFS 2002b, Grenier 2003). Furthermore, the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 would not conflict with any future objectives to manage the area for, or reintroduce black-footed ferrets into, the TBNG. G4-3.2.2 Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) 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 2007). 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 2008). 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 2007). Threats to the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by vehicular traffic (University of Wyoming 2008). Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb with stems less than 30 centimeters (12 inches) tall. The inflorescence is 5 to 15 centimeters (2 to 6 inches) long and has six to ten compact whorls of milkyblue to pale lavender flowers. This species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current known 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 (University of Wyoming 2008). Existing Environment: The West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract is not within the documented historical range of the blowout penstemon. The tracts are located approximately 150 miles northwest of the known occurrences in Nebraska and approximately 150 miles northeast of the known occurrences in Wyoming. No Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G4-19

Appendix G suitable sand dunes (whether stable or active) are currently present in the West Jacobs Ranch tract’s general analysis area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), would have no effect on the blowout penstemon. Typical suitable habitat for this species within the tract’s general analysis area 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, off road vehicle use, and associated destabilization of the plant’s sand dune habitat. It could also be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of non-native species within its range. G4-4.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS Table G4-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in the area of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract that may result from implementing the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative). Table G4-1. Status Threatened Endangered Endangered
1

Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. Species Common Name Ute ladies’-tresses Black-footed ferret Blowout penstemon Potential Effects May affect1 No effect No effect

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations.

G4-20

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

SECTION G5
NORTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT

Appendix G G5-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES On September 29, 2006, BTU Western Resources, Inc. (BTU) filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in three separate tracts located west, northwest, and north of and immediately adjacent to the North Antelope Rochelle Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming (Figure G-1). The two tracts on the north side of the mine were referred to as the North Porcupine LBA Tract, and the tract on the west side of the mine was referred to as the South Porcupine LBA Tract. On October 12, 2007, BTU filed a request with the BLM to modify the Porcupine LBA Tract configuration to increase the lease area and coal volume. The North Porcupine LBA Tract, which is located approximately 12 miles southeast of Wright, Wyoming, was combined into one tract and its size was increased with additional lands. The South Porcupine LBA Tract, which is located approximately 14 miles southeast of Wright, was also increased in size with additional lands. BTU’s coal lease application was assigned case file numbers WYW173408 (North Porcupine) and WYW176095 (South Porcupine). BLM determined that the two tracts in the application would be processed separately and, if the decision is made to conduct a lease sale, would be offered for sale separately. G5-1.1 The Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action for the North Porcupine LBA Tract, the tract as applied for by BTU would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D of this EIS). The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the North Porcupine LBA Tract lease application (Figure G5-1). The Proposed Action assumes that BTU would be the successful bidder on the North Porcupine LBA Tract if it is offered for sale, and the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for an existing mine. The legal description of the proposed North Porcupine LBA Tract coal lease lands as applied for by BTU under the Proposed Action is as follows: T.42N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 19: Lots 13 through 20; Section 20: Lots 9 through 16; Section 21: Lots 9 through 16; Section 22: Lots 9 through 16; Section 26: Lots 3 through 6 and 9 through 16; Section 27: Lots 1 through 16; Section 28: Lots 1 through 4; Section 29 Lots 1 through 4; Section 30: Lots 5 through 8;

296.94 328.00 329.54 327.74 496.64 664.48 165.98 164.30 147.79

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G5-1

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
14 13 18 16 17 15 14 13

B NS F & UP RR

Antelope Road

B NS F & UP RR

Antelope Road

G5-2
15

Appendix G

Reno Road

22 19 20 21 22

24 23

Matheson

Road

Mackey Road

28 30 29 28

Mackey Road

Figure G5-1. North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives.
34 31 32 35 36 33 34 35 36

T. 42 N.
Matheson Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

T. 41 N.
3 6 2 1 5

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

3000

6000

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Appendix G T.42N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 22: Lots 10 through 15 and 21 through 24; Section 23: Lots 9 through 16; Section 24: Lots 9 through 16; Section 25: Lots 1 through 4; Section 26: Lots 1 through 6 and 11 through 14; Section 27: Lots 2 through 6, 9, 12, and 15 through 30; Section 34: Lots 1 through 3 and 6 through 11; Section 35: Lots 3 through 6 and 11 through 14; Total: 323.49 324.94 325.82 162.96 404.09 649.42 360.46 323.19 acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

5,795.78 acres

The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned. Much of the surface (approximately 85 percent) of the tract as applied for includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11 of this EIS. Surface ownership is shown in Figure G5-2. G5-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action G5-1.2.1 Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, BTU’s application to lease the coal included in the North Porcupine LBA Tract would be rejected. The tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities or employment on the existing leases at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. Portions of the surface of the LBA tract will be disturbed due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from existing contiguous leases. G5-1.2.2 Alternative 2 (BLM’s Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 2 for the North Porcupine 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 for this tract if it is offered for sale (Appendix D of this EIS). Alternative 2, holding a competitive coal sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 for the North Porcupine LBA Tract assumes that BTU 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 to extend the life of the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine. Other assumptions are the same as for the Proposed Action.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G5-3

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Antelope Road

B NS F & UP RR

Antelope Road

Figure G5-2. Surface Ownership Within the North Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives.

G5-4
15 18 16 15 14 14 13 17 13

Appendix G

Reno Road

Mackey Road

21 20 21

24 19 22

Matheson Road

28 29 28

27 30

Mackey Road

T. 42 N.
Po rcu pi n e

33 32

34 31

35 36

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

T. 41 N.
3 1 6 2 5

Matheson Road

k ee Cr

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
12000

Thunder Basin National Grassland State of Wyoming Jerry N. & Rhonda Wilkinson Powder River Coal, LLC School Creek Coal Resources Western Railroad Properties, Inc.

3000

6000

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Appendix G In evaluating the North Porcupine coal lease application, BLM identified a study area that includes unleased federal coal adjacent the northern and southwestern edges of the tract as applied for (Figure G5-1). BLM is evaluating the potential that some or all of these lands could be added to the area offered for lease to provide for more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the North Porcupine LBA Tract, and/or reduce the potential that some of the potentially mineable federal coal in this area would be bypassed if it is not included in the North Porcupine LBA Tract. Under Alternative 2, the area BLM is evaluating adding to the tract as applied for includes the following lands: T.42N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 19: Lots 9 through 12; Section 20: Lots 5 through 8; Section 21: Lots l through 8; Section 22: Lots 3 through 6; T.42N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 22: Lots 5 through 7, 19, and 20; Section 23: Lots 5 through 8; Section 24: Lots 5 through 8; Section 34: Lots 4, 5, and 12 through 16; Total:

149.02 162.93 330.71 163.80

acres acres acres acres

162.70 162.51 163.30 276.04

acres acres acres acres

1,572.01 acres

The legal description of BLM’s preferred configuration of the North Porcupine LBA Tract under Alternative 2 (Figure G5-1) is as follows: T.42N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 19: Lots 9 through 20; Section 20: Lots 5 through 16; Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Section 22: Lots 3 through 6 and 9 through 16; Section 26: Lots 3 through 6 and 9 through 16; Section 27: Lots 1 through 16; Section 28: Lots 1 through 4; Section 29 Lots 1 through 4; Section 30: Lots 5 through 8; T.42N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 22: Lots 5 through 7, 10 through 15, and 19 through 24; Section 23: Lots 5 through 16; Section 24: Lots 5 through 16; Section 25: Lots 1 through 4; Section 26: Lots 1 through 6 and 11 through 14; Section 27: Lots 2 through 6, 9, 12, and 15 through 30; Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

445.96 490.93 660.25 491.54 496.64 664.48 165.98 164.30 147.79

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

486.19 487.45 489.12 162.96 404.09 649.42

acres acres acres acres acres acres G5-5

Appendix G Section 34: Section 35: Total: Lots 1 through 16; Lots 3 through 6 and 11 through 14; 636.50 acres 323.19 acres 7,366.79 acres

Much of the surface (approximately 83 percent) of the BLM study area includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. G5-2.0 CONSULTATION TO DATE The locations of the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases, the existing approved mine permit area, and the North Porcupine LBA Tract are shown in Figure G5-1. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine and North Porcupine LBA Tract 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 and listed in Appendix B of this EIS. BLM and USFS have applied these coal screens to federal coal lands in Campbell County several times, starting in the early 1980s. The North Porcupine LBA Tract is located in the area covered by the USFS screening analysis published as Appendix F of the 1985 Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan. Most recently, in 1993, BLM, USFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 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. This analysis is referenced in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision (USFS 2001a) and adopted in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Thunder Basin National Grassland (USFS 2001b). The Record of Decision for the Thunder Basin National Grassland FEIS and LRMP was signed on July 31, 2002 (USFS 2002a). The Porcupine LBA Tract fall within Management Area 8.4, as identified in the 2002 Thunder Basin National Grassland LRMP, which is to be managed for mineral production and development. Consultation with USFWS was conducted as part of the 2002 LRMP. Consultation with 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 this EIS summarizes the unsuitability criteria, describes the general findings for the screening analyses discussed above, and presents a G5-6 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G validation of these findings for the North Porcupine LBA Tract based on the current information. Consultation with USFWS has previously been completed for the area included within the North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s existing approved mine permit area, shown in Figure G5-1, as part of the mine and reclamation plan approval process. This process began when the North Antelope Mine and the Rochelle Mine (which are now combined as the North Antelope Rochelle Mine) were initially permitted in 1982 and 1983 and has continued through 2008. North Antelope Rochelle Mine's most recent Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern and Raptor Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, which was included as part of mine's most recent mine permit amendment, was approved by USFWS January 4, 2006. USFWS approved subsequent revisions and amendments to the plan, the most recent of which is dated December 5, 2007. USFWS maintains a list of “threatened” or “endangered” (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 (ESA), to provide a list of T&E species upon request for federal actions and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) compliance. According to USFWS information (USFWS 2009), three federally listed species could potentially occur in the general Wright analysis area
  

Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis): Threatened Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes): Endangered Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii): Endangered

Appendix G measures and programs for the conservation and recovery of listed species as required by under the ESA are satisfied and carried out. Protective measures for migratory birds are provided pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the protection of wetlands is pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990, and Executive Order 11988. The memorandum also provided recommendations for biological assessments in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the protection of migratory birds, wetlands, and for other fish and wildlife resources (under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) provided BLM with scoping comments for the six LBA tracts included in the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS in a letter from John Emmerich, Deputy Director, WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Sarah Bucklin, BLM, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated July 5, 2007 (WGFD 2007). WGFD recommended consideration be given to possible impacts to big game species and their habitat, sage grouse, other sagebrush obligates, and nongame species that occur within the general Wright analysis area. G5-3.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Wildlife monitoring has been conducted annually for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine since 1984. Similar annual monitoring has occurred at the nearby Antelope and Black Thunder mines since 1982 and 1983, respectively. This wildlife monitoring was designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal agencies’ requirements for annual monitoring and reporting of wildlife activity on coal mining areas. Detailed survey protocols and site-specific requirements have been conducted as approved by WGFD and USFWS. The annual wildlife monitoring programs at all three applicant mines have been consistent since they began in the early 1980s, with minor modifications in accordance with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. The annual monitoring areas for the adjacent North Antelope Rochelle, Antelope, and Black Thunder mines encompass large survey perimeters around each permit boundary; therefore, both the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts and surrounding lands have been included in annual wildlife monitoring for many years. Surveys with respect to the North Porcupine tract are summarized as follows:




Since the early 1980’s:  approximately 1,480 acres (16 percent) in the eastern portion of the North Porcupine tract general analysis area; and  the eastern two-thirds of the North Porcupine tract two-mile wildlife survey area. Since 1992: Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G5-8

Appendix G




approximately 4,480 acres (about 50 percent) of the North Porcupine tract general analysis area and the two-mile wildlife survey area (excluding the northern- and western-most tiers) (since 1992). Since 2000:  the entire North Porcupine tract general analysis area; and  all but the northern- and western-most 6,770 acres (14 percent) of the North Porcupine tract two-mile wildlife survey area. Since 2002:  all lands in the general analysis area and wildlife survey area the North Porcupine tract, including targeted baseline wildlife surveys conducted for the tract from 2006 through 2008.

To summarize, the entire general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract has been included in annual wildlife monitoring for at least the last eight years (2000 through 2007). Long-term information is also available for the two-mile wildlife survey area associated with the tract. The approved North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit 569-T6 (PRC 2004) includes monitoring and mitigation measures that are required by SMCRA and Wyoming State Law. If the North Porcupine LBA Tract is acquired by BTU, these monitoring and mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on the LBA tract when the North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s mining permit is amended to include the tract. The amended permit would have to be approved before mining operations could take place on the tract. Continued site-specific surveys for the lease area and appropriate perimeter would be part of the mine permitting process if the tract is leased and proposed for mining. These monitoring and mitigation measures are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative) during the leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. Background information on wildlife in the vicinity of the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract was obtained from several sources, including the South Powder River Basin Coal FEIS (BLM 2003), the original baseline inventories for the North Antelope and Rochelle mines prior to their merger, annual wildlife monitoring and periodic wildlife baseline reports submitted by the mine to the WDEQ/LQD from 1984 through 2007, the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application FEIS (BLM 2008), records from the WGFD, BLM, USFWS and USFS, and personal contact with biologists from those four agencies. The North Porcupine LBA Tract wildlife study area has been included in annual wildlife monitoring efforts for the nearby North Antelope Rochelle Mine, Antelope Mine, and/or Black Thunder Mine for many years. Consequently, site-specific data for the North Porcupine tract were available from several sources, including previous WDEQ/LQD mine permit applications and long-term annual wildlife monitoring reports for the applicant mine and adjacent properties. Baseline wildlife studies conducted expressly for the North Porcupine LBA Tract from 2006 through early 2008 added to those existing databases. Figure G5-3 depicts the North Porcupine LBA Tract, the tract’s general analysis area, and the T&E animal species survey area. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G5-9

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
Tr
Hili ght R oad
5 4 3 4 1 3 2 6 2 1 6 5 4 5

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
us

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
k ee Cr
ool S ch
Ro
8 7

er sl

Edwards Road

R eno Road
ad

S ch o ol Cr eek

Matheson Road

11 11 10 8 9 11 12

Cre

PRAIRIE DOG COLONIES
Antelope
17 16 16 15 14 13 18 17 15

Road

Po 12 rc up ine
8 9 10 12 7

PRAIRIE DOG COLONIES

k ee Cr
17

Reno Road

23 23 24

24 21

20 22 20 23 21 24 22 19

Mackey Road

26 29 29 28 28 27 26 30 27 25 26

Mackey Road

T. 42 35 N.
32 33 31 32 34 34 35 36 33

PRAIRIE DOG COLONIES
5 4 3 6 4 2 1

T. 42 N.

S ta te
Po 5 rc up ine

H ig hw

Figure G5-3. T&E Species Survey Area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract.
3 2 1 6 5 4

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications
T. 41 N.
8 9 8 10 11 7

T. 41 2 N.

ay 59

11 12

Ho rse

k ee Cr

14 17 15 16 14

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

ek re C

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
General Analysis Area 2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary Prairie Dog Colony North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

5000

10000

20000

Appendix G

G5-10

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Appendix G The LBA tract and adjacent areas consist primarily of uplands. The topography of the general analysis area, like the areas within the adjacent mines’ existing permit areas, is relatively subdued. The landscape consists primarily of gently rolling terrain broken by minor drainages and internallydrained playa areas. Drainage densities are quite low, and the playas are common topographic and hydrologic features. Much of the land surface does not contribute runoff to any stream, and playas have formed in the lowest portion of these non-contributing drainage areas. Land surface elevations range from about 4,690 to 5,170 feet above sea level and slopes range from essentially flat to over 50 percent within the general Wright analysis area. Gently rolling uplands comprise most of the general Wright analysis area; most of the land surface (between 75 and 90 percent, depending on the particular LBA tract) seldom exceeds a 5 percent slope. The steepest slopes typically occur near the highest elevations along the ridge lines and drainage divides and along the drainages, where channel incision has created some gullying. The topography of the North Porcupine tract is influenced by Porcupine Creek and its tributaries. Land surface elevations in the tract’s general analysis area range from 4,707 to 5,000 feet and approximately 81 percent of the land surface area has a slope of less than 5 percent. The average land surface slope over the entire general analysis area for the tract is approximately 3.2 percent. Surface mine lands, both active and reclaimed, dominate the landscape south and east of the North Porcupine LBA Tract. Predominant wildlife habitat types classified in the general Wright analysis area generally correspond with the major vegetation communities defined during the vegetation baseline survey. In terms of relative acres of occurrence, the predominant vegetation types are the Big Sage Shrubland (approximately 42 percent), Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland (approximately 28 percent), and Crested Wheatgrass/Agricultural Pastureland (approximately 15 percent). Minor vegetation types, including saline grassland, rough breaks, disturbed lands and bottomlands account for approximately 10 percent of the six combined general analysis areas. Disturbed lands include road and utility rights-of-way, areas surrounding active construction sites and mining facilities, oil and gas facilities, and occupied and abandoned homesteads. Few trees occur in the general Wright analysis area due to the lack of water and suitable habitats; most trees are found primarily in windbreaks planted adjacent to ranching facilities. Reclaimed lands include areas that were recently disturbed for road construction, installation of oil and gas development-related facilities, and mining-associated activities. Based on total acreages, the predominant vegetation types in the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract are Big Sagebrush Grassland (53.85 percent) and Upland Grassland (31.78 percent), both of which occur primarily on the rolling upland terrain. Other habitat types common to North Porcupine include Breaks Grassland, Salt Grassland, Meadow Undeveloped Pastureland, Disturbed, Playa Grassland, Hayland, and Water areas. Disturbed areas are characterized primarily by a network of major roads and well pads that are Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G5-11

Appendix G stabilized with gravel or reclaimed. There are also small tank batteries and numerous miles of pipeline disturbance that, to varying degrees, are recovering vegetation cover. Those disturbances are associated with both CBNG and traditional oil and gas development in the area, though similar existing disturbance has occurred from ongoing surface mining activities. The North Porcupine general analysis area and the majority of the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s permit area are located in the Porcupine Creek watershed. Porcupine Creek is an ephemeral stream in its upper reaches and an intermittent stream in its lower reaches. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine disturbs Porcupine Creek and several of its tributaries, and is currently permitted to disturb approximately 25 percent of Porcupine Creek’s watershed. Approximately 6,221 acres, or about 84 percent of the 7,367-acre BLM study area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract, drain to Porcupine Creek. A short reach of Porcupine Creek, which is a meandering ephemeral stream in this area, flows southeastward across the western portion of the North Porcupine LBA Tract. Several ephemeral tributaries of Porcupine Creek (e.g., Corder Creek, Boss Draw, Rat Draw, Gray Creek, and Chipmunk Draw) also cross the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. The northeastern portion of the tract’s general analysis area is drained by Trussler and School creeks, ephemeral tributaries of Little Thunder Creek. There are also some areas in the eastern portion of the general analysis area that do not contribute runoff to any stream and playas have formed in the lowest portions of these non contributing drainage areas. Numerous small in-channel reservoirs/stock ponds are scattered throughout the general Wright analysis area. Most of these stock ponds are many decades old and are constructed with earthen berms or dams. There are also a number of playas within the area. Those water bodies provide short-term habitat of variable quality for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and other aquatic species (birds, fish, herptiles) during spring but are less reliable, and often dry, during other seasons. Formal jurisdictional wetland delineation surveys covering North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current permit area and some additional adjacent lands were completed by PRC and submitted to the COE for verification in 1996, 1997, 2000 and 2004. These wetland delineations and the COE’s respective letters of verification summarizing the acreage figures of approved jurisdictional determinations are included in Appendix D-10 of the mine’s permit (PRC 2004). According to the COE’s latest (October 12, 2004) jurisdictional determination, there is a total of 219.71 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and OWUS within the mine’s current permit area. Of those 219.71 acres, there are 77.84 acres of riverine wetlands, 26.99 acres of stockpond wetlands, 11.42 acres of riverine open water OWUS, 44.62 acres of stockpond open water OWUS, and 58.84 acres of ephemeral stream channel OWUS. There are also 20.92 wetland acres and 1.33 open water acres of non-jurisdictional playa/depressional features.

G5-12

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G The general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract lies completely within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current mine permit area. Therefore, these previous wetland delineation surveys provide an estimate of the acreages of wetlands and OWUS that exist within the LBA tract’s general analysis area, with the caveat that some wetland areas previously mapped may have been altered by CBNG-related water production within and upstream of the general analysis area. In addition to the effects from CBNG-related water discharges, the PRB has experienced a moderate to severe drought cycle that has persisted since 2000, which may have also altered previously-mapped wetland and OWUS areas. The boundaries of some wetlands and OWUS could, therefore, vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries that existed at the time that the formal wetland delineation surveys were conducted. Within the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract (9,021.4 acres), there are an estimated 19.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and OWUS. Of those 25.8 acres, there are approximately 9.3 acres of riverine wetlands, approximately 0.9 acres of stockpond wetlands, approximately 0.9 acres of stockpond open water OWUS, and approximately 8.6 acres of ephemeral stream channel OWUS. There are also approximately 4.9 wetland acres and 1.2 open water acres of non-jurisdictional playa/depressional features. The vegetated wetland areas consist primarily of palustrine emergent herbaceous wet meadow or marsh and palustrine aquatic beds located along ephemeral stream channels and around ponds, playas and depressions, whereas the OWUS consist of dry ephemeral drainages and open water. Only the COE has the authorization to determine whether or not wetlands are jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional, following the submittal and review of a formal wetland delineation as part of the mine permitting process. In Wyoming, once the delineation has been verified, it is made a part of the mine permit document. The reclamation plan is then revised to incorporate the replacement of at least equal types and numbers of jurisdictional wetland acreages. Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area, no designated critical, crucial, or unique habitats designated by USFWS for T&E species are present. The following discussion describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the North Porcupine LBA Tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 on federally listed species. G5-3.1 Threatened Species G5-3.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G5-13

Appendix G 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, central Washington, and Canada. Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 12 to 50 centimeters (5 to 20 inches) 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 generally 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 centimeters (18 inches) 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 late July through early September (Heidel 2007). 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 G5-14 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G 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. The nearest known population to the North Porcupine LBA Tract is located on an unnamed tributary to Antelope Creek in northern Converse County. Porcupine Creek is within the Antelope Creek watershed. As discussed above, Porcupine Creek and several of its ephemeral tributaries (e.g., Payne Draw, Corder Creek, Boss Draw, Rat Draw, Gray Creek, and Chipmunk Draw) lie within and drain most of the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Holmes Creek and Trussler Creek drain the remainder of the tract’s general analysis area but are not part of the Antelope Creek watershed, as they flow into Little Thunder Creek. Areas of Ute ladies’-tresses potential habitat along Porcupine Creek on USFS lands within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current mine permit area (as stated above, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract lies within the mine’s current permit area) were surveyed by BKS Environmental Associates (BKS) on September 1 and 6, 2005. Areas of potential suitable habitat along Holmes Creek on USFS lands within the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s permit area were surveyed by BKS on August 16, 2006. Areas of potential suitable habitat along Trussler Creek on USFS lands within the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s permit area were surveyed by BKS on August 24, 2006 and August 26, 2007. These surveys were completed during the period that Ute ladies’-tresses are known to flower in the region, and no orchids were observed during any of those surveys. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G5-15

Appendix G The entire general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract has also undergone one or more vegetation baseline studies conducted for amendments to the North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit. Vegetation studies were conducted in 1991, 1998, and 2001. No occurrence of the orchid was recorded in the 1991 study. In 1998 and 2001, special reconnaissance for Ute ladies’ tresses was conducted with no occurrence of the species was observed. The 2001 study covered more than 70 percent of the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area and included the entire reach of Porcupine Creek that is located within the tract’s general analysis area. However, Porcupine Creek in this area provided very little suitable habitat due to excessive saline/sodic soil properties. A special reconnaissance for Ute ladies’-tresses was included as part of the vegetation baseline study for the proposed School Creek Mine, which is located north of and adjacent to the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. That study, which was conducted in 2005 and 2006, covered approximately 24 percent of the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area and no occurrence of the species was observed. Dormant plants typically persist underground for one to many years and can only be reliably documented after several years of repeated surveys (Lesica and Steele 1994). Recent USFWS guidelines therefore recommend that multiple surveys of all potentially suitable habitat be conducted within the last 3 years. Because the surveys that were conducted by BKS in 2005, 2006, and 2007 covered only those areas of suitable habitat on USFS lands and therefore did not include all of the areas of suitable habitat within the entire general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract, additional surveys of potential habitat within the tract’s entire general analysis area are scheduled during the known populations’ flowering period (mid-August to early September) in 2009 and 2010 by BKS. Topographical and wetland delineation maps for the tract’s general analysis area will be reviewed to identify all potential 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 will be traversed on foot during the time of actual flowering of the known population, and involve walking entire lengths of the drainages documenting locations of potential habitat and searching for this species. The potentially suitable habitat within the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area and adjacent areas is mostly found along Porcupine Creek. Porcupine Creek is classified as an ephemeral stream, although surface discharge of groundwater associated with CBNG development on or upstream of the LBA tract, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, has resulted in more persistent streamflow and generally wetter conditions within the stream’s channel throughout the year. There are also several stock reservoirs within the G5-16 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G tract’s general analysis area, and some areas in the eastern portion of the general analysis area that do not contribute runoff to any stream and playas have formed in the lowest portions of these non-contributing drainage areas. Some of these areas have potential Ute ladies’-tresses habitat, as they furnish the appropriate vegetation, such as those found along Porcupine Creek. Within the entire general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract, there are an estimated 19.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and OWUS, including 10.2 acres of vegetated wetlands and 9.5 acres of pond or channel OWUS. According to the USFWS 2005 Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies’-tresses (Fertig et al. 2005), the number of populations, geographic ranges, acreages, and estimated population sizes of this species has increased significantly since it was listed in 1992. Much of this can be attributed to increased survey and project analysis work over much of the western United States and heightened awareness of the plant due to its protected status. When the orchid was listed as threatened in 1992, it had an estimated population size of 6,000 individuals. In 2005, additional survey work estimated the number of plants to be over 83,300. USFWS determined that a petition to remove the orchid from federal protection under the ESA provided substantial biological information, which indicated that removal may be warranted. As of December 2005, the Service is moving forward with the proposal to delist the Ute ladies’-tresses, but a final decision has not yet been made. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’-tresses. There is limited potential habitat for this species on the tract along portions of Porcupine Creek. However, the quality of the potential suitable habitat is very poor due to excessive saline/sodic soil properties. Outside of the narrow riparian strip located along this drainage, potential suitable habitat throughout the remainder of the LBA tract’s general analysis area is rare or non-existent. The nearest known Ute ladies’-tresses population is located on an Antelope Creek tributary approximately 20 miles west of the project area. As described above, North Antelope Rochelle Mine and the surrounding mines (Black Thunder and Antelope) have conducted multiple orchid surveys of suitable habitat over multiple years during the known time of flowering using USFWS accepted techniques. All surveys have resulted in negative findings. Individual plants of this species do not necessarily produce annual flowering stalks or above-ground growth consistently from year to year. Single season surveys that meet the current USFWS survey guidelines may not detect this species due to its ability to persist below ground level or above ground without flowering. All areas of suitable habitat along Porcupine Creek, Trussler Creek, Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G5-17

Appendix G and School Creek were surveyed during the orchid’s flowering season in 2005, 2006, and 2007 within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current permit area on USFS lands only. Consequently, the suitable habitat within the entire general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract has not been surveyed multiple times over the last three years, as recommended by the Service. Therefore, additional surveys of potential habitat over the tract’s general analysis area are scheduled during the flowering period (mid-August to early September) in 2009 and 2010. It is unlikely that Ute ladies’-tresses populations would remain undetected during multiple surveys over multiple years, if they are present in the area. Nonetheless, if undetected populations are present on the ephemeral streams in the general analysis area, they would be lost due to surface disturbing activities. Jurisdictional wetlands located in the North Porcupine 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 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. 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 from CBNG development and water discharge on the surface may also alter stream morphology and hydrology. G5-3.2 Endangered Species G5-3.2.1 Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) 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 percent from formerly occupied colonies (Rose 1973, Tyler 1968).

G5-18

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G 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 Wyoming’s PRB, as well as USFS surveys for ferrets on the neighboring 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 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 North Antelope Rochelle Mine and North Porcupine LBA Tract’s general analysis area are beyond the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and elsewhere in the general region (USFS 2002b, Grenier 2003). While the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract and its 2-mile wildlife study area (Figure G5-3) harbor some small prairie dog colonies, black-footed ferrets have never been documented at the mine, nor the surrounding region, during surveys conducted over the last 30 plus years (1976 to present) by a variety of private, state, and federal entities. No black-footed ferret observations or scat have ever been documented in this LBA tract’s wildlife study area. On February 2, 2004, the USFWS declared that surveys for black-footed ferrets were no longer required in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming (USFWS 2004). Currently, 17 black-tailed prairie dog colonies encompassing a total of approximately 1,211.4 non-contiguous acres are located within 2 miles of the North Porcupine tract (Figure G5-3). Of which, only one colony occurs within the general analysis area itself and it is approximately 18.6 acres in size. The other 16 colonies located in the surrounding 2-mile survey area range in size from approximately 1.5 to 345.3 acres in size. All of these colonies were Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G5-19

Appendix G occupied during 2007. Of these 17 colonies, the three largest in size meet the 120-acre minimum threshold for supporting a breeding female ferret and her litter (Forrest et al. 1985) and the 80-acre minimum requirement for blackfooted ferret habitat (USFWS 1989). These three colonies are 228.9, 338.1, and 345.3 acres in size. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the North Porcupine LBA Tract general analysis area, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), would have no effect on black-footed ferrets. Given the documented absence of black-footed ferrets in the region, including the North Porcupine LBA Tract, during specific surveys for this species, the lack of sizeable, contiguous prairie dog colonies within the LBA tract and surrounding areas, 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 for the North Porcupine LBA Tract would not result in any direct or indirect effects on black-footed 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. Based on more than 30 years of historic and recent survey efforts and other general analysis area data and information, it is unlikely that ferrets exist in the North Porcupine tract general analysis area or surrounding wildlife survey area. Cumulative Effects: Mineral development within black-tailed prairie dog colonies is a leading cause of potential 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 G5-20 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G 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 in colonies on reclaimed coal mined lands in northeastern Wyoming in recent years, whether by natural expansion or purposeful relocations (J&S 2008, IR 2007). 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. As indicated, coal mining and natural gas development have occurred in the general Wright analysis area for more than 30 years, with activities expected to increase in the immediate future. Leasing and mining lands in North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area would not contribute to cumulative adverse effects to black-footed ferrets within either the general analysis area or the region. No black-footed ferret populations exist within northeastern Wyoming or the TBNG. The USFWS issued a block clearance for this species in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming. The general analysis area and surrounding perimeter are beyond the focus area for future ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and in the general region (USFS 2002b, Grenier 2003). Furthermore, the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 would not conflict with any future objectives to manage the area for, or reintroduce black-footed ferrets into, the TBNG. G5-3.2.2 Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) 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 2007). 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 2008). 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 2007). Threats to the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by vehicular traffic (University of Wyoming 2008). Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb with stems less than 30 centimeters (12 inches) tall. The inflorescence is 5 to 15 centimeters (2 to 6 inches) long and has six to ten compact whorls of milkyblue to pale lavender flowers. This species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current known range in Wyoming is restricted to two Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G5-21

Appendix G 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 (University of Wyoming 2008). Existing Environment: The North Porcupine LBA Tract is not within the documented historical range of the blowout penstemon. The tracts are located approximately 150 miles northwest of the known occurrences in Nebraska and approximately 150 miles northeast of the known occurrences in Wyoming. No suitable sand dunes (whether stable or active) are currently present in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the North Porcupine LBA Tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), would have no effect on the blowout penstemon. Typical suitable habitat for this species within the tract’s general analysis area 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, off road vehicle use, and associated destabilization of the plant’s sand dune habitat. It could also be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of non-native species within its range. G5-4.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS Table G5-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in the area of the North Porcupine LBA Tract that may result from implementing the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative). Table G5-1. Status Threatened Endangered Endangered
1

Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the North Porcupine LBA Tract. Species Common Name Ute ladies’-tresses Black-footed ferret Blowout penstemon Potential Effects May affect1 No effect No effect

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations.

G5-22

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

SECTION G6
SOUTH PORCUPINE LBA TRACT

Appendix G G6-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES On September 29, 2006, BTU Western Resources, Inc. (BTU) filed an application with the BLM for federal coal reserves in three separate tracts located west, northwest, and north of and immediately adjacent to the North Antelope Rochelle Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming (Figure G-1). The two tracts on the north side of the mine were referred to as the North Porcupine LBA Tract, and the tract on the west side of the mine was referred to as the South Porcupine LBA Tract. On October 12, 2007, BTU filed a request with the BLM to modify the Porcupine LBA Tract configuration to increase the lease area and coal volume. The North Porcupine LBA Tract, which is located approximately 12 miles southeast of Wright, Wyoming, was combined into one tract and its size was increased with additional lands. The South Porcupine LBA Tract, which is located approximately 14 miles southeast of Wright, was also increased in size with additional lands. BTU’s coal lease application was assigned case file numbers WYW173408 (North Porcupine) and WYW176095 (South Porcupine). BLM determined that the two tracts in the application would be processed separately and, if the decision is made to conduct a lease sale, would be offered for sale separately. G6-1.1 The Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action for the South Porcupine LBA Tract, the tract as applied for by BTU would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D of this EIS). The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the South Porcupine LBA Tract lease application (Figure G6-1). The Proposed Action assumes that BTU would be the successful bidder on the South Porcupine LBA Tract if it is offered for sale, and the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for an existing mine. The legal description of the proposed South Porcupine LBA Tract coal lease lands as applied for by BTU under the Proposed Action is as follows: T.41N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 7: Lots 7 through 10 and 15 through 18; Section 18: Lots 6 through 11 and 14 through 19; T.41N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 1: Lots 5 through 20; Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; Section 13: Lots 1 through 16; Section 14: Lots 1, 8, 9, and 16; Section 23: Lot 1 and N½ of Lot 8; Section 24: Lots 2 through 4 and N½ of Lots 5, 6 and 7; Total: Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

320.94 acres 479.71 acres

638.15 acres 678.52 acres 668.93 acres 154.62 acres 59.81 acres 185.28 acres 3,185.96 acres G6-1

Appendix G
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
27 26 25 30 29 28 27

Matheson Road

Antel ope R oad

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Matheson

Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

BNSF & UP RR

Campbell County
28

30 26 25

Converse County

Road

Antelope

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary Existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine Federal Coal Leases South Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for
0 3000 6000 12000

Additional Area Evaluated Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure G6-1. South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives.

G6-2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G The coal estate included in the tract described above is federally owned. Much of the surface (approximately 78 percent) of the tract as applied for includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. The ownership of the surface and oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11 of this EIS. Surface ownership is shown in Figure G6-2. G6-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action G6-1.2.1 Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, BTU’s application to lease the coal included in the South Porcupine LBA Tract would be rejected. The tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities or employment on the existing leases at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. Portions of the surface of the LBA tract will probably be disturbed due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from existing contiguous leases. G6-1.2.2 Alternative 2 (BLM’s Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 2 for the South Porcupine 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 for this tract if it is offered for sale (Appendix D of this EIS). Alternative 2, holding a competitive coal sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 for the South Porcupine LBA Tract assumes that BTU 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 to extend the life of the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine. Other assumptions are the same as for the Proposed Action. In evaluating the South Porcupine coal lease application, BLM identified a study area that includes unleased federal coal adjacent the western edge of the tract as applied for (Figure G6-1). BLM is evaluating the potential that some or all of these lands could be added to the area offered for lease to provide for more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the South Porcupine LBA Tract, and/or reduce the potential that some of the potentially mineable federal coal in this area would be bypassed if it is not included in the South Porcupine LBA Tract.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G6-3

Appendix G
T. 42 N. T. 41 N. R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
34 35

Matheson Road

T. 42
N. T. 41 N.

Road

Antelope

Po rcu

pi n e

Cr ee k

Ho rs e
22 23
24
19 20

BNSF & UP RR

ek C re

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Thunder Basin National Grassland Barbara H. Dilts Living Trust Jerry J. Dilts Living Trust Jerry J. Dilts Family LP I
Bridle Bit Ranch Company Jerry J. Dilts Family LP II
and Bridle Bit Ranch Co.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure G6-2. Surface Ownership Within the South Porcupine LBA Tract Alternatives.

G6-4

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Under Alternative 2, the area BLM is evaluating adding to the tract as applied for includes the following lands: T.41N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 10: Lot 9; Section 11: Lots 9 through 12 and 14 through 16; Section 14: Lot 2 and E½ of Lot 7; Total:

41.20 acres 283.80 acres 57.07 acres 382.07 acres

The legal description of BLM’s preferred configuration of the South Porcupine LBA Tract under Alternative 2 (Figure G6-1) is as follows: T.41N., R.70W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 7: Lots 7 through 10 and 15 through 18; Section 18: Lots 6 through 11 and 14 through 19; T.41N., R.71W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 1: Lots 5 through 20; Section 10: Lot 9; Section 11: Lots 9 through 12 and 14 through 16; Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; Section 13: Lots 1 through 16; Section 14: Lots 1, 2, E½ of 7, 8, 9, and 16; Section 23: Lot 1 and N½ of Lot 8; Section 24: Lots 2 through 4 and N½ of Lots 5, 6 and 7; Total:

320.94 acres 479.71 acres

638.15 acres 41.20 acres 283.80 acres 678.52 acres 668.93 acres 211.69 acres 59.81 acres 185.28 acres 3,568.03 acres

Much of the surface (approximately 70 percent) of the BLM study area includes lands on the TBNG, which is administered by the USFS. G6-2.0 CONSULTATION TO DATE The locations of the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine coal leases, the existing approved mine permit area, and the South Porcupine LBA Tract are shown in Figure G6-1. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine and South Porcupine LBA Tract 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 and listed in Appendix B of this EIS. BLM and USFS have applied these coal screens to federal coal lands in Campbell County several times, starting in the early 1980s. The South Porcupine LBA Tract is located in the area covered by the USFS screening analysis published as Appendix F of the 1985 Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan. Most recently, in 1993, BLM, USFS and the U.S. Fish and Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G6-5

Appendix G Wildlife Service (USFWS) 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. This analysis is referenced in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision (USFS 2001a) and adopted in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Thunder Basin National Grassland (USFS 2001b). The Record of Decision for the Thunder Basin National Grassland FEIS and LRMP was signed on July 31, 2002 (USFS 2002a). The South Porcupine LBA Tract fall within Management Area 8.4, as identified in the 2002 Thunder Basin National Grassland LRMP, which is to be managed for mineral production and development. Consultation with USFWS was conducted as part of the 2002 LRMP. Consultation with 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 this EIS summarizes the unsuitability criteria, describes the general findings for the screening analyses discussed above, and presents a validation of these findings for the South Porcupine LBA Tract based on the current information. Consultation with USFWS has previously been completed for the area included within the North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s existing approved mine permit area, shown in Figure G6-1, as part of the mine and reclamation plan approval process. This process began when the North Antelope Mine and the Rochelle Mine (which are now combined as the North Antelope Rochelle Mine) were initially permitted in 1982 and 1983 and has continued through 2008. North Antelope Rochelle Mine's most recent Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern and Raptor Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, which was included as part of the most recent mine permit amendment, was approved by USFWS January 4, 2006. USFWS approved subsequent revisions and amendments to the plan, the most recent of which is dated December 5, 2007. USFWS maintains a list of “threatened” or “endangered” (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 (ESA), to provide a list of T&E species upon request for federal actions and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) compliance.

G6-6

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G According to USFWS information (USFWS 2009), three federally listed species could potentially occur in the general Wright analysis area
  

Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis): Threatened Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes): Endangered Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii): Endangered

The effects upon these three species are described and analyzed in detail in this appendix. The bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus) was removed from listing as a threatened species in August 2007. Discussion on the bald eagle is included in Appendix H of this EIS as a sensitive species. USFWS provided BLM a listing of the T&E species that may be present in the Buffalo Field Office Area (northeastern Wyoming) in a memorandum letter from Brian T. Kelly, USFWS, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Chris Hanson, BLM Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming, dated August 8, 2007 (USFWS 2007), which included the black-footed ferret and Ute ladies’-tresses, but not blowout penstemon. Recently, blowout penstemon was added to the Campbell County listing (USFWS 2009). The August 8, 2007 memorandum stated that the USFWS focuses on three broad categories of trust resources: 1) T&E and candidate species, 2) migratory birds, and 3) wetlands and riparian areas. The memorandum stated that the Service would work with the BLM to ensure that species-specific protective measures and programs for the conservation and recovery of listed species as required by under the ESA are satisfied and carried out. Protective measures for migratory birds are provided pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the protection of wetlands is pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990, and Executive Order 11988. The memorandum also provided recommendations for biological assessments in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the protection of migratory birds, wetlands, and for other fish and wildlife resources (under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) provided BLM with scoping comments for the six LBA tracts included in the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS in a letter from John Emmerich, Deputy Director, WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Sarah Bucklin, BLM, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated July 5, 2007 (WGFD 2007). WGFD recommended consideration be given to possible impacts to big game species and their habitat, sage grouse, other sagebrush obligates, and nongame species that occur within the general Wright analysis area.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G6-7

Appendix G G6-3.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Wildlife monitoring has been conducted annually for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine since 1984. Similar annual monitoring has occurred at the nearby Antelope and Black Thunder mines since 1982 and 1983, respectively. This wildlife monitoring was designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal agencies’ requirements for annual monitoring and reporting of wildlife activity on coal mining areas. Detailed survey protocols and site-specific requirements have been conducted as approved by WGFD and USFWS. The annual wildlife monitoring programs at all three applicant mines have been consistent since they began in the early 1980s, with minor modifications in accordance with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. The annual monitoring areas for the adjacent North Antelope Rochelle, Antelope, and Black Thunder mines encompass large survey perimeters around each permit boundary; therefore, both the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts and surrounding lands have been included in annual wildlife monitoring for many years. Surveys with respect to the South Porcupine tract are summarized as follows:




Since the early 1980’s:  all but the western-most extension and southwestern corner of the South Porcupine tract general analysis area; and  the eastern two-thirds of the South Porcupine tract two-mile wildlife survey area. Since 1994:  all but the western-most 114 acres (3 percent) of the South Porcupine tract general analysis area; and;  the eastern 70 percent of the South Porcupine tract wildlife survey area. Since 2000:  the entire South Porcupine tract general analysis area; and  all but 2,216 acres (8 percent) at the west-central edge of the South Porcupine tract wildlife survey area. Since 2002:  all lands in the general analysis area and wildlife survey area the South Porcupine tract, including targeted baseline wildlife surveys conducted for the tract from 2006 through 2008.

To summarize, the entire general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract has been included in annual wildlife monitoring for at least the last eight years (2000 through 2007), and 97 percent of the tract’s general analysis area was monitored annually from 1994 through 2000. Long-term information is also available for the two-mile wildlife survey area associated with the tract. The approved North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit 569-T6 (PRC 2004) includes monitoring and mitigation measures that are required by SMCRA and Wyoming G6-8 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G State Law. If the South Porcupine LBA Tract is acquired by BTU, these monitoring and mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on the LBA tract when the North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s mining permit is amended to include the tract. The amended permit would have to be approved before mining operations could take place on the tract. Continued site-specific surveys for the lease area and appropriate perimeter would be part of the mine permitting process if the tract is leased and proposed for mining. These monitoring and mitigation measures are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative) during the leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. Background information on wildlife in the vicinity of the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract was obtained from several sources, including the South Powder River Basin Coal FEIS (BLM 2003), the original baseline inventories for the North Antelope and Rochelle mines prior to their merger, annual wildlife monitoring and periodic wildlife baseline reports submitted by the mine to the WDEQ/LQD from 1984 through 2007, the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application FEIS (BLM 2008), records from the WGFD, BLM, USFWS and USFS, and personal contact with biologists from those four agencies. The South Porcupine LBA Tract wildlife study area has been included in annual wildlife monitoring efforts for the nearby North Antelope Rochelle Mine, Antelope Mine, and/or Black Thunder Mine for many years. Consequently, site-specific data for the South Porcupine tract were available from several sources, including previous WDEQ/LQD mine permit applications and long-term annual wildlife monitoring reports for the applicant mine and adjacent properties. Baseline wildlife studies conducted expressly for the North Porcupine LBA Tract from 2006 through early 2008 added to those existing databases. Figure G6-3 depicts the South Porcupine LBA Tract, the tract’s general analysis area, and the T&E animal species survey area. The LBA tract and adjacent areas consist primarily of uplands. The topography of the general analysis area, like the areas within the adjacent mines’ existing permit areas, is relatively subdued. The landscape consists primarily of gently rolling terrain broken by minor drainages and internallydrained playa areas. Drainage densities are quite low, and the playas are common topographic and hydrologic features. Much of the land surface does not contribute runoff to any stream, and playas have formed in the lowest portion of these non-contributing drainage areas. Land surface elevations range from about 4,690 to 5,170 feet above sea level and slopes range from essentially flat to over 50 percent within the general Wright analysis area. Gently rolling uplands comprise most of the general Wright analysis area; most of the land surface (between 75 and 90 percent, depending on the particular LBA tract) seldom exceeds a 5 percent slope. The steepest slopes typically occur near the highest elevations along the ridge lines and drainage divides and along the drainages, where channel incision has created some gullying.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G6-9

Appendix G
Edwards Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
Antel ope R oad
10 11 12 7

Reno Road
Tr
8 9 10 11 12 7

Matheson Road

s us

r le

k ee Cr

Reno Road

Matheson Road
29 28 27 26 25

PRAIRIE DOG COLONIES
36 31

Mackey Road
31

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Draw

Po r

Mike's

cu 5 pi ne

k ee Cr

or 15 se
ek re C

PRAIRIE DOG COLONIES
20 21 22

Campbell County
25 30

Converse County

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.

e op tel An
5

Cre

A
Ro ad
3

ope ntel

Cre

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.

pe elo nt A

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary
South Porcupine LBA
Tract as Applied for South Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative
0 5000 10000 20000

General Analysis Area 2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary Prairie Dog Colony

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure G6-3. T&E Species Survey Area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract.

G6-10

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Of the six LBA tracts included in this analysis, the topography of the South Porcupine tract is somewhat unique due to the presence of more pronounced gullies and deeper tributary draws that are formed by the headwaters of Antelope, Horse, and Porcupine creeks. Land surface elevations in the tract’s general analysis area range from 4,675 to 4,950 feet, and approximately 51 percent of the land surface area has a slope of less than 5 percent. The average land surface slope over the entire general analysis area for the tract is approximately 6.2 percent. Surface mine lands, both active and reclaimed, dominate the landscape north, south and east of the South Porcupine LBA Tract. Predominant wildlife habitat types classified in the general Wright analysis area generally correspond with the major vegetation communities defined during the vegetation baseline survey. In terms of relative acres of occurrence, the predominant vegetation types are the Big Sage Shrubland (approximately 42 percent), Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland (approximately 28 percent), and Crested Wheatgrass/Agricultural Pastureland (approximately 15 percent). Minor vegetation types, including saline grassland, rough breaks, disturbed lands and bottomlands account for approximately 10 percent of the six combined general analysis areas. Disturbed lands include road and utility rights-of-way, areas surrounding active construction sites and mining facilities, oil and gas facilities, and occupied and abandoned homesteads. Few trees occur in the general Wright analysis area due to the lack of water and suitable habitats; most trees are found primarily in windbreaks planted adjacent to ranching facilities. Reclaimed lands include areas that were recently disturbed for road construction, installation of oil and gas development-related facilities, and mining-associated activities. Based on total acreages, the predominant vegetation types in the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract are Upland Grassland (55.7 percent) and Breaks Grassland (23.5 percent), both of which occur primarily on the rolling upland terrain. Other habitat types common to South Porcupine include Salt Grassland, Playa Grassland, Disturbed, and Water areas. Disturbed areas are characterized primarily by a network of major roads and well pads that are stabilized with gravel or reclaimed. There are also small tank batteries and numerous miles of pipeline disturbance that, to varying degrees, are recovering vegetation cover. Those disturbances are associated with both CBNG and traditional oil and gas development in the area, though similar existing disturbance has occurred from ongoing surface mining activities. As stated above, the South Porcupine LBA Tract is located at the headwaters of tributaries to Antelope, Horse, and Porcupine creeks. Surface water drainage in the tract is divided, in that the northern and eastern portions of the tract drain north and east to Porcupine Creek via several of its ephemeral tributaries, the southern portion of the tract drains south to Antelope Creek via several of its ephemeral tributaries, and the western portion of the tract drains west to Horse Creek via several of its ephemeral tributaries. With the exception Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G6-11

Appendix G of about 60 acres, the entire BLM study area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract is within the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s permit area. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine disturbs Porcupine Creek and several of its tributaries as well as several of Antelope Creek’s unnamed ephemeral tributaries. The mine is currently permitted to disturb approximately 25 percent of Porcupine Creek’s watershed. Numerous small in-channel reservoirs/stock ponds are scattered throughout the general Wright analysis area. Most of these stock ponds are many decades old and are constructed with earthen berms or dams. There are also a number of playas within the area. Those water bodies provide short-term habitat of variable quality for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and other aquatic species (birds, fish, herptiles) during spring but are less reliable, and often dry, during other seasons. All but about 140 acres of the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract lies within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current mine permit area. Therefore, the mine’s wetland delineation surveys (described in Section G5 of this appendix) provide an estimate of the acreages of wetlands and OWUS that exist within the LBA tract’s general analysis area, with the caveat that some wetland areas previously mapped may have been altered by CBNG-related water production within and upstream of the tract’s general analysis area. In addition to the effects from CBNG-related water discharges, the PRB has experienced a moderate to severe drought cycle that has persisted since 2000, which may have also altered previously-mapped wetland and OWUS areas. The boundaries of some wetlands and OWUS could, therefore, vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries that existed at the time that the formal wetland delineation surveys were conducted. Within the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract (4,020.5 acres), there are an estimated 12.3 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and OWUS. Of those 12.3 acres, there are approximately 6.8 acres of riverine wetlands, approximately 0.4 acres of stockpond wetlands, approximately 0.2 acres of stockpond open water OWUS, and approximately 4.9 acres of ephemeral stream channel OWUS. There are also approximately 0.2 wetland acres of nonjurisdictional playa/depressional features. The vegetated wetland areas consist primarily of palustrine emergent herbaceous wet meadow or marsh along ephemeral stream channels and around ponds, playas and depressions, whereas the OWUS consist of dry ephemeral drainages and open water. Only the COE has the authorization to determine whether or not wetlands are jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional, following the submittal and review of a formal wetland delineation as part of the mine permitting process. In Wyoming, once the delineation has been verified, it is made a part of the mine permit document. The reclamation plan is then revised to incorporate the replacement of at least equal types and numbers of jurisdictional wetland acreages. G6-12 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area, no designated critical, crucial, or unique habitats designated by USFWS for T&E species are present. The following discussion describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the South Porcupine LBA Tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 on federally listed species. G6-3.1 Threatened Species G6-3.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 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, central Washington, and Canada. Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 12 to 50 centimeters (5 to 20 inches) 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 generally 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 centimeters (18 inches) 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 late July through early September (Heidel 2007). 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G6-13

Appendix G 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. The nearest known population to the South Porcupine LBA Tract is located on an unnamed tributary to Antelope Creek in northern Converse County. As discussed above, the South Porcupine LBA Tract is within the Antelope Creek watershed. Areas of Ute ladies’-tresses potential habitat along Porcupine Creek and Mike’s Draw, a tributary of Porcupine Creek, on USFS lands within North Antelope G6-14 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Rochelle Mine’s current mine permit area (as stated above, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract lies within the mine’s current permit area) were surveyed by BKS Environmental Associates (BKS) on September 1 and 6, 2005. Areas of potential suitable habitat along Holmes Creek on USFS lands within the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s permit area were surveyed by BKS on August 16, 2006. Areas of potential suitable habitat along Trussler Creek on USFS lands within the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s permit area were surveyed by BKS on August 24, 2006 and August 26, 2007. These surveys were completed during the period that Ute ladies’-tresses are known to flower in the region, and no orchids were observed during any of those surveys. The entire general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract has also undergone one or more vegetation baseline studies conducted for amendments to the North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit. Vegetation studies were conducted in 1991, 1998, and 2001. No occurrence of the orchid was recorded in the 1991 study. In 1998 and 2001, special reconnaissance for Ute ladies’ tresses was conducted with no occurrence of the species was observed. The 2001 study covered more than 70 percent of the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Dormant plants typically persist underground for one to many years and can only be reliably documented after several years of repeated surveys (Lesica and Steele 1994). Recent USFWS guidelines therefore recommend that multiple surveys of all potentially suitable habitat be conducted within the last 3 years. Because the surveys that were conducted by BKS in 2005, 2006, and 2007 covered only those areas of suitable habitat on USFS lands and therefore did not include all of the areas of suitable habitat within the entire general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract, additional surveys of potential habitat within the tract’s entire general analysis area are scheduled during the known populations’ flowering period (mid-August to early September) in 2009 and 2010 by BKS. Topographical and wetland delineation maps for the tract’s general analysis area will be reviewed to identify all potential 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 will be traversed on foot during the time of actual flowering of the known population, and involve walking entire lengths of the drainages documenting locations of potential habitat and searching for this species. The potentially suitable habitat within the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area is found along Mike’s Draw. Mike’s Draw is an ephemeral stream, although surface discharge of groundwater associated with CBNG development within the tract’s general analysis area, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, has resulted in more persistent streamflow and generally Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G6-15

Appendix G wetter conditions within the stream’s channel throughout the year. Subsurface lateral water flow is present along portions of the drainage, which is providing potential Ute ladies’-tresses habitat. Within the entire general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract, there are an estimated 12.3 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and OWUS, including 7.2 acres of vegetated wetlands and 5.1 acres of pond or channel OWUS. According to the USFWS 2005 Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies’-tresses (Fertig et al. 2005), the number of populations, geographic ranges, acreages, and estimated population sizes of this species has increased significantly since it was listed in 1992. Much of this can be attributed to increased survey and project clearance work over much of the western United States and heightened awareness of the plant due to its protected status. When the orchid was listed as threatened in 1992, it had an estimated population size of 6,000 individuals. In 2005, additional survey work estimated the number of plants to be over 83,300. USFWS determined that a petition to remove the orchid from federal protection under the ESA provided substantial biological information, which indicated that removal may be warranted. As of December 2005, the Service is moving forward with the proposal to delist the Ute ladies’-tresses, but a final decision has not yet been made. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’-tresses. There is limited potential habitat for this species on the tract along portions of Mike’s Draw. If the South Porcupine tract is leased by BTU and proposed for mining, the North Antelope Rochelle Mine does not presently intend to mine through Mike’s Draw and the potential habitat would not be disturbed under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. Outside of the narrow riparian strip located along this drainage, potential habitat throughout the remainder of the LBA tract’s general analysis area is rare or non-existent. The nearest known Ute ladies’-tresses population is located on an Antelope Creek tributary approximately 20 miles west of the project area. As described above, North Antelope Rochelle Mine and the surrounding mines (Black Thunder and Antelope) have conducted multiple orchid surveys of suitable habitat over multiple years during the known time of flowering using USFWS accepted techniques. All surveys have resulted in negative findings. Individual plants of this species do not necessarily produce annual flowering stalks or above-ground growth consistently from year to year. Single season surveys that meet the current USFWS survey guidelines may not detect this species due to its ability to persist below ground level or above ground without flowering. All areas of suitable habitat along Mike’s Draw were surveyed during G6-16 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G the orchid’s flowering season in 2005 within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current permit area on USFS lands only. Consequently, the suitable habitat within the entire general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract has not been surveyed multiple times over the last three years, as recommended by the Service. Therefore, additional surveys of potential habitat over the tract’s general analysis area are scheduled during the flowering period (mid-August to early September) in 2009 and 2010. It is unlikely that Ute ladies’-tresses populations would remain undetected during multiple surveys over multiple years, if they are present in the area. Nonetheless, if undetected populations are present on the ephemeral streams in the general analysis area, they would be lost due to surface disturbing activities. Jurisdictional wetlands located in the South Porcupine 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 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. 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 from CBNG development and water discharge on the surface may also alter stream morphology and hydrology. G6-3.2 Endangered Species G6-3.2.1 Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) 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 percent 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G6-17

Appendix G 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 Wyoming’s PRB, as well as USFS surveys for ferrets on the neighboring 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 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 North Antelope Rochelle Mine and South Porcupine LBA Tract’s general analysis area are beyond the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and elsewhere in the general region (USFS 2002b, Grenier 2003). While the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract and its 2-mile wildlife study area (Figure G6-3) harbor some small prairie dog colonies, black-footed ferrets have never been documented at the mine, nor the surrounding region, during surveys conducted over the last 30 plus years (1976 to present) by a variety of private, state, and federal entities. No black-footed ferret observations or scat have ever been documented in this LBA tract’s wildlife study area. On February 2, 2004, the USFWS declared that surveys for black-footed ferrets were no longer required in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming (USFWS 2004). Currently, 10 black-tailed prairie dog colonies encompassing a total of approximately 476.3 non-contiguous acres are located within 2 miles of the South Porcupine tract (Figure G6-3). Of which, no colonies occur within the general analysis area itself. These 10 colonies are all located in the surrounding 2-mile survey area and range in size from approximately 1 acre to 345.3 acres. All of these colonies were occupied during 2007. The largest colony is located within the wildlife survey area for both the North and South Porcupine tracts (Figures G5-3 and G6-3), and only this colony meets the 120 acre minimum threshold for supporting a breeding female ferret and her litter G6-18 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G (Forrest et al. 1985) and the 80-acre minimum requirement for black-footed ferret habitat (USFWS 1989). Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the South Porcupine LBA Tract general analysis area, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), would have no effect on black-footed ferrets. Given the documented absence of black-footed ferrets in the region, including the South Porcupine LBA Tract, during specific surveys for this species, the lack of sizeable, contiguous prairie dog colonies within the LBA tract and surrounding areas, 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 for the South Porcupine LBA Tract would not result in any direct or indirect effects on black-footed 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. Based on more than 30 years of historic and recent survey efforts and other general analysis area data and information, it is unlikely that ferrets exist in the South Porcupine tract general analysis area or surrounding wildlife survey area. Cumulative Effects: Mineral development within black-tailed prairie dog colonies is a leading cause of potential 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 in colonies on reclaimed coal mined lands in northeastern Wyoming Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G6-19

Appendix G in recent years, whether by natural expansion or purposeful relocations (J&S 2008, IR 2007). 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. As indicated, coal mining and natural gas development have occurred in the general Wright analysis area for more than 30 years, with activities expected to increase in the immediate future. Leasing and mining lands in South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area would not contribute to cumulative adverse effects to black-footed ferrets within either the general analysis area or the region. No black-footed ferret populations exist within northeastern Wyoming or the TBNG. The USFWS issued a block clearance for this species in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming. The general analysis area and surrounding perimeter are beyond the focus area for future ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and in the general region (USFS 2002b, Grenier 2003). Furthermore, the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 would not conflict with any future objectives to manage the area for, or reintroduce black-footed ferrets into, the TBNG. G6-3.2.2 Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) 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 2007). 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 2008). 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 2007). Threats to the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by vehicular traffic (University of Wyoming 2008). Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb with stems less than 30 centimeters (12 inches) tall. The inflorescence is 5 to 15 centimeters (2 to 6 inches) long and has six to ten compact whorls of milkyblue to pale lavender flowers. This species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current known 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 (University of Wyoming 2008). G6-20 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G Existing Environment: The South Porcupine LBA Tract is not within the documented historical range of the blowout penstemon. The tracts are located approximately 150 miles northwest of the known occurrences in Nebraska and approximately 150 miles northeast of the known occurrences in Wyoming. No suitable sand dunes (whether stable or active) are currently present in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the South Porcupine LBA Tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative), would have no effect on the blowout penstemon. Typical suitable habitat for this species within the tract’s general analysis area 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, off road vehicle use, and associated destabilization of the plant’s sand dune habitat. It could also be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of non-native species within its range. G6-4.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS Table G6-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in the area of the South Porcupine LBA Tract that may result from implementing the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (BLM’s preferred alternative). Table G6-1. Status Threatened Endangered Endangered
1

Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the South Porcupine LBA Tract. Species Common Name Ute ladies’-tresses Black-footed ferret Blowout penstemon Potential Effects May affect1 No effect No effect

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G6-21

SECTION G7
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION,
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS,
CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL,
AND CITED REFERENCES

Appendix G G7-1.0 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 (SMCRA) and Wyoming State regulations. SMCRA gives the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 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 SMCRA, the 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 SMCRA, 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 SMCRA. If the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, or South Porcupine LBA Tracts are leased, they would each 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 North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine 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 mining companies would be required to submit detailed permit application packages to WDEQ before starting surface coal mining operations on any newly acquired lease(s). WDEQ/LQD would review the respective permit application package to insure the permit application complies with the permitting requirements and the coal mining operation will meet the performance standards of the approved Wyoming program. If the permit application package does comply, WDEQ would issue the applicant an amended permit that would allow the permittee to extend coal mining operations onto the newly acquired lease(s). Protection of fish, wildlife, and related environmental values is required under SMCRA regulations at 30 CFR 816.97, which state: Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G7-1

Appendix G “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 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: 1) minimize electrocution hazards to raptors; 2) locate and operate haul and access roads to avoid or minimize impacts on important fish and wildlife species; and 3) design fences, conveyors, and other potential barriers to permit passage of large mammals. USFWS Section 7 consultation would be required prior to approval of the mining and reclamation plan modification. Additional measures to ensure compliance with the ESA and SMCRA 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.

G7-2.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Existing habitat-disturbing activities in the PRB include surface coal mining; conventional oil and gas and CBNG development; uranium mining; sand, gravel and scoria mining; agricultural (farming and ranching) activities; road, railroad, and power plant construction and operation; recreational activities; and rural and urban housing development. Mining, construction, farming activities, and urban development tend to have more intense impacts on fairly localized areas, while ranching (livestock grazing) activities, recreational activities, and oil and gas development can be less intensive locally but tend to 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 G7-2 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G and wildlife species. In the long term, habitat is being and will continue to be restored as reclamation proceeds. BLM has recently completed 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 Task 3 predicts cumulative impacts that would be expected to occur as a result of the projected development. The environmental conditions as of 2003 are described in the PRB Coal Review as current or existing. The information about existing development in the following paragraphs is taken from the PRB Coal Review Task 2 report (BLM 2005) and BLM lease records. The project area for the PRB Coal Review encompassed over eight million acres and included all of Campbell, Sheridan, and Johnson counties and the northern portion of Converse County in northeastern Wyoming. 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. 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 121,631 acres. The currently pending federal coal LBA tracts (including the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts) include approximately 35,245.48 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 baseline 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 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G7-3

Appendix G end. Of the remaining 44,697 acres of disturbance available for reclamation, approximately 21,238 acres had been reclaimed. The PRB Coal Review identified an estimated 4,891 additional acres of coalrelated 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 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 federally protected 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, habitat fragmentation, displacement of bald eagle prey species, and the resultant change in bald eagle foraging, and mortality caused by equipment activities, motor vehicle collisions, power line collisions, and power line electrocution. The existing mines have developed mitigation procedures, as required by SMCRA (at 30 CFR 816.97) and Wyoming State regulations, to protect T&E G7-4 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G species. These procedural requirements would be extended to include mining operations on the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine 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 above by LBA tract. G7-3.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL G7-3.1 North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts G7-3.1.1 T&E Animal Species Consulting Firm: Thunderbird/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 PRB during her tenure in Wyoming, including two of the three applicant mines included this 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 PRB 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. G7-3.1.2 T&E Vegetation Species Consulting Firm: Habitat Management Inc. of Gillette, Wyoming Richard Bonine Jr.: Mr. Bonine has a Bachelor of Science degree in Agronomy from Kansas State University with significant study concentration in range, plant, and soil science. Mr. Bonine has 20 years of experience conducting vegetation and T&E surveys in Wyoming, New Mexico, Montana, Kansas, and Missouri. These surveys include baseline characterizations, T&E surveys, wetland delineations, and soil mapping delineations. Mr. Bonine has taken significant action to gain familiarly with Ute ladies’-tresses. These actions Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G7-5

Appendix G include consulting several taxonomic texts to gain an understanding of the distinguishing botanical characteristics and habitats of this species; visiting a know population of Ute ladies’-tresses located on Clear creek near Golden, Colorado where he evaluated the site for understory and canopy vegetation, associated soil series, and hydrology; discussed with several Wyoming wildlife biologists the known Ute ladies’-tresses habitat on Antelope Creek. G7-3.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract G7-3.2.1 T&E Animal Species Consulting Firm: Intermountain Resources of Laramie, Wyoming Jim Orpet: Mr. Orpet obtained a M.S degree in Range Management and a B.S. degree in Wildlife Management, both from the University of Wyoming. He has over 30 years experience in vegetation and wildlife surveys in Wyoming and adjacent states, primarily with baseline field inventories for mining and other energy development projects including T&E, candidate and sensitive species surveys for both plants and animals. Mr. Orpet has been involved in T&E surveys and research since 1976. Experience includes research and monitoring of bald eagle nests and roosts, grizzly bear research, black-footed ferret surveys and survey certification and Ute Ladies’-tresses surveys. Mr. Orpet and his staff discovered one of the nine currently known occurrences of the Ute ladies’-tresses in Wyoming. Russell Tait: Mr. Tait earned a B.S degree in Wildlife Management with a minor in Range Management from the University of Wyoming. He has over 14 years experience in vegetation and wildlife surveys in Wyoming, Colorado and South Dakota. These surveys were primarily baseline field inventories and final bond release studies for energy and non-energy development projects including T&E, candidate and sensitive species surveys for both plants and animals. Mr. Tait’s T&E survey experience includes bald eagle roost monitoring, bald eagle nest searches, Ute ladies’-tresses surveys and black-footed ferret surveys. Mr. Tait was part of a survey crew that discovered one of the nine known occurrences of the Ute ladies’-tresses in Wyoming, finding many of the individual plants himself. G7-3.2.2 T&E Vegetation Species See Intermountain Resources personnel above. G7-3.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts G7-3.3.1 T&E Animal Species See Thunderbird/Jones & Stokes personnel above.

G7-6

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G G7-3.3.2 T&E Vegetation Species Consulting Firm: 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 in 2003, her M.S. in Soil Science from the University of Wyoming in 1995, and her B.S. in Range Management (Land Rehabilitation) from Colorado State University in 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, Campbell Co., WY 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

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

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G7-7

Appendix G
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 Spiranthes Spiranthes Spiranthes Spiranthes diluvialis diluvialis diluvialis diluvialis

Spiranthes 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 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 counties, Wyoming since her employment. She has also performed vegetation sampling for numerous CBNG projects and baseline vegetation surveys in the PRB. 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. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G7-8

Appendix G
  

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 counties, Wyoming since her employment. She has also performed vegetation sampling for numerous CBNG projects and baseline vegetation surveys in the PRB. 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.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G7-9

Appendix G G7-4.0 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2001, Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet: . , 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 and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, December 2005. , 2007, Wyoming’s Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. Blowout Penstemon fact sheet. By B. Heidel, W. Fertig, F. Blomquist, and T. Abbott. Wyoming BLM in collaboration with Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. BLM/WY/GI-08/020+1150. , 2008, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, December 2008. 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. Fertig, W., R. Black, and P. Wolken, 2005, Rangewide status review of Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Central Utah Water Conservancy District, September 30, 2005. 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, 49 pp. Grenier, M., 2003, An Evaluation of Black-footed Ferret Block Clearances in Wyoming: Completion Report, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming, 16pp. G7-10 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G 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, Montana. , 2007, Survey of Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies’-tresses) in eastern Wyoming (Campbell, Converse, Goshen, Laramie, Niobrara, and Platte counties), 2005-2006. Prepared for BLM and TBNG. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie. Hillman, C.N. and T.W. Clark, 1980, Mustela nigripes, Mammalian Species No. 126. Intermountain Resources (IR), 2007, Personal communication with Russell Tait, October 2007. Jacobs Ranch Coal Company (JRCC), 2004, Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit Application, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 271-T5, approved November 23, 2004. On file at WDEQ/LQD offices in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. Jones & Stokes (J&S), 2008, Personal communication with Gwyn McKee, December 2008. Lesica, P. and B. Steele, 1994, Prolonged dormancy in vascular plants and implications for monitoring studies. Natural Areas Journal 14: 209-212. 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. Powder River Coal, LLC (PRC), 2004, North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Application, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 569-T6, approved August 20, 2004. On file at WDEQ/LQD offices in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. Rose, B.J., 1973, History of prairie dogs in South Dakota. In: Black-footed Ferret-Prairie Dog Workshop Proceedings, September 4-6, 1973. South Dakota State University, Brookings, pp. 76-77. Thunder Basin Coal Company (TBCC), 2005, Black Thunder Mine Permit Application, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 233-T7, approved November 1, 2005. On file at WDEQ/LQD offices in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications G7-11

Appendix G Tyler, J.D., 1968, Distribution and vertebrate associates of the black-tailed prairie dog in Oklahoma. PhD Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 85 pp. University of Wyoming, 2008, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database - State Species Abstract (Penstemon Haydenii) Blowout Penstemon. By Walter Fertig, updated by B. Heidil, September 17, 2008. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: . U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (USFS), 2001a, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision for Thunder Basin National Grassland. , 2001, Land and Resource Management Plan for the Thunder Basin National Grassland, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, Rocky Mountain Region. , 2002a, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Resource Management Plan Revision Record of Decision for the Thunder Basin National Grassland, July 31, 2002. , 2002b, Supplemental Information Report disclosing changes to blacktailed 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, 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. G7-12 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G , 2007, Letter from Brian Kelly, Field Supervisor, USFWS Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Chris Hanson, BLM Field Manager, Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming, dated August 8, 2007. , 2009, Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Designated Critical Habitat for Wyoming Counties, dated February 2008. Available from website on the Internet as of February 2009: http://www.fws.gov/mountain prairie/endspp/CountyLists/Wyoming.pdf>. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS NWI), 1980, National Wetlands Inventory data for portions of Wyoming: Spatial Data and Visualization Center, Laramie, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet: . Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), 2007, Letter from John Emmerich, Deputy Director, WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Sarah Bucklin, BLM, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated July 5, 2007. Wyoming GIS Coordinate Structure (WGCS), 2002, 2002 Color Infrared Aerial Photography - Digital Orthophoto Quads, Wyoming Geographic Information Advisory Council (WGIAC), Wyoming Spatial Data Clearinghouse. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2008: .

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

G7-13

APPENDIX H BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES
AND
USFS REGION 2 SENSITIVE SPECIES AND
MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES EVALUATIONS
FOR THE
WRIGHT AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS EIS

Appendix H TABLE OF CONTENTS
H-1.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTIONS.................................................. H-1
H-1.1 North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, and West Hilight
Field LBA Tracts.......................................................... H-1
H-1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract .............................................. H-1
H-1.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts ................................ H-2
H-1.4 Description of General Analysis Areas................................... H-2
BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION ...................................... H-3
H-2.1 Introduction ......................................................................... H-3
H-2.2 Species Habitat and Occurrence ........................................... H-3
USFS REGION 2 SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION.................... H-3
H-3.1 Introduction ......................................................................... H-3
H-3.2 Species Habitat and Occurrence on USFS Lands Within
the General Wright Analysis Area, and the Direct
and Indirect Direct Effects on Those Species.............. H-16
H-3.3 North Hilight Field LBA Tract.............................................. H-31
H-3.3.1 Prairie moonwort ................................................. H-31
H-3.3.2 Narrowleaf moonwort........................................... H-32
H-3.3.3 Leathery grapefern............................................... H-32
H-3.3.4 Foxtail sedge........................................................ H-33
H-3.3.5 Elliptic spikerush ................................................ H-33
H-3.3.6 Hall’s fescue ........................................................ H-34
H-3.3.7 Wood lily ............................................................. H-35
H-3.3.8 Largeflower triteleia ............................................. H-35
H-3.3.9 Barr’s milkvetch .................................................. H-36
H-3.3.10 Smooth goosefoot................................................. H-37
H-3.3.11 Flat-top goldentop ............................................... H-37
H-3.3.12 Rosy palafox ........................................................ H-38
H-3.3.13 Lemonscent ......................................................... H-38
H-3.3.14 Larchleaf beardtongue ......................................... H-39
H-3.3.15 Wooly twinpod ..................................................... H-40
H-3.3.16 Visher’s buckwheat.............................................. H-41
H-3.3.17 Highbush-cranberry ............................................ H-41
H-3.3.18 Northern leopard frog .......................................... H-42
H-3.3.19 Black-tailed prairie dog........................................ H-44
H-3.3.20 Swift Fox ............................................................. H-46
H-3.3.21 Long-billed curlew ............................................... H-48
H-3.3.22 Ferruginous hawk ............................................... H-50
H-3.3.23 Burrowing owl ..................................................... H-53
H-3.3.24 Chestnut-collared longspur ................................. H-55
H-3.3.25 McCown’s Longspur............................................. H-57
H-3.3.26 Greater sage-grouse............................................. H-58
H-3.3.27 Bald eagle............................................................ H-64
H-3.3.28 Mountain plover .................................................. H-67
H-i

H-2.0

H-3.0

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) H-3.3.29 Loggerhead shrike ............................................... H-69
H-3.3.30 Brewer’s sparrow ................................................. H-70
H-3.4 South Hilight Field LBA Tract ............................................. H-72
H-3.4.1 Prairie moonwort ................................................. H-72
H-3.4.2 Narrowleaf moonwort........................................... H-73
H-3.4.3 Leathery grapefern............................................... H-74
H-3.4.4 Foxtail sedge........................................................ H-74
H-3.4.5 Elliptic spikerush ................................................ H-75
H-3.4.6 Hall’s fescue ........................................................ H-75
H-3.4.7 Wood lily ............................................................. H-76
H-3.4.8 Largeflower triteleia ............................................. H-76
H-3.4.9 Barr’s milkvetch .................................................. H-77
H-3.4.10 Smooth goosefoot................................................. H-78
Flat-top goldentop ............................................... H-78
H-3.4.11 H-3.4.12 Rosy palafox ........................................................ H-79
H-3.4.13 Lemonscent ......................................................... H-80
H-3.4.14 Larchleaf beardtongue ......................................... H-81
H-3.4.15 Wooly twinpod ..................................................... H-81
H-3.4.16 Visher’s buckwheat.............................................. H-82
H-3.4.17 Highbush-cranberry ............................................ H-83
H-3.4.18 Northern leopard frog .......................................... H-83
H-3.4.19 Black-tailed prairie dog........................................ H-86
H-3.4.20 Swift Fox ............................................................. H-88
H-3.4.21 Long-billed curlew ............................................... H-90
H-3.4.22 Ferruginous hawk ............................................... H-92
H-3.4.23 Burrowing owl ..................................................... H-95
H-3.4.24 Chestnut-collared longspur ................................. H-97
H-3.4.25 McCown’s Longspur............................................. H-99
H-3.4.26 Greater sage-grouse........................................... H-100
H-3.4.27 Bald eagle.......................................................... H-106
H-3.4.28 Mountain plover ................................................ H-109
H-3.4.29 Loggerhead shrike ............................................. H-110
H-3.4.30 Brewer’s sparrow ............................................... H-112
H-3.5 West Hilight Field LBA Tract ............................................. H-114
H-3.5.1 Prairie moonwort ............................................... H-114
H-3.5.2 Narrowleaf moonwort......................................... H-115
H-3.5.3 Leathery grapefern............................................. H-115
H-3.5.4 Foxtail sedge...................................................... H-116
H-3.5.5 Elliptic spikerush .............................................. H-116
H-3.5.6 Hall’s fescue ...................................................... H-117
H-3.5.7 Wood lily ........................................................... H-118
H-3.5.8 Largeflower triteleia ........................................... H-118
H-3.5.9 Barr’s milkvetch ................................................ H-119
H-3.5.10 Smooth goosefoot............................................... H-120
H-3.5.11 Flat-top goldentop ............................................. H-120
H-ii Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) H-3.5.12 Rosy palafox ...................................................... H-121
H-3.5.13 Lemonscent ....................................................... H-121
H-3.5.14 Larchleaf beardtongue ....................................... H-122
H-3.5.15 Wooly twinpod ................................................... H-123
H-3.5.16 Visher’s buckwheat............................................ H-124
H-3.5.17 Highbush-cranberry .......................................... H-124
H-3.5.18 Northern leopard frog ........................................ H-125
H-3.5.19 Black-tailed prairie dog...................................... H-127
H-3.5.20 Swift Fox ........................................................... H-130
H-3.5.21 Long-billed curlew ............................................. H-131
H-3.5.22 Ferruginous hawk ............................................. H-133
H-3.5.23 Burrowing owl ................................................... H-136
H-3.5.24 Chestnut-collared longspur ............................... H-139
McCown’s Longspur........................................... H-140
H-3.5.25 H-3.5.26 Greater sage-grouse........................................... H-141
H-3.5.27 Bald eagle.......................................................... H-147
H-3.5.28 Mountain plover ................................................ H-150
H-3.5.29 Loggerhead shrike ............................................. H-152
H-3.5.30 Brewer’s sparrow ............................................... H-154
H-3.6 North Porcupine LBA Tract ............................................... H-156
H-3.6.1 Prairie moonwort ............................................... H-156
H-3.6.2 Narrowleaf moonwort......................................... H-156
H-3.6.3 Leathery grapefern............................................. H-157
H-3.6.4 Foxtail sedge...................................................... H-157
H-3.6.5 Elliptic spikerush .............................................. H-158
H-3.6.6 Hall’s fescue ...................................................... H-159
H-3.6.7 Wood lily ........................................................... H-159
H-3.6.8 Largeflower triteleia ........................................... H-160
H-3.6.9 Barr’s milkvetch ................................................ H-160
H-3.6.10 Smooth goosefoot............................................... H-161
H-3.6.11 Flat-top goldentop ............................................. H-162
H-3.6.12 Rosy palafox ...................................................... H-162
H-3.6.13 Lemonscent ....................................................... H-163
H-3.6.14 Larchleaf beardtongue ....................................... H-164
H-3.6.15 Wooly twinpod ................................................... H-164
H-3.6.16 Visher’s buckwheat............................................ H-165
H-3.6.17 Highbush-cranberry .......................................... H-166
H-3.6.18 Northern leopard frog ........................................ H-166
H-3.6.19 Black-tailed prairie dog...................................... H-169
H-3.6.20 Swift Fox ........................................................... H-171
H-3.6.21 Long-billed curlew ............................................. H-173
H-3.6.22 Ferruginous hawk ............................................. H-175
H-3.6.23 Burrowing owl ................................................... H-178
H-3.6.24 Chestnut-collared longspur ............................... H-180
H-3.6.25 McCown’s Longspur........................................... H-182
Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-iii

Appendix H TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) H-3.6.26 Greater sage-grouse........................................... H-183
H-3.6.27 Bald eagle.......................................................... H-187
H-3.6.28 Mountain plover ................................................ H-190
H-3.6.29 Loggerhead shrike ............................................. H-192
H-3.6.30 Brewer’s sparrow ............................................... H-194
H-3.7 South Porcupine LBA Tract............................................... H-196
H-3.7.1 Prairie moonwort ............................................... H-196
H-3.7.2 Narrowleaf moonwort......................................... H-196
H-3.7.3 Leathery grapefern............................................. H-197
H-3.7.4 Foxtail sedge...................................................... H-198
H-3.7.5 Elliptic spikerush .............................................. H-198
H-3.7.6 Hall’s fescue ...................................................... H-199
H-3.7.7 Wood lily ........................................................... H-199
H-3.7.8 Largeflower triteleia ........................................... H-200
H-3.7.9 Barr’s milkvetch ................................................ H-200
H-3.7.10 Smooth goosefoot............................................... H-201
H-3.7.11 Flat-top goldentop ............................................. H-202
H-3.7.12 Rosy palafox ...................................................... H-203
H-3.7.13 Lemonscent ....................................................... H-203
H-3.7.14 Larchleaf beardtongue ....................................... H-204
H-3.7.15 Wooly twinpod ................................................... H-205
H-3.7.16 Visher’s buckwheat............................................ H-205
H-3.6.17 Highbush-cranberry .......................................... H-206
H-3.7.18 Northern leopard frog ........................................ H-207
H-3.7.19 Black-tailed prairie dog...................................... H-209
H-3.7.20 Swift Fox ........................................................... H-211
H-3.7.21 Long-billed curlew ............................................. H-214
H-3.7.22 Ferruginous hawk ............................................. H-215
H-3.7.23 Burrowing owl ................................................... H-218
H-3.7.24 Chestnut-collared longspur ............................... H-221
H-3.7.25 McCown’s Longspur........................................... H-222
H-3.7.26 Greater sage-grouse........................................... H-223
H-3.7.27 Bald eagle.......................................................... H-227
H-3.7.28 Mountain plover ................................................ H-230
H-3.7.29 Loggerhead shrike ............................................. H-232
H-3.7.30 Brewer’s sparrow ............................................... H-233
H-4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS REGARDING SENSITIVE SPECIES..... H-235
H-4.1 Species Associated Primarily With Short Grasses or Prairie
Dog Colonies ........................................................... H-236
H-4.2 Mixed Sagebrush and/or Mid-grass Species...................... H-237
H-4.3 Sagebrush Obligates......................................................... H-237
H-4.4 Tree or Wetland/Aquatic Species ...................................... H-238
TBNG PLAN COMPLIANCE ....................................................... H-239
Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-5.0 H-iv

Appendix H TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) H-6.0 H-7.0 REQUIRED MITIGATION AND RECOMMENDED MONITORING H-239 USFS MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES EVALUATION ....... H-240
H-7.1 Introduction ..................................................................... H-240
H-7.2 Species Evaluated and Rationale ...................................... H-240
REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ................................. H-241
LIST OF TABLES Table H-1. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo and Casper Field Offices, Habitat Requirements, and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract ...... H-4 Table H-2. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo and Casper Field Offices, Habitat Requirements, and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract ..... H-6 Table H-3. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo and Casper Field Offices, Habitat Requirements, and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract ....... H-8 Table H-4. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo and Casper Field Offices, Habitat Requirements, and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract .. H-10 Table H-5. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo and Casper Field Offices and Habitat Requirements and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract . H-12 Table H-6. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo and Casper Field Offices and Habitat Requirements and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract. H-14 Table H-7. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species List and Status for the entire Thunder Basin National Grassland (USFS 2007)........... H-17 Table H-8. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species Status on TBNG and on USFS Lands within the General Wright Analysis Area, and Habitat Suitability on USFS Lands within the General Wright Analysis Area (provided by USFS Douglas Ranger District, July 2007).............................................................................. H-21 Table H-9. USFS Region 2 Species of Local Concern Status on TBNG and on USFS Lands within the General Wright Analysis Area, and Habitat Suitability on USFS Lands within the General Wright Analysis Area (provided by Roche 2009).......... H-24 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-v

H-8.0

Appendix H TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure H-1. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Survey Area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract.................................................. H-26 Figure H-2. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Survey Area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract ................................................. H-27 Figure H-3. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Survey Area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract................................................... H-28 Figure H-4. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Survey Area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract ..................................................... H-29 Figure H-5. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Survey Area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract .................................................... H-30

H-vi

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H H-1.0 H-1.1 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTIONS North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts

Under the Proposed Actions, Bureau of Land Management (BLM1) would hold a separate competitive lease sale and issue a separate lease for the federal coal lands included in the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts as applied for by the applicant for the tracts, Ark Land Company (ALC), or under other Alternatives (see Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3, respectively, and land descriptions in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, respectively, of this EIS). In each case, it is assumed that the applicant for the tracts, ALC, would be the successful bidder on each tract, and that the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for the existing Black Thunder Mine. The surface estate on the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for is composed of privately owned lands. Under Alternative 2, additional lands, including federal lands managed by U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (USFS), were added by BLM to be analyzed for possible inclusion in that tract. The surface estate on the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for is composed of privately owned and federally owned lands managed by USFS. Under Alternative 2, additional lands, including federal lands managed by USFS, were added by BLM to be analyzed for possible inclusion in that tract. The surface estate on the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for is composed of privately owned and federally owned lands managed by USFS. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, additional lands, including federal lands managed by USFS, were added by BLM to be analyzed for possible inclusion in that tract. Additional information on surface ownership and current land uses can be found in Section 3.11 of this EIS. All of these federally owned lands administered by the USFS are within the Thunder Basin National Grasslands (TBNG). H-1.2 West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract

Under the Proposed Action, BLM would hold a competitive lease sale and issue a lease for the federal coal lands included in the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for or under another Alternative (see Figure 2-4 and land descriptions in Section 2.4 of this EIS). It is assumed that the applicant for the tract, Jacobs Ranch Coal Company (JRCC), would be the successful bidder, and that the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for the existing Jacobs Ranch Mine. The surface estate on the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract as applied for is composed entirely of privately owned lands. Under Alternative 2, additional lands, all privately owned, were added by BLM to be analyzed for possible
1

Refer to page xxvi of this EIS for a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this appendix.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-1

Appendix H inclusion in that tract. Additional information on surface ownership and current land uses can be found in Section 3.11 of this EIS. H-1.3 North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts

Under the Proposed Actions, BLM would hold a separate competitive lease sale and issue a separate lease for the federal coal lands included in the North Porcupine and South Porcupine LBA Tracts as applied for by the applicant for the tracts, BTU Western Resources, Inc. (BTU), or under other Alternatives (see Figures 2-5 and 2-6, respectively, and land descriptions in Sections 2.5 and 2.6, respectively, of this EIS). In each case, it is assumed that the applicant for the tracts, BTU, would be the successful bidder on each tract, and that the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine. The surface estate on the North Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for is composed of privately owned and federally owned lands managed by USFS. Under Alternative 2, additional lands, including federal lands managed by USFS, were added by BLM to be analyzed for possible inclusion in that tract. The surface estate on the South Porcupine LBA Tract as applied for is composed of privately owned and federally owned lands managed by USFS. Under Alternative 2, additional lands, including federal lands managed by USFS, were added by BLM to be analyzed for possible inclusion in that tract. Additional information on surface ownership and current land uses can be found in Section 3.11 of this EIS. All of these federally owned lands administered by the USFS are within the TBNG. H-1.4 Description of General Analysis Areas

The BLM study area for each of these six LBA tracts is defined as the original tract as applied for, plus all lands that BLM is considering adding to the tract. The general analysis area for each of these six LBA tracts is defined as the BLM study area plus surrounding lands within a ¼-mile perimeter that could be disturbed by mining the coal within the BLM study area where future mining disturbance could occur. The general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract does not include lands within Black Thunder Mine’s current permit area. The general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract includes some lands within Black Thunder Mine’s current permit area. The general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract does not include lands within Black Thunder Mine’s current permit area. The general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract does not include lands within Jacobs Ranch Mine’s current permit area. The general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract is almost entirely within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current permit area. The general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract is almost entirely within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s current permit area. For the purpose of this sensitive species evaluation, the general Wright analysis area is defined as the area encompassing all six of these LBA tracts’ general analysis areas. H-2 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H The minerals within the general analysis area for each of these six LBA tracts are managed by BLM, and the federally owned surface within these general analysis areas are administered by the USFS; therefore, both BLM and USFS sensitive species evaluations must be completed as part of this EIS. H-2.0 H-2.1 BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION Introduction

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 BLM’s 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. Species Habitat and Occurrence

H-2.2

BLM sensitive species were listed for their ranges within the BLM Buffalo Field Office (24 species total). Some sensitive species could or do occur within one or more of the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts. Specialized habitat requirements (i.e., caves, cliffs, coniferous forests, calcareous rock outcrops) make occupation for other sensitive species unlikely. Tables H-1 through H-6 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. H-3.0 H-3.1 USFS REGION 2 SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION Introduction

Species that have been identified by the Regional Forester as sensitive species must be considered for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications because the general analysis areas for North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-3

Appendix H Table H-1. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office, Habitat Requirements, and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the North Hilight Field 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) 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 Field Observations No1 No1

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 Conifer and deciduous forests Cliffs usually along waterways 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 Yes, Common Breeder Yes, Uncommon Breeder Yes, Common Breeder Yes, Historic Common Breeder, Recent Occasional Breeder Yes, Uncommon Forager Yes, Infrequent Migrant No1 No1 No1 Yes, Uncommon Breeder No1 No1 No1

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Table H-1. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office, Habitat Requirements, and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract (Continued).
Common Name (scientific name) Fish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Mammals Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Plants Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii)
1 2

Habitat Cold water streams and lakes

Field Observations No1

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 Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300-6,500 ft. elev. Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000-8,300 ft. elev.

No1 No1 No1 No No

No No1

Habitat generally lacking or very limited Former listed or candidate species under the ESA automatically revert to BLM Sensitive Species upon delisting or removal from the ESA listing process.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-5

Appendix H Table H-2. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office, Habitat Requirements, and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the South Hilight Field 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) 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 Field Observations No1 No1

No1 Yes, Common Breeder No Yes, Common Breeder No Yes, Potential Breeder Yes, Infrequent Migrant No1 No1 No1 Yes, Uncommon Breeder No1 No1 No1

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Table H-2. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office, Habitat Requirements, and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract (Continued).
Common Name (scientific name) Fish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Mammals Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Plants Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii)
1 2

Habitat Cold water streams and lakes

Field Observations No1

No1 No1 No1 No1 (one sighting in 24 years of annual monitoring) No

No No1

Habitat generally lacking or very limited Former listed or candidate species under the ESA automatically revert to BLM Sensitive Species upon delisting or removal from the ESA listing process.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-7

Appendix H Table H-3. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office, Habitat Requirements, and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the West Hilight Field 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) 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 Field Observations No No1

No Yes, Common Breeder No (one nest burrow just beyond general analysis area) Yes, Common Breeder No, Infrequent Breeder Yes, Potential Breeder Yes, Infrequent Migrant No1 No1 No1 Yes, Uncommon Breeder No1 No No1

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Table H-3. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office, Habitat Requirements, and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract (Continued).
Common Name (scientific name) Fish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Mammals Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Plants Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii)
1 2

Habitat Cold water streams and lakes

Field Observations No1

No1 No1 No1 No1 No

No No1

Habitat generally lacking or very limited Former listed or candidate species under the ESA automatically revert to BLM Sensitive Species upon delisting or removal from the ESA listing process.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-9

Appendix H Table H-4. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office, Habitat Requirements, and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the West Jacobs Ranch 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) 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 Field Observations Yes, Breeder No1

No Yes, Common Breeder Yes, Breeder Yes, Common Breeder Yes, Historic Breeder Yes, Uncommon Breeder Yes, Rare Breeder No1 No, Limited Habitat, Migrant No Yes, Uncommon Breeder No1 No1 No1 Spring Migrant, Uncommon Potential

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Table H-4. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office, Habitat Requirements, and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract (Continued).
Common Name (scientific name) Fish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Mammals Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Plants Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii)
1 2

Habitat Cold water streams and lakes

Field Observations No1

No1 No1 No1 Yes, Opportunistic Sightings (Spring and Fall, 2007) No1

Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300-6,500 ft. elev. Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000-8,300 ft. elev.

No No1

Habitat generally lacking or very limited Former listed or candidate species under the ESA automatically revert to BLM Sensitive Species upon delisting or removal from the ESA listing process.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-11

Appendix H Table H-5. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the North Porcupine 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) 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 Field Observations No1 No1

No Yes, Common Breeder Yes, Uncommon Breeder Yes, Breeder Yes, Common Breeder Yes, Uncommon Breeder Yes, Infrequent Migrant No1 No1 No1 Yes, Uncommon Breeder No1 No1 No1

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Table H-5. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract (Continued).
Common Name (scientific name) Fish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Mammals Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Plants Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii)
1 2

Habitat Cold water streams and lakes

Field Observations No1

No1 No1 No1 No1 No

Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300-6,500 ft. elev. Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000-8,300 ft. elev.

No No1

Habitat generally lacking or very limited Former listed or candidate species under the ESA automatically revert to BLM Sensitive Species upon delisting or removal from the ESA listing process.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-13

Appendix H Table H-6. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the South Porcupine 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) 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 Field Observations No1 No1

No1 Yes, Common Breeder No Yes, Historic Breeder No Yes, Uncommon Breeder Yes, Infrequent Migrant No1 No1 No1 Yes, Uncommon Breeder No1 No1 No1

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Table H-6. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations within the General Analysis Area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract (Continued).
Common Name (scientific name) Fish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Mammals Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Plants Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii)
1 2

Habitat Cold water streams and lakes

Field Observations No1

No1 No1 No1 No No

Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300-6,500 ft. elev. Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000-8,300 ft. elev.

No No1

Habitat generally lacking or very limited Former listed or candidate species under the ESA automatically revert to BLM Sensitive Species upon delisting or removal from the ESA listing process.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-15

Appendix H Field, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts include federal lands administered by the USFS. There is no USFS administered surface within the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. The purpose of this section of this Appendix is to provide information about the potential environmental effects that leasing the USFS administered lands would have on USFS Region 2 Sensitive wildlife and vegetative species (terrestrial and aquatic). USFS classifies species as “sensitive” when they meet one or more of the following three criteria: 1) the species is declining in numbers or occurrences, and evidence indicates it could be proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered if action is not taken to reverse or stop the downward trend; 2) the species’ habitat is declining and continued loss could result in population declines that lead to federal listing as threatened or endangered if action is not taken to reverse or stop the decline; and 3) the species’ population or habitat is stable but limited. In addition to these criteria, a ranking system is used to identify species for sensitive status, which is outlined in USFS Manual 2670 2671. Table H-7 lists species that have been identified as “sensitive” for USFS Region 2, TBNG (USFS 2007). This table also provides information about the status of the species on the TBNG as a whole (not exclusive to USFS lands within the general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts). The USFS Douglas Ranger District has reviewed the entire list of animal and plant sensitive species for USFS Region 2 and eliminated from further review those species that occur on the TBNG but are geographically or biologically outside of any effects of the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications. Tables H-8 and H-9 list the current status of USFS Region 2 sensitive species and species of local concern on TBNG and on USFS lands in the general Wright analysis area. These tables also indicate suitability of habitat for each species specific only to the USFS lands in the general Wright analysis area. The seven plant species that are listed in Table H-9 were moved off the Region 2 sensitive species list and are now species that are of local concern (Roche 2009). The species listed in Tables H-8 and H-9 have been identified as definitely or potentially inhabiting the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, either seasonally or year-round, and therefore may be potentially affected by one or more of the Proposed Actions or Alternatives. H-3.2 Species Habitat and Occurrence on USFS Lands Within the General Wright Analysis Area, and the Direct and Indirect Direct Effects on Those Species

Site-specific data on the occurrence of USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species on USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area were obtained from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD) permit applications and annual reports for the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines, the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, and the USFS. H-16 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Table H-7. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species List and Status for the Entire Thunder Basin National Grassland (USFS 2007).
Status Code: K= Known occurrence in vicinity. Date of last observation indicates that species still occur in area. N= No recent observations; surveys recently completed; may be historic records; potential habitat possible. S= Suspected occurrence. May be historic records but no recent observations. Suitable habitat likely. U= Unknown occurrence, more surveys may be needed, may be historic records, potential habitat possible. D= Dismissed from further analysis. The proposed project area is located outside of the species current and historic distribution.

Scientific Name Plants: Ferns and Allies Botrychium ascendens Botrychium campestre Botrychium furcatum Botrychium lineare Botrychium paradoxum Lycopodium complanatum Selaginella selaginoides Plants: Monocots Amerorchis rotundifolia Calochortus flexuosus Carex alopecoidea Carex diandra Carex livida Cypripedium montanum Cypripedium parvijlorum Eleocharis elliptica Epipactis gigantea Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum Eriophorum chamissonis Eriophorum gracile Festuca hallii Kobresia simpliciuscula Liparis loeselii Malaxis brachypoda Platanthera orbiculata Ptilagrostis porteri Schoenoplectus hallii Triteleia grandiflora

Common Name Trianglelobe moonwort Prairie moonwort Forkleaved moonwort Narrow-leaved moonwort Peculiar moonwort Crowfoot clubmoss Northern spike-moss

Status on TBNG U S U S U U U

Round leaved orchid Weakstem mariposalily Foxtail sedge Lesserpanicled sedge Livid sedge Mountain lady’s slipper Smallyellow ladyslipper Elliptic spikerush Giant helle borine Altai cottongrass Chamisso cottonsedge Slender cottonsedge Hall’s Fescue Simple Kobresia Loesel’s twayblade Adder’s-mouth Large roundleafed orchid Colorado Falseneedlegrass Hall’s bulrush Largeflower triteleia

U U S U U U U S U U U U S U U U U U U S

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-17

Appendix H Table H-7. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species List and Status for the Entire Thunder Basin National Grassland (Continued). Status on Scientific Name Common Name TBNG Plants: Dicots Aquilegia chrysantha var. rydbergii Golden Columbine U Aquilegia laramiensis Laramie Columbine U Armeria maritima var. siberica Sea pink U Asclepias uncialis Dwarf milkweed U Astragalus barrii Barr’s milkvetch K Astragalus leptaleus Park milkvetch U Astragalus missouriensis var. Missouri milkvetch U humistratus Astragalus proximus Aztec milkvetch U Astragalus ripleyi Ripleys milkvetch U Astragalus wetherillii Wetherill milkvetch U Braya glabella Smooth rockcress U Sandhill goosefoot U Chenopodium cycloides Cirsium perplexans Rocky Mountain thistle U Wind River tansymustard U Descurainia torulosa Grays Peak whitlowgrass U Draba exunguiculata Draba grayana Hitchcock Gray's Peak U whitlowgrass Draba smithii Smiths whitlowgrass U Drosera anglica English sundew U Roundleaf sundew U Drosera rotundifolia Eriogonum brandegeei Brandegee wildbuckwheat U Eriogonum exilifolium Drop-leaf wild buckwheat S Visher’s buckwheat S Eriogonum visheri Gilia sedifolia Purple false gily-flower U Ipomopsis aggregata ssp. weberi Weber’s scarlet gilia U Ipomopsis globularis Globe gilia U Ipomopsis polyantha Pagosa skyrocket U Lesquerella fremontii Fremont’s bladderpod U Lesquerella pruinosa Pagosa Springs bladderpod U Machaeranthera coloradoensis Colorado tansymustard U Mimulus gemmiparus Weber’s monkeyflower U Rock-loving aletes U Neoparrya lithophila Oenothera harringtonii Harrington’s oenothera U Oreoxis humilis Pikes Peak spring parsley U Parnassia kotzebuei Kotzebue’s grass-ofU Parnassus Absaroka penstemon U Penstemon absarokensis

H-18

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Table H-7. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species List and Status for the Entire Thunder Basin National Grassland (Continued). Status on Scientific Name Common Name TBNG Plants: Dicots (continued) Penstemon caryi Cary beardtongue U Penstemon degeneri Degener’s penstemon U Penstemon harringtonii Harrington’s beardtongue S Phacelia scopulina var. submutica Debeque scorpionweed U Physaria didymocarpa var. lanata Woolly twinpod S Physaria pulvinata Cushion bladderpod U Potentilla rupincola Front Range cinquefoil U Primula egaliksensis Greenland primrose U Pyrrocoma carthamoides var. Absoroka goldenweed U subsquarrosa Pyrrocoma clementis var. villosa Tranquil goldenweed U Pyrrocoma integrifolia Many-stemmed goldenweed U Frosty buttercup U Ranunculus karelinii Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis Arctic bramble U Arizona willow U Salix arizonica Barrat willow U Salix barrattiana Salix candida Sage willow U Myrtleleaf willow U Salix myrtillifolia Salix serissima Autumn willow U Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot U Shoshonea pulvinata Shoshonia U Thalictrum heliophilum Sun-loving meadowrue U Cushion townsenddaisy U Townsendia condensata var. anomala Lesser bladderpod U Utricularia minor Viburnum opulus var. americanum Highbush-cranberry S Viola selkirkii Great-spurred violet U Fish Nocomis biguttatus Couesius plumbeus Gila pandora Gila robusta Macrhybopsis gelida Phoxinus neogaeus Margariscus margarita

Hornyhead chub Lake chub Rio Grande chub Roundtail chub Sturgeon chub Finescale dace Pearl dace

D U D D U U U

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-19

Appendix H Table H-7. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species List and Status for the Entire Thunder Basin National Grassland (Continued). Status on Scientific Name Common Name TBNG Fish (continued) Phoxinus eos Northern redbelly dace D Phoxinus erythrogaster Southern redbelly dace D Platygobio gracilis Flathead chub K Hybognathus placitus Plains minnow K Catostomus discobulus Bluehead sucker D Catostomus latipinnis Flannelmouth sucker D Catostomus platyrynchus Mountain sucker D Catostomus plebeius Rio Grande sucker D Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus Colorado River cutthroat D trout Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri Yellowstone cutthroat trout D Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis Rio Grande cutthroat trout D Invertebrates Somatochlora hudsonica Speyeria nokomis nokomis Hesperia ottoe Speyeria idalia

Hudsonian emerald butterfly Great Basin silverspot butterfly Ottoe skipper butterfly Regal fritillary

U U U S

Reptiles and Amphibians Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog Storeria occipitomaculata pahasapae Black Hills redbelly snake Mammals Euderma maculatum Corynorhinus townsendii Myotis thysanodes Cynomys ludovicianus Vulpes velox Birds Cygnus buccinator Botaurus lentiginosus Coccyzus americanus Numenius americanus Buteo regalis Accipiter gentilis

K S

Spotted bat Townsend’s big-eared bat Fringed myotis Black-tailed prairie dog Swift fox

K K K K K

Trumpeter swan American bittern Yellow-billed cuckoo Long-billed curlew Ferruginous hawk Northern goshawk

U U K K K K

H-20

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Table H-7. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species List and Status for the Entire Thunder Basin National Grassland (Continued). Status on Scientific Name Common Name TBNG Birds (continued) Circus cyaneus Northern harrier K Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl K Asio flammeus Short-eared owl K Calcarius ornatus Chestnut-collared longspur K Calcarius mccownii McCown’s longspur K Centrocercus urophasianus Greater sage-grouse K Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle K Charadrius montanus Mountain plover K Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike K Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow K Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow K Amphispiza billneata Sage sparrow U Chlidonias niger Black tern K Melanerpes lewis Lewis’ Woodpecker K Table H-8. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species Status on TBNG and on USFS Lands Within the General Wright Analysis Area, and Habitat Suitability on USFS Lands Within the General Wright Analysis Area (Provided by USFS Douglas Ranger District, July 2007). Suitability of Habitat on USFS Status on TBNG/Status on Lands in General Common Name USFS Lands in General Wright Analysis (Scientific Name) Area Wright Analysis Area Plants: Ferns and Allies
Prairie moonwort (Botrychium campestre) Narrowleaf moonwort (Botrychium lineare) Undocumented/Undocumented Undocumented/Undocumented Very Poor to Unsuitable Habitat Unsuitable Habitat

Plants: Monocots
Foxtail sedge (Carex alopecoidea) Elliptic spikerush (Eleocharis elliptica) Hall’s fescue (Festuca hallii) Largeflower triteleia (Triteleia grandiflora) Undocumented/Undocumented Undocumented/Undocumented Undocumented/Undocumented Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat Unsuitable Habitat Unsuitable Habitat Unsuitable Habitat

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-21

Appendix H Table H-8. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species Status on TBNG and on USFS Lands Within the General Wright Analysis Area, and Habitat Suitability on USFS Lands Within the General Wright Analysis Area (Provided by USFS Douglas Ranger District, July 2007) (Continued). Suitability of Habitat on USFS Status on TBNG/Status on Lands in General Common Name Wright Analysis USFS Lands in General (Scientific Name) Wright Analysis Area Area Plants: Dicots
Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii) Woolly twinpod (Physaria didymocarpa var. lanata) Visher’s buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri) Highbush-cranberry (Viburnum opulus var. americanum) Documented/Undocumented Undocumented/Undocumented Tentatively Documented/Undocumented Undocumented/Undocumented Suitable Habitat Marginal Habitat Unsuitable Habitat Unsuitable Habitat

Amphibians
Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Documented/No Observations Poor to Unsuitable Habitat

Fish
Flathead Chub (Platygobio gracilis) Plains minnow (Hybognathus placitus) Documented/Undocumented Documented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat Unsuitable Habitat

Mammals
Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Documented/Documented Limited to Unsuitable Habitat Suitable to Unsuitable Habitat

Documented/No Observations

Birds
Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Documented/No Observations Documented/Documented Documented/Documented Foraging Habitat Suitable Habitat Limited Suitable Habitat

H-22

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Table H-8. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species Status on TBNG and on USFS Lands Within the General Wright Analysis Area, and Habitat Suitability on USFS Lands Within the General Wright Analysis Area (Provided by USFS Douglas Ranger District, July 2007) (Continued). Suitability of Habitat Status on TBNG/Status on on USFS Lands in Common Name General Wright USFS Lands in General (Scientific Name) Analysis Area Wright Analysis Area Birds (Continued)
Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus) McCown’s longspur (Calcarius mccownii) Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) Documented/Documented Limited Suitable Habitat

Documented/Documented

Poor to Marginal Habitat Suitable to Unsuitable Habitat Suitable Rangeland Foraging Habitat Suitable to Unsuitable Habitat Marginal Habitat Suitable to Unsuitable Habitat

Documented/Documented

Documented/No Observations Documented/Documented Documented/Documented

Plants: Ferns and Allies
Leathery grapefern (Botrychium multifidum var. coulteri) Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat

Baseline and annual wildlife surveys have been conducted for the three applicant mines (Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle) since the early 1980s. WDEQ/LQD guidelines and regulations specify different wildlife survey areas for different species and for different survey purposes (baseline studies or annual monitoring). Those surveys included the mine permit area and surrounding perimeter ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 miles (depending on the purpose of the surveys). The larger survey perimeters for the mines’ annual monitoring programs coincidentally encompassed all USFS administered lands within the general analysis areas for the North and South Porcupine tracts and the North Hilight Field tract, all but the southwesternmost corner (roughly 15 percent) of the general analysis area for the South Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-23

Appendix H Table H-9. USFS Region 2 Species of Local Concern Status on TBNG and on USFS Lands Within the General Wright Analysis Area, and Habitat Suitability on USFS Lands Within the General Wright Analysis Area (provided by Roche 2009). Suitability of Habitat on USFS Status on TBNG/Status on Lands in General Common Name USFS Lands in General Wright Analysis (Scientific Name) Area Wright Analysis Area Plants: Monocots
Wood (wild) lily (Lilium philadelphicum) Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat

Plants: Dicots
Smooth goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum) Flat-top (fragrant) goldentop (goldenrod) (Euthamia graminifolia) Rosy palafox (Palafoxia rosea var. macrolepis) Lemonscent (crownseed fetid-marigold) (Pectis angustifolia) Larchleaf beardtongue (Penstemon laricifolius ssp. exifolius) Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat

Undocumented/Undocumented

Unsuitable Habitat

Documented/Undocumented

Suitable Habitat

Documented/Undocumented

Suitable Habitat

Undocumented/Undocumented

Marginal Habitat

Hilight Field tract, and all but the southwestern quarter (roughly 25 percent) of the general analysis area for West Hilight Field tract. Regular surveys conducted in and near USFS lands over the years included raptors, mountain plovers (Charadrius montanus), upland game birds, migratory bird species of management concern, lagomorphs (rabbits), and big game. Supplemental specific surveys for bald eagles, herptiles, waterfowl, fish, and other species were conducted periodically during baseline studies for the applicant mines and adjacent mines (i.e., Antelope Mine). Efforts included a variety of approved survey methods, such as fixed-wing aerial, remote observation via spotting scopes and binoculars, pedestrian, nocturnal spotlighting, belt transects, point counts, and trapping. All incidental sightings of those species were also recorded during each site visit, including notes on species, number of individuals, sex/age (when possible), habitat, and location. Specific details regarding survey methods and results from annual monitoring and baseline inventories for the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle mines, dating back to the early 1980s, are provided in H-24 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H reports on file with the WDEQ-LQD and/or USFS, and thus are not provided in this document. USFS typically assesses impacts to resources on its managed lands and, when applicable, adjacent lands that could also be impacted by the Proposed Action. For wildlife, the USFS is interested in knowing what resources and potential impacts occur within a 1- or 2-mile perimeter surrounding their lands, depending on the species. As discussed in Section 3.10 of this EIS, the wildlife survey areas for this analysis includes the LBA tracts’ general analysis areas plus a surrounding perimeter that varies in extent depending on the species. Thunder Basin Coal Company conducted baseline investigations during 2006 and early 2007 specifically for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract with additional surveys targeting the North and South Hilight Field LBA Tracts in 2007 and 2008; Jacobs Ranch Coal Company conducted baseline investigations in 2007 and 2008 expressly for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract; and Powder River Coal, Inc. conducted baseline investigations during 2007 and early 2008 specifically for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. These surveys covered the respective general analysis areas, and surveys for selected wildlife information such as raptor nest, Greater sage-grouse lek, and prairie dog colony locations covered the respective wildlife survey areas (2-mile perimeter surrounding the general analysis areas). Figures H-1 through H-5 depict the wildlife survey area and the USFS lands within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts, respectively. The entire list of Region 2 Sensitive Species was reviewed and every vertebrate species was considered for full evaluation. However, only those species that might potentially be affected directly or indirectly by implementation of the Proposed Actions or Alternatives on USFS lands were selected for evaluation (Table H-8). For example, if a vertebrate species was known to occur on or near USFS lands, or suitable but unoccupied habitat was present in that area and would be disturbed, then potential effects were evaluated. If suitable habitat was not present in the area, no further analysis was conducted. Thirteen vertebrate species were identified that could potentially be affected by implementation of the Proposed Actions or Alternatives (Table H-8). Many other sensitive vertebrates and one invertebrate that had been documented elsewhere on the TBNG were not evaluated further because of a lack of suitable habitat on or near USFS lands, or because no such habitat would be physically disturbed or otherwise affected by implementation of the Proposed Actions or Alternatives. Vegetation baseline inventories have been completed on each mine’s current permit area in accordance with the current WDEQ/LQD mine permitting requirements. As a result, all or portions of the LBA tracts’ general analysis areas were covered during various vegetation baseline inventories, as well as for prior EIS analyses. Vegetation assessments were completed for the balance of the tracts’ general analysis areas in 2007 and 2008. There is no suitable Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-25

Appendix H
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
29 28 27 26

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
29 28 27 26 25 30

Cre

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Keeline Road

T. 45 N. T. 44 N.

Bl a

Fo r k

BNSF & UP RR

Wes t

Hilight Road

FH
8 9

FH
11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

FH
17 16

FH
14

FH
Jacobs Road

FH
15 13

Th un de r

Ke elin e

SH/RTH/FH Shroyer Road
20 21 22 23

Ro 13 ad
Cree
24

BO BO

FH FH FH FH

FH
21

k
19

Butch Lek

Hansen Lakes Lek

Nor th

FH FH
26

FH/SH
25 30

S mall R oad

FH FH FH

ng Pro

FH FH FH
33 34 35

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

SH/FH

FH 32 FH

BO BO BO BO
3 2 1 6

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

e ttl Li

FH
5 4 3 2

SH/FH

State

Highway 450
Th un de r
12

Stuart II
Lek

ee Cr k
13

Li t

Sta

tle

High

way

450
30

Thu
30

nde r

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. Occupied Sage-Grouse Lek (Active at Least Once Within the Last 10 Years) and 3-Mile Radius Undetermined Sage-Grouse Lek (No Documented Activity for Last 10 Years but Insufficient Information to Designate Unoccupied) and 3-Mile Radius Unoccupied (Abandoned) Sage-Grouse Lek (No Activity for 10 Consecutive Years) Prairie Dog Colony
0 5000 10000 20000

Creek

R. 70 W. R. 69 W. Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary North Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for North Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative General Analysis Area Two-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary Thunder Basin National Grassland (USFS)

LEGEND
Existing Raptor Nest Former Raptor Nest Existing Platform Nest
FH BO RTH SH

Ferruginous Hawk Burrowing Owl Red-tailed Hawk Swainson's Hawk

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure H-1. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Survey Area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract.

H-26

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
25 30 29 28 27

S mall R oad
26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
25 30 29 28 27 26

rth No

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

ng Pro

Lit

tle
Th un de r
2

T. 44 N. T. 43 N.

C ek re

State Highway 450

FH
12 7 8 9

FH FH
10

FH FH FH FH

Stuart I Lek
13 18

Stuart II Lek

FH/RTH

FH/RTH FH
24 19 20 21 22 23 24

FH
19

FH FH
25 30 29 28 27

FH FH

Li t

FH FH FH FH Black
Thunder
Lek
FH
30

tle

Thu
29

nde r

Creek

Hili ght R oad

T. 43 36 N. T. 42 N.

FH FH FH
3

FH FH FH FH FH FH
1

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Matheson Road

FH Edwards Road

R eno Road

SH/FH SH/FH
8 9 10 11

Po rcu
13

SH/FH SH/FH 12 FH/SH 7 FH FH FH
13 18

B NS F & UP RR

pin e
18 17 16

FH FH
15 17 16 15 14

Cre
24 19 20

ek
21 22

Antel ope

R oad

Reno Road

Mackey Road

Payne Lek
26

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary South Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for South Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative General Analysis Area 2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary Thunder Basin National Grassland (USFS)
0 5000 10000 20000

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Existing Raptor Nest Former Raptor Nest Existing Platform Nest
FH RTH SH

Ferruginous Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Swainson's Hawk

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure H-2. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Survey Area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-27

Appendix H
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

B NS F & UP RR

Hilight Road

FH FH FH
15

FH FH
14

SH/RTH/FH
S tate Highway 59
23 26
11

LEGEND
24 19

BO BO

Black Thunder Mine Permit Boundary West Hilight Field LBA Tract as Applied for

No rth
Pr on g

Small R oad
26

FH/SH
25
30

West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative West Hilight Field LBA Tract Under Alternative 3
General Analysis Area 2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary Thunder Basin National Grassland (USFS) Existing Raptor Nest Former Raptor Nest Existing Platform Nest
FH

L it tle

Thu

T. 44 35
N. T. 43
2 N.
FH
FH

T. 44
N. T. 43
N.

r nde

FH
1

FH FH FH

FH 2
Cre ek

SH/FH

State Highway 450

FH FH

BO
12 7

FH FH
8

9 FH

FH FH

FH
10
11

Stuart I
Lek
14 13

Stuart II
Lek

e ttl Li

Ferruginous Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Swainson's Hawk Burrowing Owl

r de un Th

Cr ee k

FH FH/RTH
20 23

FH/RTH

RTH SH BO

FH FH
25 30 29 28
27

FH FH

FH FH
2 1 6
5 4

Hili ght R oad

T. 43 N. T. 42 N.

Black Thunder Lek

FH FH FH

T.
43
N. T. 42
N.

FH
3

FH FH FH R eno Road
1

Edwards Road SH/FH SH/FH
12 7

Matheson Road

Po rcu
14 13

pin e
18

FH FH
17 16 15 14 13 18

B NS F & UP RR

Cre
23 24 19
20

ek
21 22

Antel ope R oad

0 26 25 30
29 28 27
26 25 30

5000

10000

20000

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure H-3. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Survey Area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract.

H-28

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
Tr
Hili ght R oad
5 4 3 4 3 1 6 2 1 6 2 5 4 5

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
us

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
k ee Cr
ool S ch
Ro
7 8

er sl

Edwards Road SH/FH

Reno Road
ad

SH/FH
8 11 9 10

SH/FH SH/FH BO
7 8

S ch o ol Cr eek

Matheson Road

Cre

FH
17 16 15 14 13 18 17

FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH
16 13 18

Road

Po 12 rc up ine

FH FH/SH
k ee Cr

FH FH FH

9 10

Antelope

SH/RTH/FH FH
20 21 22 23 24 19 20 23 24 21 22

FH SH/FH/RTH H BO 15 14 Reno Road H FH BO FH FH

FH FH GE FH FH Payne Lek FH
28 27 26

SH/FH FH FH FH SEO BO
25

Mackey Road

FH FH
29 28 27

BO FH BO FH
34 35

FH FH
32 33

SH/FH FH FH FH/GHO/RTH
32 33

30 29

FH Mackey Road Wilson Lek
36

FH FH FH FH FH SH
1 6 4 34 31 35 36

T. 42 35 N.
SH/FH SH/FH
4 3

BO BO Kort I Lek FH Kort II Lek BO

S ta te

FH FH FH FH

FH FH

FH FH FH FH FH FH FH
3

T. 42 N.

H ig hw
5

Figure H-4. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Survey Area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract.
SH/GHO/FH FH FH FH 2 BO FH
10 8 11 12 7 2

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications
FH FH FH
Po 5 rc up ine

T. 41 2 N.
FH

ay 59

FH FH

FH RTH/FH

T. 41 N.
Rochelle Lek

11 8

Ho 9 rse FH

k ee Cr

14 17 15 16 14

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Boundary North Porcupine LBA Tract as Applied for North Porcupine LBA Tract Under Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

ek re C

R. 70 W. R. 69 W. Existing Raptor Nest Former Raptor Nest

LEGEND
Occupied Sage-Grouse Lek
(Active at Least Once Within the Last 10 Years)
and 3-Mile Radius

Existing Platform Nest
FH RTH SH GHO

General Analysis Area

2-Mile Wildlife Study Area Boundary

Unoccupied (Abandoned) Sage-Grouse Lek
(No Activity for 10 Consecutive Years)
Unoccupied (Destroyed) Sage-Grouse Lek
(Destroyed and No Longer Suitable for Breeding)
Prairie Dog Colony

United States Department of Agriculture
20000

5000

10000

BO H SEO

Ferruginous Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Swainson's Hawk Great Horned Owl Burrowing Owl Northern Harrier Short-eared Owl

Appendix H

H-29

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Appendix H
Edwards Road

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
Antel ope R oad
10 11 12 7

Reno Road
Tr
8 9 10 11 12 7

Matheson Road

s us

r le

k ee Cr

Reno Road

Matheson Road
29 28 27

FH BO
26 25

SH/FH 30 FH
FH
BO
31

Payne Lek

Mackey Road

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

Wilson Lek
32 33 34 35 36

FH FH
5

FH FH FH
1

FH FH
6

Kort I Lek

T. 42 N. T. 41 N.

SH/FH SH/GHO/FH SH/FH FH FH FH 4 3 2 BO FH FH
10 11

Po r

FH FH
12

cu 5 pi ne

Kort II Lek

FH FH

Rochelle Lek
9 10 11 12 7

k ee Cr

FH
or 15 se
ek re C
14 13

BO BO BO 17 BO BO BO BO

SH/FH
23

FH FH FH
24

FH
19 20 21 22 23 24 19

SH SH

FH
26

Campbell County 25 Converse County
30

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.

e op tel An
5

Cre

A
Ro ad
3

ope ntel

Cre

T. 41 N. T. 40 N.

pe elo nt A

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Existing Raptor Nest Former Raptor Nest Existing Platform Nest FH Ferruginous Hawk SH Swainson's Hawk
GHO BO

Great Horned Owl Burrowing Owl

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure H-5. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Survey Area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract.

H-30

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H habitat on USFS lands within the general analysis areas for 12 of the 17 plant species listed in Tables H-8 and H-9. All of the 17 plant species will be discussed here because potential habitat may be present on other portions of the general analysis areas even if suitable habitat is not present on the USFS lands. The following discussions summarize the results of these surveys, including brief descriptions of the habitat and occurrence of each evaluated USFS Region 2 sensitive species and species of local concern, which are identified in Tables H-8 and H-9 as inhabiting or potentially inhabiting USFS lands within the general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. The general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract does not include any TBNG lands administered by the USFS. The potential direct and indirect environmental effects on the respective species as a result of leasing and mining the LBA tracts follow the habitat and occurrence descriptions. Cumulative impacts are discussed for all evaluated Region 2 Sensitive Species at the end of this section. H-3.3 North Hilight Field LBA Tract

H-3.3.1 Prairie moonwort (Botrychium campestre) The prairie moonwort, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species was only recorded in Wyoming in a semi-shady mixed deciduous and ponderosa pine forest on sandy soils in the Black Hills. Prairie moonworts are known to exist in a variety of other habitats such as those underlain by Pierre shale, the Laramie Formation, calcareous sedimentary rocks, calcareous soils underlain by limestone, sandy soils and loess prairie. These habitats are generally limited on the North Hilight Field general analysis area, with only some areas dominated by sandy soils present. Existing Conditions Prime habitats for the prairie moonwort are not present on the USFS lands within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract. Sites with sandy soils are present on USFS lands and other portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas are rather sparsely vegetated and do not provide habitat preferred by this plant species. Prairie moonworts have not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-31

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential for loss of individuals or preferred habitats is very low. H-3.3.2 Narrowleaf moonwort (Botrychium lineare) The narrowleaf moonwort, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species has an affinity for riparian areas and is associated with spruce/fir forests, lodgepole pine forests, and forest meadows. Existing Conditions Habitats for the narrowleaf moonwort are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian habitats or forest habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The narrowleaf moonwort has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is very low. H-3.3.3 Leathery grapefern (Botrychium multifidum var. coulteri) The leathery grapefern, a plant species of local concern, has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for meadows, wetlands, floodplains and other wet areas in open to forested habitats within forests. Existing Conditions Habitats for the leathery grapefern are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian habitats or forest habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. H-32 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on other portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The leathery grapefern has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the leathery grapefern. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.3.4 Foxtail sedge (Carex alopecoidea) The foxtail sedge, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial plant species and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. The foxtail sedge generally has an affinity for wet meadows and willow-sedge communities along wet, shady creek bottoms and springs. Existing Conditions Habitats for the foxtail sedge are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wet meadows or willow-sedge communities are not present on these USFS lands. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on other portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The foxtail sedge has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the foxtail sedge. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential for loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.3.5 Elliptic spikerush (Eleocharis elliptica) The elliptic spikerush, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-33

Appendix H habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for wetland areas created by seeps or springs but may also be found in temporarily flooded areas. Existing Conditions Habitats for the elliptic spikerush are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wetland habitats are not present on these USFS lands. Few wetland sites associated with various ephemeral drainages and playas are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The elliptic spikerush has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to lack of abundant suitable habitat the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field does not provide abundant habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is low. H-3.3.6 Hall’s fescue (Festuca hallii) The Hall’s fescue, a sensitive plant species, is a tufted perennial grass and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for montane meadows, slopes and edges of open coniferous woods and meadows above 6,000 feet in Wyoming. Existing Conditions Habitats for the Hall’s fescue are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable montane habitats above 6,000 feet are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the Hall’s fescue has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the Hall’s fescue. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North H-34 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.3.7 Wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum) The wood lily, a plant species of local concern, is a perennial herb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for woodland meadows and woodland grasslands. Existing Conditions Habitats for the wood lily are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable woodland meadow or grassland habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the wood lily has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the wood lily. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.3.8 Largeflower triteleia (Triteleia grandiflora) The largeflower triteleia, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial herb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for grassy areas in sagebrush at the edge of aspen and lodgepole pine forests and in pinon-juniper woodlands to pine forests and hills. Existing Conditions Habitats for the largeflower triteleia are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable grassy areas in sagebrush at the edge of aspen and lodgepole pine forests and pinon-juniper woodlands or pine forests and hills are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the largeflower triteleia has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-35

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the largeflower triteleia. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.3.9 Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii) The Barr’s milkvetch, a sensitive plant species, is a matt-forming perennial forb that is known from numerous occurrences on the USFS lands within the TBNG. As more surveys are completed, new occurrences are reported. The Barr’s milkvetch is found primarily on dry, sparsely-vegetated rocky prairie breaks, knolls, hillsides and ridges. Parent material is calcareous soft shale, siltstone or silty sandstone. Most populations appear to be stable, although populations may decline under drought conditions. Existing Conditions Astragalus barrii is a regional endemic plant of the plains in southwestern South Dakota, eastern Wyoming, southeastern Montana, and northwestern Nebraska. According to USFS, this plant species is known to occur in six counties in Wyoming, and there are eleven known occurrences of A. barrii in the USFS TBNG. Suitable habitat for the Barr’s milkvetch is present on the USFS lands within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as well as other lands within the general Wright analysis area. Populations and individuals have not been documented in the general Wright analysis area, but have been identified in surrounding areas. A pedestrian survey of the tract’s general analysis area was conducted in April 2008, when the Barr’s milkvetch is in bloom, and no individuals of this species were found. Barr’s milkvetch has been collected and positively identified approximately 23 miles south of the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, in the Section 21 of T.40N., R.71W., based on specimens on file with the Rocky Mountain Herbarium in Laramie, Wyoming. Indirect and Direct Impacts If lands within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract are leased and mined, potential habitat, individuals, and A. barrii populations could be lost due to surface disturbances caused by mining activities. These losses would most likely be permanent unless disturbed lands are reclaimed to habitats that would support this plant species. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing because there are Astragalus barrii occurrences outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2.

H-36

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H H-3.3.10 Smooth goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum) The smooth goosefoot, a plant species of local concern, is an annual forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for sand bars and sandy blowouts in riparian areas. Existing Conditions Habitats for the smooth goosefoot are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian areas are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few riparian areas associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas do not contain the required sand bar or sandy blowout habitats required for this plant species. The smooth goosefoot has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the smooth goosefoot. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. Flat-top goldentop (Euthamia graminifolia) The flat-top H-3.3.11 goldentop, a plant species of local concern, is a rhizomatous perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for stony sandbars and streambanks but may also be found on moist or drying sites along open streambanks or roadside ditches. Existing Conditions Habitats for the flat-top goldentop are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wetland or streambank areas are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Streambanks and a few wetland areas in association with various ephemeral drainages are present within portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas generally do not contain the typical habitats required for this plant species, but marginal habitats are present. The flat-top goldentop has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis areas or adjacent areas.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-37

Appendix H Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is low. H-3.3.12 Rosy palafox (Palafoxia rosea var. macrolepis) The rosy palafox, a plant species of local concern, is an annual forb that has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area but has been recorded on other lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for sagebrush and mixedgrass prairie habitats on sandy soils. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by the rosy palafox are present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area and on other surrounding lands. Sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie plant communities are present on sandy soils in the general Wright analysis area. However, rosy palafox has not been recorded on these lands but is potentially present. This plant species has been documented southeast of the general Wright analysis area. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract, and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract does contain some suitable habitat for this plant species but the rosy palafox has not been documented. This species has been documented southeast of the general Wright analysis area and abundant habitat is present on other sites that would not be affected The lemonscent, a plant H-3.3.13 Lemonscent (Pectis angustifolia) species of local concern, is an annual forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area but has been H-38 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H recorded on other lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for gravel hills and scoria slopes. Lemonscent is also known to occur in low areas in sandy ravines and on sandbars. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by lemonscent are present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area and on other surrounding lands. However, lemonscent has not been recorded in the general Wright analysis area but could potentially be present. This plant species has been documented south of the general Wright analysis area. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract, and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract does contain some suitable habitat for this plant species but the lemonscent has not been documented. This species has been documented south of the general Wright analysis area and abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. Larchleaf beardtongue (Penstemon laricifolius spp. exifolius) H-3.3.14 The larchleaf beardtongue (penstemon), a plant species of local concern, is a perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for dry, rocky, gravelly or sandy slopes, ridgetops and upland flats with shallow soils. Most populations in Wyoming are found at elevations above 6,000 feet, but this species has been documented at lower elevations in the state. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by larchleaf beardtongue are marginally present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few rocky, gravelly hill slopes and rough breaks provide potential habitat, but the larchleaf beardtongue has not been recorded on these lands. This plant species has not been documented near the general Wright analysis area but is potentially present. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-39

Appendix H Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general Wright analysis area and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract does contain marginal habitat for this plant species but the larchleaf beardtongue has not been documented. This species has been documented and is common in southern Wyoming and abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.3.15 Wooly twinpod (Physaria didymocarpa var. lanata) The wooly twinpod, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for dry redbed clay-shale slopes, limey-sandstone outcrops, roadcuts and other exposed rock-cliff substrates. Most populations in Wyoming have been documented in the foothills of the Big Horn Mountains. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by the wooly twinpod are marginally present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few sandstone outcrops and exposed rock-cliff substrates provide potential habitat, but the wooly twinpod has not been recorded on these lands. This plant species has not been documented near the general Wright analysis area but is potentially present. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general Wright analysis area and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract does contain marginal habitat for this plant species but the wooly twinpod has not been documented. This species has been documented and is common in north-central Wyoming and abundant habitat is present on other H-40 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.3.16 Visher’s buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri) The Visher’s buckwheat, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area but has been tentatively identified elsewhere within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for gullied ridges and eroded badland hills. These sites generally consist of barren shale and clay outcrops with at least 50 percent bare soil, high salt content and shrink/swell clay soils. Typical habitat includes badland islands in grasslands. Existing Conditions Habitats for the Visher’s buckwheat are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few areas of highly eroded gullies consisting of barren shale or clay outcrops may be found in portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these sites do not appear to provide suitable habitat for this species. The Visher’s buckwheat has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the Visher’s buckwheat. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract does not provide optimum suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.3.17 Highbush-cranberry (Viburnum opulus var. americanum) The highbush-cranberry, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. In Wyoming, this plant species is found within Crook County and is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for moist sites including wooded hillsides, thickets or low woodlands. The highbush-cranberry is found all across northern North America. Existing Conditions Habitats for the highbush-cranberry are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable moist, wooded habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. The highbush-cranberry has not been recorded within the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-41

Appendix H Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the highbush-cranberry. As indicated, this species has not been documented in the general Wright analysis area and the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.3.18 Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Northern leopard frogs range from the Great Slave Lake and Hudson Bay, south to Kentucky and New Mexico (NatureServe 2007). This species is considered relatively common within Wyoming (Baxter and Stone 1980, Cerovski et al. 2004). Northern leopard frogs require shallow, permanent, or semi-permanent standing water with at least some emergent vegetation for breeding (Wagner 1997). Conversely, they use deeper lakes or ponds with well-oxygenated water that does not freeze to the bottom as overwintering habitat (Wagner 1997). Leopard frogs must have good quality water to successfully reproduce, as degraded or turbid water has the potential to negatively affect development of eggs and tadpoles. Overcrowding and changes in water temperature and pH (5.5 or lower) can increase the incidence of disease and mortality (NatureServe 2007) in this species. Adult frogs feed upon a variety of insects and other invertebrates, tadpoles, snakes, and fish (Cerovski et al. 2004), while tadpoles feed primarily upon small invertebrates, plant tissue, and organic debris. Adults also forage within aquatic and upland habitats, whereas tadpoles are restricted to aquatic habitats. Although their overall range remains essentially undiminished in size, many populations are declining. Major factors affecting leopard frog populations are habitat loss in some portions of their range, habitat degradation, overexploitation, interactions with non-native species, climate change, disease, and other unknown causes (Wagner 1997). Existing Conditions The northern leopard frog has been observed in southern Campbell County, but has not officially been recognized as breeding there (Cerovski et al. 2004). Although formal anuran surveys were not required or conducted at the adjacent Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, or North Antelope Rochelle mines, annual monitoring efforts for other species conducted in overlapping survey areas from 1983 through 2007 have not revealed the presence of northern leopard frogs or anuran egg masses on USFS lands or elsewhere within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. Those surveys occurred during all seasons, with biologists watching and listening for northern leopard frogs and other herptiles while conducting all other surveys throughout the area. It is unlikely that northern leopard frogs would have remained undetected during multiple surveys conducted during that long-term period if they were present in the area. Results from annual wildlife monitoring and H-42 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H baseline studies for the three mines are on file with, and available from, the WDEQ/LQD in Sheridan or Cheyenne, Wyoming and USFS Douglas Ranger District; those reports also include detailed descriptions of survey areas (including maps), methods, and dates for each year. Habitat conditions on USFS and non-USFS lands within the tract’s general analysis area are classified as unsuitable, as there are no available permanent or semi-permanent water sources. Water levels in drainages are typically too temporary and/or shallow to support tadpoles until metamorphosis, or allow frogs to successfully overwinter, respectively. All drainages throughout the tract’s general analysis area are ephemeral in nature and only carry water during or immediately following high intensity precipitation events, resulting in low quality or unsuitable habitat conditions for this frog species. The general lack of emergent vegetation near temporary water bodies limits their value to northern leopard frogs. Direct and Indirect Effects Wetland and aquatic habitats for northern leopard frogs are considered very poor to unsuitable on USFS lands and elsewhere in the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, as described above. Furthermore, no frog sightings have been recorded on USFS lands during baseline surveys or annual monitoring completed between 1983 and 2007. Consequently, northern leopard frogs and their aquatic and terrestrial habitats are not expected to be impacted if the USFS lands in this LBA tract were leased. In the unlikely event that this species is present in the future, direct loss of, or injury to, foraging and dispersing frogs could result from encounters with mine vehicles or heavy equipment during topsoil stripping or other surface disturbance, although such risks are minimal due to the lack of frog sightings to date. It is possible that existing reservoirs and ponds (natural and those enhanced by CBNG discharge water), and those created for flood control, sedimentation, water storage purposes, or wetland mitigation measures could provide suitable foraging or breeding habitat for northern leopard frogs in the future. However, most artificial water structures would still be limited to relatively shallow, seasonal waters with little emergent vegetation that would not provide for the year-round habitat needs of this frog species. Should those efforts result in improved aquatic habitats, adult frogs, tadpoles, and/or egg masses present in the area could be injured or killed during activities associated with additional construction of diversion dikes or associated channels, or the dewatering of potential habitats downstream of a dike. Under those limited circumstances, potential impacts could include loss of individuals and foraging habitat, increased predation, and changes in stream morphology and hydrology. Standard mining procedures such as the use of silt barriers across affected stream channels and other similar efforts would minimize any negative impacts that might result from mine-related operations. Likewise, adherence to the Thunder Basin National Grassland Plan Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002) pertaining to water and wetlands would ensure that leopard frogs and other aquatic organisms present on USFS lands would not be negatively Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-43

Appendix H affected by increased sedimentation, degraded water chemistry, or otherwise damaged aquatic habitats. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, USFS lands and adjacent non-federal lands within the North Hilight Field general analysis area do not contain suitable habitat for northern leopard frogs. Water sources in the drainages in that area are too temporary and shallow to support tadpoles until metamorphosis, or to allow frogs to successfully overwinter. If present, individual adult leopard frogs may be incidentally killed by vehicles or equipment. Habitat may be enhanced or created during certain mine operations, but water flow and depth associated with existing structures at the adjacent Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch mines have not resulted in adequate conditions to support the life cycle needs of this species, and they are not expected to create those conditions anywhere in this LBA tract. As no northern leopard frogs have ever been documented on USFS lands within the overall general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, potential effects are expected to be negligible, if they occur at all. Furthermore, northern leopard frogs have been documented at other sites outside of the tract’s general analysis area that will not be affected by coal leasing actions. H-3.3.19 Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) The blacktailed prairie dog was removed from the USFWS federal listing process in 2004. The agency ruled that listing this species may be warranted, but was precluded by higher priority considerations. Consequently, the black-tailed prairie dog is no longer considered a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Black-tailed prairie dogs historically ranged throughout the Great Plains in short-grass and mixed-grass prairies. This species is also a common resident in the short- and mid-grass habitats of eastern Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). The TBNG, which includes USFS lands in the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, harbors one of the seven major colony complexes remaining in North America. Black-tailed prairie dogs are highly social, diurnal burrowing rodents that typically feed on grasses and forbs. Prairie dogs form colonies that are the main unit of a prairie dog population. This species has the ability to rapidly expand its distribution and population if not limited by pest control practices or disease, and will readily spread into recently disturbed areas. Many species such as the black-footed ferret, mountain plover, burrowing owl, and swift fox are dependent on prairie dogs during a portion of their life cycle. Black-tailed prairie dog occupied range and abundance has declined dramatically, and continues to exhibit a slow decline (NatureServe 2007). Major factors contributing to the decline include disease (sylvatic plague), urbanization, habitat conversion, and control efforts.

H-44

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Existing Conditions No prairie dog colonies were present on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract general analysis area or its 2-mile perimeter in 2007. Four prairie dog colonies (approximately 53.8 total acres) were found on non-federal surface in the wildlife survey area for the North Hilight Field tract (Figure H-1). Of which, two colonies occurred within the general analysis area for the tract and are approximately 3.4 and 19.5 acres in size. The other two colonies were in the surrounding 2-mile perimeter, and are about 3.7 and 27.2 acres in size. None of these four colonies meet the 80-acre minimum for black-footed ferret habitat (USFWS 1989). However, the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts is outside the coal mine region of the PRB of northeast Wyoming (refer to Management Area 3.63) (USFS 2002, Grenier 2003). That coal region includes all USFS and surrounding lands within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. Additionally, some prairie dog colonies in that coal region were recently infested with the plague, while others are currently exposed to year-round disturbance associated with conventional oil and gas, CBNG, and coal (including open pits) resources, as well as seasonal recreational shooting and vehicular travel. Direct and Indirect Effects The current mining plans for the Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch mines do not project any new surface disturbance in the two prairie dog colonies located within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. Nevertheless, those two colonies would be affected by the proposed leasing action at some point in time. As stated above, neither colony is located on USFS lands. Such impacts could have immediate results on prairie dogs if an occupied colony is suddenly subjected to the effects of a soil salvage operation, or is otherwise impacted in a short timeframe that precludes the dispersal of individuals prior to surface disturbance. However, as those activities typically occur incrementally across various portions of future mining areas, some individuals could disperse to undisturbed portions of the affected colony, or create one or more new colonies within the area. Smaller-scale disturbances associated with both the mining and CBNG industries can also impact prairie dog colonies and surrounding vegetation through fragmentation or loss of foraging and burrowing habitat. Linear disturbances associated with mining infrastructure, such as roads, power lines, fences, and pipelines will occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, and would be completed within shorter timeframes than the advancement of a surface mine pit. However, such disturbances would still pose some level of risks due to vehicular collisions or by enhancing habitat for mammalian and avian species that prey on prairie dogs. Some linear impacts could be minimized or mitigated through the consolidation of roads and electric utilities within common corridors, applying perch deterrents on overhead power poles, and reseeding pipeline disturbances Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-45

Appendix H quickly with appropriate seed mixes for the region. Minor surface disturbance near existing colonies would provide recently upturned soils that could facilitate the expansion of the existing colonies or the establishment of new ones, as prairie dogs will readily move into recently disturbed areas. Postmining reclamation could have similar potential benefits; prairie dogs have already demonstrated their ability to inhabit reclaimed lands at the nearby Antelope Mine (BLM 2008). All USFS Standards and Guidelines applicable to black-tailed prairie dogs outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, page 1-20) would be implemented. To reduce risks and habitat loss for prairie dogs and other wildlife species closely associated with prairie dog colonies, new roads will be aligned outside colony boundaries where possible. If it is necessary to place a new road within a prairie dog colony, the amount of road in the colony will be minimized to the extent that soil, drainage, topographical and other physical factors will allow. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Only two of the four black-tailed prairie dog colonies within the wildlife survey area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would be physically disturbed by mining activities within the tract’s general analysis area, if the lease is issued. Those two colonies encompassed less than 23 acres, and neither of which were on USFS lands in 2007. Given the fact that two of the four colonies within the wildlife survey area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract were outside of the general analysis area (area of potential surface disturbance) associated with this proposed lease, the tendency of prairie dogs to disperse and expand their boundaries, and the incremental nature of surface coal mining relative to some other disturbance activities, the potential impacts to prairie dog colonies on and near USFS lands in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would not have adverse consequences for the viability of the local or regional population. Disturbance and reclamation efforts will occur incrementally in varying locations throughout the permit area as mining progresses through the approved lease. H-3.3.20 Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) The swift fox was removed from the USFWS federal listing process in 1995, after extensive field surveys demonstrated that the population was greater than expected. This species is considered to be common within the eastern Great Plains grasslands of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004), though it typically occurs at very low densities. The exact status of the population is unknown but believed to be increasing, especially in the Northern Plains. Swift foxes are largely nocturnal and typically prefer flat to gently rolling, short- or mixed-grass prairies, generally lacking in shrubs or woody vegetation (Cotterill 1997). This species uses multiple den sites year-round for shelter, protection from predators, and rearing young. Burrows of other mammals such as badgers (Taxidea taxus), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and prairie dogs are often used or modified for those purposes. Small to mid-sized mammals constitute the bulk of their diet. Swift H-46 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H foxes have little fear of humans and may den in proximity to human disturbances (residences and busy roadways). This tolerance also makes them susceptible to trapping, vehicle collisions, and attacks by dogs. Major threats faced by the swift fox include habitat loss and degradation, interspecific competition with red fox and coyote (Canis latrans), and vehicle collisions. Existing Conditions Swift fox have been observed in large grassland blocks in southern Campbell County with more frequency in recent years, and are presumed to breed there. This species has also been documented within the overall TBNG. However, sagebrush communities dominate the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, as well as USFS lands in that area. The prevalence of sagebrush throughout the tract’s wildlife survey area largely explains the extremely limited sightings of this grassland fox over the last 25 years, as described below. Burrows within the existing black-tailed prairie dog colonies and scattered badger or red fox burrows could be used by swift foxes as den or shelter sites, and swift fox could forage in the area. No specific surveys for swift fox were conducted for this analysis. However, such efforts were completed in 2002 using USFS survey protocols for other unrelated projects. Those surveys occurred within 13.5 miles of USFS lands in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Nocturnal spotlight surveys for rabbits and hares were conducted as part of annual wildlife monitoring at adjacent existing mines every year since at least 1994, with diurnal surveys for a variety of vertebrate species occurring across all seasons annually since the early 1980s. All of those survey efforts overlapped significant portions of the North Hilight Field tract’s wildlife survey area. As a result of those combined efforts, one swift fox sighting was made approximately 5 miles south of this LBA tract along Little Thunder Creek between 1995 and 1997 in T.43N., R.71W., SE¼ Section 23 (USFS 2003). A lone fox was also observed on adjacent lands in T.43N., R.71W., SW¼ Section 14 (approximately 4 miles south of this tract) during that period. No swift foxes have ever been recorded on USFS or other lands within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. No swift foxes have been recorded elsewhere in the overall Black Thunder Mine annual monitoring area since surveys began in 1983. Few other swift fox sightings have been recorded elsewhere within the surrounding region during specific surveys or incidental to other searches at local mines over the last 25 years. Those efforts were conducted as part of annual wildlife monitoring by contract and USFS biologists on private and federal lands in the area. One swift fox was documented approximately 11 miles south of USFS lands within the general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field tract in March 2002. The fox was observed in T.42N., R.70W., SE¼ Section 15 during spotlight trapping efforts for sage-grouse at the nearby North Antelope Rochelle Mine. The nearest other sighting occurred in T.43N., R.72W., SE¼ Section 20 between 1995 and 1997, approximately 15 miles Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-47

Appendix H southwest of USFS lands in the North Hilight Field tract general analysis area. Reports from all annual monitoring and special studies are on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne. Direct and Indirect Effects Due to the overall poor quality habitat conditions on USFS and adjacent lands in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract’s general analysis area, and the sightings of just two swift fox 4 and 5 miles south of that area over the last 25 years of annual monitoring (including spotlight searches for other species), no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated for this species. Given these circumstances, species-specific Standards and Guidelines outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, page 1-20) would not apply. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Habitat conditions in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area are considered poor quality due to the prevalence of sagebrush shrublands and limited presence of grassland expanses. Only two observations of swift fox have been recorded in the general region despite annual monitoring surveys in all or most of those areas over the last 25 years, and both were 4 to 5 miles south of this LBA tract. Furthermore, sufficient suitable habitat (grasslands) is present elsewhere within the general vicinity that could sustain swift foxes as project activities disturb the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA tract. Existing and future reclaimed grasslands will create or enhance potential swift fox habitat once mining has been completed in the tracts. H-3.3.21 Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Long-billed curlews breed from interior British Columbia and southern Alberta through southern Manitoba, south to central California, and east to western North Dakota, central South Dakota, central Nebraska, western Kansas, northeastern New Mexico, and northern Texas (Dechant et al. 2003a). The long-billed curlew is a relatively uncommon summer resident of grasslands and sagebrush-grasslands in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Curlews are ground nesters, and require large open expanses of grassland, with relatively low vegetation and few shrubs in which to nest (Hill 1998). The nest is typically a shallow scrape or depression, thinly lined with grass, weeds or cow dung, typically near water or moist areas. Curlews use historically occupied sites each year, and some individual birds may reuse the same territories from year to year (Dechant et al. 2003a). Curlews primarily feed upon insects but also eat other invertebrates, small crustaceans, toads, and eggs and nestlings of other birds. This species forages in grasslands, wet meadows, prairie dog colonies, and occasionally along the margins of wetlands. Lakeshores and river valleys are often used during fall as migration staging areas (Hill 1998). Although some populations may be H-48 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H declining, overall population trends suggest long-billed curlew numbers are stable or increasing slightly. The major factor affecting curlew populations is habitat destruction and fragmentation. Existing Conditions Long-billed curlews are uncommon summer residents within the TBNG. The areas evaluated for this analysis include USFS and adjacent lands within the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. As described for the northern leopard frog and swift fox, above, those areas are dominated by sagebrush habitats with scattered stands of upland grasslands and little water. Consequently, habitat conditions in the tract’s general analysis area and surrounding lands would be suitable for foraging migrants, but they do not provide large expanses of grassland areas for nesting activities. No long-billed curlews have ever been documented on USFS lands or adjacent lands in the general analysis area or larger wildlife survey area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. Likewise, few curlews have been observed in the surrounding region during annual wildlife monitoring in the area over the last 24 or more years. Most of those sightings occurred during spring months and beyond USFS lands, and were likely individual migrants or non-breeding adults. No significant wetlands (i.e., large lakes) or other persistent conditions that might attract large numbers of curlews during migration exist within the North Hilight Field wildlife survey area. No nesting occurrences have been documented for long-billed curlews in southern Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004), including USFS lands in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area and adjacent lands. Potential foraging habitat is present on USFS and adjacent lands in those areas, and elsewhere within the 2-mile wildlife survey perimeter, but nesting habitat conditions are poor to unsuitable. CBNG development activities are increasing throughout the region, with active mining (including open pits) also occurring in the near vicinity. Therefore, potential foraging habitats would be disturbed by the Proposed Action and Alternatives for this LBA tract. Direct and Indirect Effects Given the lack of sightings of long-billed curlews in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract general analysis area and surrounding perimeters since 1983, and the fact that habitat conditions in those areas are only suitable for foraging migrants or non-breeding adults, the Proposed Action and Alternatives for this LBA tract are unlikely to cause any direct injury or mortality to this species. However, if present, future mining activities could result in injuries or mortalities to foraging individuals. Foraging individuals may also be displaced by human activities and noise associated with mining. Potential foraging habitats may be disturbed, removed, or fragmented by mining activities. The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the tract’s general analysis area as operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed in a given portion of the mine, and will eventually mitigate impacts to some degree. The Black Thunder Mine’s reclamation plan would incorporate the replacement of Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-49

Appendix H jurisdictional wetland acreages existing prior to mining with at least equal types and numbers of wetland acreages. The creation of wetland habitats, especially where adjacent to native or reclaimed grassland habitats, could provide additional (although limited) foraging areas for curlews. As no long-billed curlews have been documented within USFS lands or other lands in or near the North Hilight Field LBA Tract general analysis area, and habitat conditions do not provide quality nesting areas, species-specific Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Grassland Plan (USFS 2002) would not apply. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As this species appears to be an infrequent visitor to the tract’s general analysis area, and good quality foraging and nesting habitat is not present within the area, impacts to this species are likely to be minimal. Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of potential foraging habitat and potential collisions with vehicles may occur. Reclamation of wetlands and grasslands may create limited foraging or nesting habitat. H-3.3.22 Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Ferruginous hawks breed throughout much of the western United States and portions of three Canadian provinces (Johnsgard 1990). This species nests throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004) and occupies portions of the state during winter. Large expanses of grassland and shrubland, where livestock grazing (vs. cultivation) is the predominant land use, provide the most suitable habitat (Schmutz 1989, Johnsgard 1990). Most ferruginous hawks in the PRB nest on the ground (usually elevated sites, though some pairs nest in small trees). Typical nest sites include hilltops, rock outcrops, eroded creek banks, small trees, and even relatively level ground. The ferruginous hawk relies primarily on two mammalian families for the majority of its prey: Leporidae (rabbits and hares) and Sciuridae (ground squirrels and prairie dogs). Numerous nests can occur within the territory of a single pair, and ferruginous hawks often reuse nests for many years. This species may be sensitive to human disturbance, especially during the nesting period (White and Thurow 1985). This sensitivity can be heightened in years of low prey abundance. Accurate information regarding the trend for the ferruginous hawk is limited and mixed. Some populations may be declining (Bechard and Schmutz 1995); however, overall population trends suggest numbers are stable or increasing (NatureServe 2007). Major factors affecting ferruginous hawk populations include habitat destruction and fragmentation, and human disturbance. Existing Conditions Annual monitoring has documented that ferruginous hawks nested in the vicinity of the Black Thunder Mine during each of the last 25 years, and fledged H-50 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H young in all but one of those years. Similar long-term nesting has occurred at the neighboring Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle mines. Many of those nests were located on USFS lands. Details describing the number of intact and active nests within the mine monitoring survey areas in a given year are available in annual monitoring and baseline wildlife reports on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne. The presence or absence of nest material does not determine whether the USFS considers a site as “active” (occupied during at least 1 of the last 7 years). No ferruginous hawk nest sites have been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area or surrounding 2-mile wildlife survey area during annual wildlife monitoring surveys conducted through 2007. Seven nest sites in two territories have been recorded on non-federal surface within the general analysis area through 2007; five of the seven sites still had nest material present that year (Figure H-1). Through 2007, 24 individual ferruginous hawk nests plus 3 multi-species sites used by ferruginous hawks and at least one other raptor species over the years have been identified within the tract’s 2-mile wildlife survey area. The 27 nests represented at least 10 different territories. All but 9 of the 27 sites still had nest material present in 2007. Direct and Indirect Effects Over time, the Black Thunder Mine has avoided, where possible, or mitigated mining impacts on raptor nests through a variety of means. The mine has voluntarily monitored nesting raptor populations in a perimeter larger than required annually since 1983, maintained and implemented current USFWS approved Raptor Mitigation Plans, adjusted operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests, and ensured that new power lines at the mine conform to current Avian Power Line Interaction Commission (APLIC) guidelines. Provided those practices are continued, direct impacts on ferruginous hawks and their active nest sites will be minimized, both on and near USFS lands. Due to restrictions on disturbance near active nest sites, the most probable source of potential impact to ferruginous hawks themselves would be an increase in injuries and fatalities of individuals foraging within the general analysis area due to vehicle collisions associated with ongoing or future mining and other activities. The use of existing roads in the area, when possible, would help to minimize this risk. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would result from a variety of large- and small-scale mining operations such as soil salvaging and reservoir/flood construction, among others. Potential nesting and foraging habitat might also be fragmented by linear disturbances such as the construction, maintenance, and removal of roads, fences, power lines, and pipelines. Those disturbances could also create new travel corridors for mammalian predators that reside in or pass through the area. However, many such disturbances would occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, typically over a period of days. Additionally, those structures are Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-51

Appendix H often constructed immediately prior to the removal of similar features elsewhere in the area, often resulting in minimal or no net gain of new linear disturbances. All mine-related habitat disturbances would shift throughout the expanded permit area as operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas would occur incrementally as resource recovery is completed in a given portion of the mine, and would mitigate impacts to some degree. Surface disturbing activities could also result in a short-term, localized decrease in the prey base (lagomorphs and rodents) for ferruginous hawks. However, due to their high reproductive potential and tendencies to re-populate and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase quickly after the disturbance. USFS Standards and Guidelines would be implemented and offer additional protections for active nests; they would apply only to activities outside of the lease area. These protocols should help ensure that the Proposed Action and Alternatives do not significantly degrade the quality of existing ferruginous hawk territories and nest sites. Standards and Guidelines specific to ferruginous hawks outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, page 1-20-21) are as follows: 73. To help prevent abandonment, reproductive failure or nest destruction, prohibit development of new facilities within 0.25 mile (or line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests. For the ferruginous hawk, a nest is no longer considered active if it is known to have been unoccupied for the last seven years. This does not apply to pipelines, fences and underground utilities. 74. To help reduce disturbances to nesting ferruginous hawks, prohibit the following activities within 0.5 mile (or line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests from 1 March through 31 July: construction (e.g., roads, water impoundments, oil and gas facilities), reclamation, gravel mining operations, drilling of water wells, and oil and gas drilling. 75. To help reduce disturbances to nesting ferruginous hawks, do not authorize the following activities within 0.5 mile (line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests from 1 March through 31 July: construction (e.g., pipelines, utilities, fencing), seismic exploration, and workover operations for maintenance of oil and gas wells. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Mine-related activities will not physically disturb any ferruginous hawk nest sites on USFS lands in the North Hilight Field general analysis area. Many nests have alternate sites within the same territories that are beyond the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, and thus are less likely to be impacted by future mining disturbance associated with the H-52 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H proposed leasing action. Some individuals or pairs may experience disturbance, destruction, or fragmentation of nesting and foraging habitat. Increased disturbance to individuals due to human activity may also occur. However, several factors should minimize the potential mining-related impacts on this species, including the availability of alternate nest sites located further away from pending disturbance in each affected territory, implementation of USFWS and USFS approved mitigation measures, reclaiming habitats as soon as feasible, encouraging nesting within mine reclamation lands through artificial nest structures and habitat features such as rock piles and tree plantings that attract prey species, and continued monitoring of this species to ensure that mitigation methods are applied when necessary. H-3.3.23 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Burrowing owls breed from southern Alberta to southwestern Saskatchewan, south through east-central Washington, central Oregon, and southern California, and east to eastern North Dakota, west-central Kansas, and Texas (Klute et al. 2003, pg 7). The burrowing owl is a summer resident of open rangeland habitats throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species requires burrows of fossorial mammals, primarily badgers and prairie dogs, for nesting and roosting (Klute et al. 2003, pg 12). Most burrowing owl nests within the TBNG are located within prairie dog colonies (USFS 2003). Burrowing owls typically reuse traditional nesting areas. Burrow mounds, shrubs, fence posts or boulders may be used as observation perches. This species is usually tolerant of human activity but is vulnerable to predation by pets (cats, dogs). Burrowing owls forage within a variety of habitats, including cropland, pasture, prairie dog colonies, fallow fields, and sparsely vegetated areas. This species is often active during daylight hours. Insects and small mammals (mice and voles) are the owls’ primary prey items. Burrowing owl populations have been declining throughout its range, primarily due to habitat loss. Existing Conditions Burrowing owls are common summer residents within the TBNG (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species was first recorded nesting in the Black Thunder Mine annual monitoring 2-mile perimeter in 1988. Despite the presence of potential nesting habitat (prairie dog and badger burrows) in the monitoring area, this species nested in only 5 of the subsequent 19 years. All known burrowing owl nest sites in the mine monitoring area have been in prairie dog burrows. Four artificial nest boxes have been constructed in the mine’s 2-mile perimeter wildlife survey area for mitigation purposes over the years, but no owls have ever been observed at or near them. No burrowing owl nest sites have been documented on USFS lands within the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area or the tract’s surrounding wildlife survey area through 2007. Two nest sites in one territory have been identified in a small (18 acres) prairie dog colony on non-federal lands located within the tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-1). The colony is Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-53

Appendix H approximately 4 miles west of the nearest USFS lands within the tract’s general analysis area, and 3 miles northwest of the nearest USFS lands in the surrounding 2-mile perimeter. The USFS buffer for this species is 0.25 mile. A smaller (3 acres) colony is also present in the general analysis area, but no burrowing owls have been recorded there. One artificial nest box (BO5) was created in the LBA tract’s 2-mile wildlife survey area, but it has never been used by burrowing owls. Direct and Indirect Effects No known burrowing owl nest sites are present on USFS lands in the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, or within 0.25 mile of those lands (the USFS buffer for that species). Potential nesting habitat in the vicinity of this LBA tract is largely limited to the two relatively small prairie dog colonies located in the tract’s general analysis area. Therefore, leasing the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would not result in any direct or indirect effects to nesting burrowing owls. Both USFS Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002) and Black Thunder Mine’s mine permit (TBCC 2005) stipulate that clearance surveys will be conducted and approved by the appropriate agencies before any colony is disturbed during the breeding season. That process will preclude most direct impacts to new nesting burrowing owls in that area. Due to the strong (but not exclusive) relationship between burrowing owls and prairie dog colonies, many of the indirect effects described above for the blacktailed prairie dog, would also apply to burrowing owls and, thus, will not be repeated in full detail here. Because burrowing owls are active during daylight hours, the most probable source of direct impacts would be the death of, or injury to, individuals fleeing heavy equipment, or being killed or injured by equipment while feeding or moving through the mine area. Burrowing owls are generally tolerant of human activities, but increased presence and noise, especially during the nest initiation period, may displace individuals or inhibit nesting proximate to mine operations. Foraging could also be hindered within these areas, especially where mining activities occur near prairie dog colonies. As described previously, mining could eventually disturb or eliminate prairie dog colonies (potential nesting habitat) in the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract (21 total acres). However, the limited presence or long-term absence of nesting burrowing owls in those colonies, in combination with the presence of other non-disturbed colonies in the area and the ability for prairie dogs to recolonize reclamation, would mitigate those losses to a large extent. Surface disturbing activities could also result in a short-term, localized decrease in the prey base (rodents, non-flying insects) for burrowing owls. However, due to their high reproductive potential and tendencies to re-populate and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase quickly after the disturbance. Additionally, the tendency of prairie dogs to quickly colonize nearby areas when their colonies are disturbed would create new nesting habitat for burrowing owls. Overall, nesting and foraging habitats will be incrementally affected by a H-54 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H variety of large-and small-scale operations. The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the general analysis area as mining operations progress, thus providing opportunities for burrowing owls to relocate to other suitable habitat within the immediate area. Reclamation will proceed incrementally as areas are mined and activities move to new locations within the mine area. Both activities will create loose soil that should be attractive to dispersing prairie dogs (potential habitat source), at least in the short term. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as resources are extracted in a given portion of the mine, and will eventually mitigate habitat impacts to some degree. However, to date, burrowing owls have rarely been documented nesting within reclaimed habitats at surface mines in the PRB of northeast Wyoming. If nesting burrowing owls are documented on or near USFS lands in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, USFS Standards and Guidelines applicable to this species would be implemented on applicable lands to offer additional protections beyond those outlined in the USFWS approved Raptor Mitigation Plan for the Black Thunder Mine. Annual monitoring of known burrowing owl nest sites within the 2-mile wildlife survey area for the mine, including USFS and adjacent lands, and other nearby colonies will continue through the life of the mine to document their histories of occupancy and production. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. No burrowing owl nests have been documented on or near USFS lands in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during many years of annual monitoring; only two nests in a single territory are located within the tract’s general analysis area. Disturbance, fragmentation, and alteration of foraging and nesting habitats would occur if this tract is leased and mined. However, few prairie dog colonies occur in the general vicinity of this LBA tract, and most are located outside of the tract’s general analysis area where future surface disturbance would occur. The Black Thunder Mine has avoided, where possible, and mitigated such impacts in the past through intensive monitoring of both populations and specific nest sites, implementation of USFWS approved mitigation measures, and adjusting operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests (including burrowing owl nests). Mining activities and noise may disturb individuals inhabiting the lease area, thus inhibiting potential nesting or foraging in proximity to lands with ongoing development. Potential collisions with vehicles might also occur, though none have been recorded in the area to date. H-3.3.24 Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus) The breeding range of the chestnut-collared longspur extends from southern Alberta to southern Manitoba, south to west-central Colorado, and east through North Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-55

Appendix H Dakota and South Dakota to western Minnesota (Dechant et al. 2003b). The chestnut-collared longspur is a common summer resident of the eastern plains of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species prefers native grasslands as breeding sites, inhabiting open prairie and avoiding excessively shrubby areas. Grasslands with dense litter accumulations are also avoided (Dechant et al. 2003b). Scattered shrubs are often used as singing perches. Nests are typically placed in areas of sparse vegetation (less than 50-75 inches or 20-30 centimeters), but usually with a taller grass component than sites preferred by McCown’s longspurs. Nests are on the ground in depressions and often placed beside cattle dung, small shrubs, or under a clump of grass (Hill and Gould 1997). Male fidelity to breeding areas has been observed. Chestnut-collared longspurs feed primarily on seeds (especially grasses), insects, and spiders. This species is generally tolerant of short-term intrusion at the nest site but may desert if disturbed during nest building or egg-laying (Hill and Gould 1997). High rates of predation on eggs and nestlings have been reported and pesticides have been shown to reduce hatching success. The chestnut-collared longspur breeding range has contracted and long-term data suggests population declines (Hill and Gould 1997). These declines have been attributed to loss of native prairie habitat, and conversion to cropland and urban development. Existing Conditions Chestnut-collared longspurs are common summer residents within the TBNG. This species has not been recorded on USFS or other lands in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during annual monitoring in recent years. As described previously, sagebrush habitats dominate USFS and adjacent lands in the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. Grassland areas are present in the form of prairie dog colonies, upland grasslands, and agricultural pasture grasslands, but they occur in isolated parcels scattered throughout the area rather than in contiguous and/or sizeable blocks that would be attractive to nesting chestnut-collared longspurs. Consequently, only limited suitable habitat conditions exist for this species on USFS lands in the North Hilight Field LBA Tract general analysis area and adjacent lands. Direct and Indirect Effects Due to the similarity of potential impacts from future mining on chestnutcollared longspurs and other grassland species previously discussed (e.g., prairie dog and swift fox), detailed descriptions of those impacts are not repeated here. Chestnut-collared longspurs have not been documented as nesting in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Equipment operations associated with future mining operations could result in fatalities or injury to individuals, nests and eggs, and/or young. Increased human activity and noise could inhibit foraging or nesting within suitable habitats on USFS lands or displace individuals during periods of intense activities. Over the life of the mine, potential nesting and foraging habitats in the general analysis area could be disturbed, destroyed, altered, or fragmented, though the type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the general H-56 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H analysis area as mining operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as resources are extracted in a given portion of the mine. Within 1 to 2 years, newly reclaimed areas may create good quality, short-duration nesting habitat for chestnut-collared longspurs. However, as these sites mature, they would become less suitable as nesting habitat for this species. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. USFS lands in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area are dominated by sagebrush communities that are not as attractive to grassland species such as the longspur. No individuals have been documented in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Potential and documented alternative habitats for chestnut-collared longspurs are present elsewhere in the vicinity in areas not currently scheduled for mining disturbance. H-3.3.25 McCown’s Longspur (Calcarius mccownii) McCown’s longspurs breed from southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan, south through Montana, eastern and central Wyoming, and north-central Colorado, and east to western Nebraska, north-central South Dakota, and southwestern North Dakota (Dechant et al. 2003c). This species is a common summer resident of the eastern plains and great basin-foothills grasslands, basin-prairie shrublands, and agricultural areas throughout most of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Specifically, this species requires open habitats such as sparsely vegetated, low structured grasslands, and heavily grazed pastures containing a moderate bare ground component for nesting and foraging. Nest sites are typically a natural or shallow scraped depression on the ground placed in the open or beside vegetation such as bunch grasses, cacti, or shrubs. McCown’s longspurs feed on seeds of grasses and forbs, insects, and other arthropods. No strong data suggests breeding site fidelity although some individuals may return to the general nesting area in subsequent years. Individuals vary in response to human intrusion at nest sites, but appear to be relatively more tolerant than most grassland songbird species. High rates of predation on eggs and nestlings occur especially where nests are associated with vegetative structure. Nestlings may also be directly poisoned where insecticides are sprayed in nest areas (With 1994). Populations are declining, especially within the northern portion of the range. Factors directly affecting the McCown’s longspur include the reduction of breeding habitat due to overgrazing, control of prairie fires, plowing, development, and excessive use of pesticides. Conversion of short-grass prairie to agriculture and urban development is the most important factor (With 1994). Existing Conditions McCown’s longspurs are also common summer residents within the TBNG. Observations of the McCown’s longspur mirror those of the chestnut-collared Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-57

Appendix H longspur; neither species has been documented in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. The nearest observation to this area occurred on non-federal lands in NE¼SW¼ Section 13, T.43N., R.71W. in May 2000. The height and composition of vegetation (i.e., sagebrush) on most USFS lands in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area is generally too tall and dense, respectively, to provide suitable habitat for McCown’s longspurs. Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects to McCown’s longspurs would be the same as those described above for the chestnut-collared longspur. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. USFS lands in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area are dominated by sagebrush communities that are not as attractive to grassland species such as the longspur. No individuals have been documented in the North Hilight Field general analysis area. Potential and documented alternative habitats for McCown’s longspurs are present nearby in more appropriate habitats not currently scheduled for mining disturbance. H-3.3.26 Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) The Greater sage-grouse occurs year-round throughout non-forested regions of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Sage-grouse rely on a variety of habitats within sagebrush dominated landscapes to reproduce and survive throughout the year. Early in the spring, grouse gather at breeding display sites called leks. Leks are usually in open areas (playas, ridge tops, sparse sagebrush, or burned areas) that are surrounded by dense sagebrush and escape cover. The surrounding area also typically represents nesting, loafing, and foraging habitat. After being bred, hens typically scratch out a nest under sagebrush (Connelly et al. 1991) within three kilometers of the lek (Schroeder et al. 1999). Nests in some portions of sage-grouse range are typically placed under sagebrush with average height of 36-79 centimeters (Schroeder et al. 1999). However, research conducted within the Southern PRB (Brown and Clayton 2004) indicated that, although shorter sagebrush was present at nest sites, grouse selected shrubs ranging from 55-61 centimeters in height under which to place nests. Renesting may occur if the nest is destroyed early during the laying or incubation period. Nest success is enhanced where both sagebrush and residual grass cover are taller and denser (Gregg et al. 1994). Sage-grouse exhibit high fidelity to seasonal ranges, and may return to the same area to nest in subsequent years. For the first month after hatching, the young depend on relatively open sagebrush stands with an abundance of forbs and insects, especially ants and beetles (Drut et al. 1994, Schroeder et al. 1999). Late-season brood rearing habitats, such as wet meadows and bottomlands, are more mesic and support H-58 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H greater forb cover (Drut et al. 1994). Sage-grouse use a variety of habitats during fall, and the incidence of sagebrush in their diet increases as forbs become less available. During winter, grouse feed upon sagebrush leaves almost exclusively. Winter range is characterized by large expanses of dense, exposed sagebrush. Where snow accumulations are significant, gentle southand west-facing slopes or windblown ridges are preferred. Breeding populations of this species have declined by at least 17 to 47 percent throughout much of its range (Connelly et al. 2004). Within Wyoming, sagegrouse populations have generally declined over the past 4 decades. However, sage-grouse population estimates specifically pertaining to the TBNG suggest an overall increase in individuals since 1995. This same general trend was observed both statewide and within the Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Local Working Group (NWSGWG) area. The NWSGWG identified habitat fragmentation and degradation, disturbance and direct mortality as major influences affecting sage-grouse (NWSGWG 2006). The group identified oil and gas development, vegetation management, invasive plants, and weather as those factors with the most influence on the northeast Wyoming sage-grouse populations and those that may most effectively be addressed to provide the greatest benefit for sage-grouse conservation in northeast Wyoming (NWSGWG 2006). Existing Conditions As described above, USFS lands on and adjacent to the general analysis areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts are dominated by a sagebrush-grassland community, primarily big sagebrush, with shrub cover ranging from 55 to 60 percent. Those areas provide potential year-round habitat for sage-grouse, though habitat quality varies. Sagebrush stands range from sparse to moderately dense throughout the areas, with only a marginal grassy understory in many areas. Despite the prevalence of sagebrush in the combined wildlife survey areas for the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, sage-grouse numbers were never especially high in the area. Five sage-grouse leks are located on and within 2 miles of the North, South, and West Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas: Stuart I, Stuart II, Black Thunder, Butch, and Hansen Lakes (Figures H-1, H-2 and H-3). No sage-grouse leks are present on USFS lands in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Two leks are present on non-federal surface in the tract’s general analysis area: Butch and Hansen Lakes. The Hansen Lakes lek is immediately south of USFS surface in that area (Figure H-1). The Hansen Lakes lek is classified as “occupied” by the WGFD (active in at least 1 of the last 10 years). The Butch lek was first recorded in 1990. The peak male count (15) occurred in 1991, after which numbers declined dramatically. No grouse were recorded at the Butch lek during annual checks conducted over Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-59

Appendix H the last 14 years (1994 through 2007). The Butch lek is classified as “unoccupied/abandoned” by the WGFD (no activity for 10 consecutive years). The Butch lek was discovered in 1990, and was active every year through 1993. The Hansen Lakes lek was discovered in 1993, coincidently at the same time peak male counts were dramatically declining at the Butch lek; the leks are approximately 1.5 miles apart. Peak male counts at the Hansen Lakes lek ranged from 14 to 24 birds from 1993 through 2000, but dropped markedly to only 3 birds in 2001. Grouse were present at the lek for the next 2 years, but no birds were observed there after 2003. No other grouse leks are present within 3 miles of the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. The next nearest lek is the Stuart II lek, approximately 4.1 miles southwest of the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-1). No sage-grouse leks are present on USFS lands in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract or within that tract’s 2-mile wildlife survey area (Figure H-2). Likewise, no lek sites have been documented on non-federal surface in South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. The former Black Thunder lek was located on non-federal surface approximately 1 mile east of the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. The Black Thunder lek was first documented in 1984, when a peak male count of 21 was recorded. Grouse numbers gradually declined over the next several years of annual monitoring, with only one bird observed at the lek in 1993. No grouse were recorded at the Black Thunder lek during annual checks conducted over the subsequent 12 years (1994 through 2005), prior to any mine-related disturbance occurring within several miles. Due to the consistently low counts, WGFD authorized the mine to reduce searches for grouse leks in the permit area and 1-mile perimeter to every third year beginning in 2004 (i.e., 2004, 2007, etc.). That lek was classified as “unoccupied/abandoned” after 10 consecutive years of inactivity, and it was then impacted by topsoil stripping in 2007 and is now officially classified as “unoccupied/destroyed” by WGFD. The Stuart II lek is located on USFS lands approximately 3 miles northwest of the tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-2). The Stuart II lek lies within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract (Figure H-3), and is the only lek on USFS lands in the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Two leks are present on non-federal surface in the vicinity of the West Hilight Field area. The Stuart I lek is approximately 1.25 miles west of the tract’s general analysis area, and the next nearest lek is the former Black Thunder site, approximately 2.25 miles east of the tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-3). The Stuart I lek was first recorded in 1977. The peak male count (29) occurred in 1979, with reduced numbers in the subsequent 2 years. The lek was monitored by the WGFD at approximately 3-year intervals from 1982 through 2003; annual monitoring was conducted by private consultants for unrelated projects each year from 2004 through 2007. Grouse were observed at the lek during only 1 of the 11 survey years from 1982 through 2007. The last H-60 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H sighting occurred in 1991, when two males were recorded at the Stuart I lek. The Stuart II lek was discovered in 1979. Few grouse were seen at the lek over the next 28 years, with a maximum of seven males observed in any survey year. The Stuart II lek was also surveyed primarily at 3-year intervals since its discovery, with annual checks conducted from 2005 through 2007. Because the two Stuart leks were not monitored annually, their management status is “undetermined”, despite consistently low counts when surveys did occur. Grouse counts at these five leks in the combined wildlife survey areas for the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts were consistently low since their respective discoveries, with few birds observed at any location in the last 7 to 20 years, depending on the lek site. Additionally, records from the WGFD (obtained from D. Thiele, Regional Biologist, WGFD, Buffalo, Wyoming), and USFS have not documented any new sage-grouse leks within the approximately 131 square mile area that encompasses the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Telemetry data collected on radio-collared grouse at the nearby North Antelope Rochelle Mine throughout the last 7 years (2001-2007) shows no sage-grouse locations within several miles of the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts during that period (Brown and Clayton 2004, North Antelope Rochelle Mine Annual Wildlife Report 2006, 2007). It is important to note that the reduction in grouse attendance at these five leks, and most others in the PRB, preceded physical mining disturbance and, thus, cannot be directly attributable to mine-related activities (Orpet 2007, McKee 2007). Annual counts for each lek are available in annual monitoring and baseline wildlife reports on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne. Annual surveys for sage-grouse broods were conducted in native and reclaimed stream channels at and around the Black Thunder Mine from 1994 through 1999; such surveys were no longer required by WGFD and WDEQ/LQD after that year due to the consistent lack of grouse broods at coal mines throughout the PRB. No new leks or broods were seen during recent baseline inventories conducted for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. All grouse broods that have been recorded over the years occurred as incidental sightings during other wildlife surveys. Areas of suitable habitat for nesting and strutting grounds are widely known as necessary to sustain sage-grouse populations. One recent study suggests that availability of winter habitat may also affect sage-grouse populations (Naugle et al. 2006). Nesting and winter surveys for sage-grouse are not required as part of the annual wildlife programs for the Black Thunder Mine or other applicant mines discussed in this EIS, though winter surveys have been conducted as part of baseline inventories for previous mine expansions. Additionally, periodic winter surveys for other species (i.e., big game, bald eagle roosts) have occurred at all three applicant mines in recent years. Due to their proximity to existing mine permit areas, most USFS lands in the North and South Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas, and those in the eastern half of the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, have been included in a minimum of Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-61

Appendix H seven consecutive years (big game surveys 1993-1999) of some level of winter surveys, with additional surveys conducted in some subsequent years. No sage-grouse were ever documented in or near those LBA tracts during those winter surveys. Direct and Indirect Effects Three of the five sage-grouse leks located in the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts occur in an area likely to be disturbed by future mining, if the three proposed leasing actions are approved. One lek (Stuart II in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area) is on USFS lands and the other two (Hansen Lakes and Butch) are on non-federal surface in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Due to the consistently low number of sage-grouse documented in these LBA tracts’ wildlife survey areas over the last 3 decades, despite the presence of apparently suitable habitat, leasing and mining USFS lands and adjacent lands within the general analysis areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts would have limited effects on individual birds. Some potential impacts of mineral development (including coal mining and oil and gas development) on sage-grouse that might inhabit the area, as well as on known and potential sage-grouse habitat include: alteration of plant and animal communities; loss or degradation of important seasonal habitats; increased human activity and noise which could cause animals to avoid the area and/or reduce their breeding efficiency; increased road traffic and related injuries or mortalities; increased risk of predation from raptors perched on existing or future power poles and/or grouse avoidance of areas with overhead power lines; potential illegal harvest; and reduced water tables resulting in the loss of herbaceous vegetation. Following reclamation, there may be a long term loss of nesting and winter habitat, depending on the amount of sagebrush that is restored relative to the amount of sagebrush that is present before mining. Sagebrush is a component of both the Sagebrush/Grassland and Big Sagebrush vegetation communities, which occupy approximately 55 to 60 percent of the combined vegetation analysis areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. WDEQ/LQD reclamation standards call for restoration of sagebrush on at least 20 percent of the reclaimed area. Estimates for the time it would take to restore shrubs, including sagebrush, to pre-mining density levels range from 20 to 100 years. Until sagebrush returns to its pre-mining density levels, a reduction in potential sage-grouse nesting habitat and winter habitat on the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts would persist. Due to the documented long-term lack of sage-grouse use on USFS lands and adjacent lands in the North, South, and West Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas and surrounding wildlife survey areas, USFS Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002, page 1-18; Appendix D) would have limited applications toward controlling the type, timing, and location of disturbance activities within the three Hilight Field LBA Tract areas. The use of existing roads, when possible, could minimize additional impacts related to traffic hazards and the use of new travel corridors by mammalian predators. Raptor H-62 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H predation does not seem to be a primary source of mortality for the local sagegrouse population (Brown and Clayton 2004). Nevertheless, new overhead power lines could be fitted with perch deterrents to limit opportunities for avian predators to target any grouse that might be in the area. The use of underground power lines to the extent possible would also reduce this risk, and would minimize new vertical structures that could affect grouse use or movements in the area. If precautions are taken to avoid direct mortalities and disturbances to nests and leks during the breeding season, grouse might have the opportunity to disperse away from mine activities. Mine operations and oil and gas development have requirements for reclamation of disturbed areas as recovery of energy resources is completed. Those reclamation efforts can work in concert with Standards and Guidelines toward mitigating impacts to wildlife species and habitats, though reclamation standards are widely variable among industries. New areas disturbed by mining in the general analysis areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts will be reclaimed incrementally, but they may not be attractive to sage-grouse for many years due to slow establishment and growth rates of important sagebrush species. Information gleaned from the multi-year telemetry study at a neighboring coal mine could also be helpful in reclamation efforts for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. In the meantime, the presence of known and apparently suitable sage-grouse habitat elsewhere within the immediate area could provide alternate areas for dispersing grouse to use until reclaimed sagebrush stands have matured adequately to support a local population. In keeping with the Direction Objectives for the Hilight Bill Geographic Area (USFS 2002, page 1-25), impacts to sage-grouse habitat in the general analysis areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts could be further mitigated off-site by efforts to preserve and enhance habitat on adjoining and nearby private lands, such as those currently under way through the Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association. Management planning and processes that are developed through this combined effort among landowners and federal representatives will presumably provide suitable habitat for sagegrouse that disperse from the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts general analysis areas during the interim between habitat disturbance and completed reclamation. Should sage-grouse move onto USFS lands analyzed in this EIS in the future, agency Standards and Guidelines would offer appropriate protections for the species and its important habitats. However, under the current conditions, and the documented absence or consistently low presence of this species in the area, mining USFS lands within the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts would not adversely impact sage-grouse populations in the region, nor would it conflict with the current TBNG Plan or any future objectives to manage the area for this species.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-63

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. The sage-grouse is a common year-round resident throughout much of the PRB and TBNG, but has declined on and within 2 miles of the general analysis areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts over the last 30 years. Three decades of regular monitoring have documented that sage-grouse have not consistently inhabited the USFS lands analyzed for the North or South Hilight Field LBA Tracts, nor have they been confirmed as occupying USFS lands analyzed for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract since 1991. Currently, the nearest lek (Payne lek) with regular activity is more than 5.0 miles to the southeast of the USFS lands in the South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Consequently, if the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts are leased, anticipated mining-related disturbances would not affect any identified and actively used seasonal sage-grouse habitats on or near USFS lands in the combined general analysis areas for these three tracts. Annual monitoring will continue for the life of the Black Thunder Mine, and would include new permit expansions and a one-mile perimeter. Should sagegrouse be observed on USFS lands in any of the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ wildlife survey areas, appropriate monitoring and mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize impacts to birds, habitats, and populations. H-3.3.27 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Bald eagles occur throughout North America, from Alaska and Canada south to Florida, the Gulf Coast, and northern Mexico. The northwest coast of North America serves as the stronghold for this species, with approximately one-half of the population inhabiting Alaska. The USFWS officially listed the bald eagle as an endangered species in 43 of the lower 48 states on July 4, 1976. The listing was due to a combination of several factors, including widespread habitat loss, negative effects of pesticide use on reproductive success, indiscriminant shooting, and others. The status of the bald eagle was downgraded to threatened throughout the lower 48 states in 1995. Bald eagle population trends began increasing throughout most of the species’ range in the early 1990’s, and it was proposed for de-listing in 1999. On July 9, 2007, USFWS published a Federal Register notice (72 FR 37346) announcing that the bald eagle would be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.) on August 8, 2007. However, the protections provided to the bald eagle under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 U.S.C. 668, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703, will remain in place. The bald eagle is now recognized as a BLM and USFS Sensitive Species. Bald eagles typically nest in large trees within a stand of mature, similarly sized trees either beside or in proximity (within 0.7 mile) to rivers, lakes, or H-64 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H reservoirs that harbor adequate fish populations. Those areas tend to be remote and experience little disturbance (Johnsgard 1990). Typically, the nest is placed in the crown of a large cottonwood or pine, but if the topography allows, eagles will nest on cliff edges or escarpments. Open-canopied trees and snags provide required perches in nesting and foraging areas. All verified bald eagle nests in northeastern Wyoming (BLM Buffalo Field Office GIS database) are situated in significant, mature cottonwood stands along larger streams or rivers (i.e., Tongue River, Powder River, Clear Creek, and Little Thunder Creek). Nesting attempts are rare on the TBNG (Beske 1994). Fish and waterfowl are the primary source of food for nesting bald eagles. Where available, large to mid-size carrion and large rodents (e.g., prairie dogs) can also be an important dietary component. Bald eagles nest and winter throughout Wyoming, though typically are not locally abundant in the northeastern portion of the state. The species regularly migrates through and winters in Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004), and has often been documented during winter and early spring at nearby coal mines (various coal mine annual reports are on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne). Most eagles that migrate through or winter in Campbell County roost communally in stands of large ponderosa pine, along wooded cottonwood-riparian corridors, or in isolated stands of large trees. As water is scarce in that region, especially during winter, those birds likely forage widely for lagomorphs or carrion. Existing Conditions The bald eagle is seasonally common and most frequently observed during the winter months. Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants in the PRB, but only rarely nest in that region. Potential bald eagle nesting and winter roosting habitat, being primarily scattered stands of mature cottonwood trees, are present on USFS and adjacent lands along Little Thunder Creek, which flows through the general analysis areas for the South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts; no streams flow through the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. In general, the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts do not contain unique or sizeable concentrated prey sources (e.g., fisheries, waterfowl wintering areas) that would be expected to attract bald eagles. As described in the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ black-tailed prairie dog analyses that are included within this appendix and in Section 3.10 of this EIS, two prairie dog colonies encompassing a total of approximately 89.2 acres were present on USFS lands within the three Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas in 2007. A total of four prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 112.1 acres were present in the three combined general analysis areas, and a total of 12 prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 248.9 acres were present in the combined wildlife study areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts in 2007 (Figures H-1, H-2 and H-3). Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-65

Appendix H Sheep and their lambs are present in this area in the spring, when bald eagles have typically left the region, and flocks are pastured there infrequently in the winter. The area does not support a large big game herd, though some groups do winter in the area. Ground surveys for bald eagle winter roost sites were most recently conducted within the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field tracts during baseline surveys beginning in 2006. Previous winter roost surveys also encompassed all or most potential habitat within that overall survey area. All winter roost surveys were conducted between ½ hour before and 1 hour after sunrise or between 1 hour before and ½ hour after sunset, per current BLM guidelines for survey timing and frequency. Biologists also watched for nesting bald eagles within the survey area while conducting surveys for other nesting raptors. No bald eagle nests or winter roosts have been documented within 1 mile of USFS lands located within the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during any baseline or annual monitoring studies since they began in the late 1970s and early 1980s, respectively. Similarly, no bald eagle nests or winter roosts have been documented within 1 mile of USFS lands located within the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during any baseline or annual monitoring studies since they began during those same timeframes. The BLM and USFS wildlife databases indicate that the nearest potential bald eagle nest was identified in 2003 in T.43N., R.71W., NE¼NW¼ Section 29, which is in the southwestern corner of the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-3). Although the nest has been labeled as a bald eagle site for that year, the circumstances of the sighting were less than definitive. The lone observation of the nest was made from approximately 1 mile away late in the nesting season, when young golden eagles are fully feathered except for their heads. It is possible that an inexperienced observer could have mistaken a young golden eagle for an adult bald eagle under those circumstances. Additionally, golden eagles were confirmed nesters at the same site location in both 2002 and 2004. Nevertheless, the site could be treated as a potential bald eagle nest for management purposes. Direct and Indirect Effects As no winter roost sites or large groups of bald eagles have been documented in the general analysis area for any of the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts, potential impacts would be limited to occasional foraging individuals rather than a large segment of the population. The increased human presence and noise associated with construction activities, if conducted while eagles are wintering within the area, could harass or displace individual eagles during that period. Nesting eagles could also be distressed to the point of abandoning eggs or young, or their hunting efforts and success impacted. If necessary, the majority of direct effects could be mitigated by controlling the timing and

H-66

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H location of disturbance activities, and/or through approved nest relocation efforts. Indirect effects include additional disturbance and fragmentation of already limited foraging habitat within the geographic area. These impacts could result from a variety of large- and small-scale activities described previously for other species, including, but not limited to: topsoil stripping; overburden and coal removal; reclamation activities; and construction of roads, reservoirs, power lines (above ground and buried), fences, and pipelines. The locations of operations would shift throughout the expanded permit area as mining occurred, with habitats disturbed and reclaimed incrementally. Conversely, the addition of fences and raptor-safe power poles could possibly benefit foraging bald eagles by providing additional perch sites. Due to the limited presence of potential nesting or roosting sites, and lack of concentrated sources of prey, the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 to bald eagles are expected to be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. No bald eagle nests have been documented on or within 1 mile of the North or South Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ general analysis areas, and only one dubious nesting event was recorded in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract’s general analysis area over time. Bald eagle winter roost sites are absent from all three Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ wildlife survey areas, and little potential nesting or roosting habitat is present. Therefore, potential hazards for this species would be limited to foraging individuals during winter. Disturbance, fragmentation, and alteration of potential foraging habitat would occur. However, the Black Thunder Mine has avoided, where possible, and mitigated raptor impacts in the past through intensive raptor monitoring, implementation of USFWS approved mitigation measures, and adjusting operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests. H-3.3.28 Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) The mountain plover breeds from southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan through central Montana, south to south-central Wyoming, east-central Colorado and northeastern New Mexico, and east to northern Texas and western Kansas. In Wyoming, this species is a common summer resident (Cerovski et al. 2004). Mountain plovers require flat grasslands with short and sparse vegetation, and a large bare ground component (Knopf 1996) for nesting, foraging, or staging. Within the PRB, heavily grazed prairie dog colonies generally provide the most suitable mountain plover habitat. Mountain plovers are monogamous and possibly polyandrous ground nesters, and typically produce at least two clutches. The nest is a shallow depression occasionally thinly lined with grass. Plovers may utilize the same nesting area in subsequent years (Dechant et al. 2003d). Adults and fledged chicks leave the breeding grounds by early August, and may stage within appropriate Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-67

Appendix H habitats before migrating. Plovers feed primarily upon insects. Beetles, grasshoppers, crickets, and ants are the most important prey items (Knopf 1996). This species is highly approachable and does not flee far. Mountain plover populations have historically declined and recent data suggests that this species is continuing to decline in numbers. Causes of population declines have been primarily attributed to regional changes in agricultural practices (Knopf 1996). Existing Conditions Mountain plovers are summer residents within portions of the TBNG. Most observations of mountain plovers in northeast Wyoming have been associated with prairie dog colonies. Approximately 86 percent of recently (since 1993) occupied mountain plover habitat in that region occurred within prairie dog colonies (Byer 2001). As described in the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ black-tailed prairie dog analyses that are included within this appendix and in Section 3.10 of this EIS, two prairie dog colonies encompassing a total of approximately 89.2 acres were present on USFS lands within the three Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas in 2007. A total of four prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 112.1 acres were present in the three combined general analysis areas, and a total of 12 prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 248.9 acres were present in the combined wildlife study areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts in 2007 (Figures H-1, H-2 and H-3). As previously described for other short-grass species, the dominance of sagebrush in the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tract’s general analysis and wildlife survey areas provides only poor to marginal or unsuitable habitat for mountain plovers. The height and composition of vegetation on most USFS lands in the three Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas is generally too tall and dense to provide suitable habitat for mountain plovers. The lack of occurrence of this species at the Black Thunder Mine and surrounding area, including all USFS lands in the analysis areas, is well documented. The nearest known population of nesting mountain plovers occurs at the Antelope Mine, approximately 9 miles south of the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, and even farther from the other two Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects to mountain plovers in all three general analysis areas for the Hilight Field LBA Tracts would be the same as those described above for the McCown’s longspur. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. USFS lands in the North, South, and West Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas are dominated by sagebrush communities that are not attractive to short-grass species such as the mountain plover. No individuals H-68 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H of this species have been documented in any of the three Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas, though limited potential habitat is present there. Documented alternative habitats for mountain plovers are present in portions of the general area that are more appropriate for this species and are not currently scheduled for mining disturbance. H-3.3.29 Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Loggerhead shrikes breed from Washington, northern Alberta, central Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba, south to California and Florida, and east to southwestern Minnesota, southern Wisconsin, southern Michigan, and Maryland. This species is a common summer resident throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Shrikes prefer relatively open, heterogeneous habitats characterized by grasses and forbs of low stature interspersed with bare ground and shrubs or low trees with perches for hunting. This species will use a wide variety of trees and shrubs, particularly thick or thorny species, as nesting substrates and hunting perches (Prescott and Bjorge 1999). Although some shrike nests are used in subsequent years, fidelity to a nest site is limited. This species forages over relatively open habitats, feeding primarily upon arthropods, amphibians, small to medium-sized reptiles, small mammals, and birds (Yosef 1996). Shrikes may also feed upon road kill and carrion. This species is generally tolerant of human activity near a nest, although they will abandon if disturbed during egg-laying or early in incubation. The loggerhead shrike is declining in both number and overall range. Declines have been attributed to habitat loss and conversion, urbanization, pesticide contamination, and loss of insect prey as a result of pesticide use (Yosef 1996). Existing Conditions Loggerhead shrikes are common summer residents within the TBNG, though they are not often observed on or adjacent to USFS lands within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. Shrikes have occasionally been seen in the 1-mile perimeter wildlife survey area for the adjacent Black Thunder Mine. No actual shrike nests or recently fledged young have been documented on or near USFS lands in the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, but this species could potentially nest in the general vicinity. Over time, most sightings have occurred in cottonwood-riparian corridors along primary streams in the general Wright analysis area, or in taller greasewood stands. Neither habitat type is common in the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. Shrikes have also been infrequently recorded perched on various fences or on overhead power lines at other nearby mines. Shrike foraging habitat is present throughout the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, including USFS lands. As indicated, existing utility and fence lines currently provide good quality hunting perches. Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives could result in direct and indirect impacts to loggerhead shrikes, though such impacts would likely be uncommon. No known nest sites have been documented on or adjacent to Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-69

Appendix H USFS lands in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area or elsewhere in the wildlife monitoring area for the adjacent Black Thunder Mine. The most probable direct impact would be the mortality of, or injury to, individuals foraging within or passing through the USFS lands due to collisions with future mine-related vehicles, or dispersal of foraging individuals due to active mining. The relatively slow movement of mining equipment and the noise associated with the activity would decrease direct impacts associated with vehicle collisions. As loggerhead shrikes are not especially common in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, indirect impacts would be limited despite the fragmentation, degradation, or loss of habitat in the short and mid term. Any birds that would be displaced would be forced to travel to other locations with acceptable habitat. This could result in stress to individual birds, as well as potential decreased nesting effort and success. Prey numbers reduced by mining would be expected to rebound following reclamation due to generally high reproductive potential and prey tendencies to re-establish and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas. The locations of mine-related habitat disturbances and reclamation efforts would proceed incrementally throughout the expanded mining area as operations progressed. Additionally, this mining activity would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives to manage the TBNG for this species. USFS Standards and Guidelines would offer additional protections for any active nest sites that may be present in the area. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Such impacts would be minimized by the lack of regular sightings and known nesting attempts, as well as the relative paucity of suitable nesting habitat on or adjacent to the USFS lands analyzed in this EIS and their surrounding region. Degradation, fragmentation, or loss of potential foraging habitat, reduction in prey populations, and potential collisions with vehicles may occur. Given the lack of birds recorded in the area, and the composition of the shrike’s prey base (insects, small mammals, etc.), impacts to shrikes would be minimal. USFS Standards and Guidelines would apply for active nests during the breeding season. Additionally, mining the USFS lands would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives to manage the TBNG for loggerhead shrikes. H-3.3.30 Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) The breeding range of the Brewer’s sparrow extends from southwestern Yukon, southern Alberta, and southwestern Saskatchewan, south (east of the Cascades and Sierras) to southern California, central Arizona, and northern New Mexico (Rotenberry et al. 1999). The Brewer’s sparrow is a common summer resident of the basinprairie and mountain-foothills throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate species (Rotenberry et al. 1999).

H-70

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H This species is an uncommon cowbird (Molothrus ater) host and typically builds a small cup nest low in sagebrush shrubs. Brewer’s sparrows prefer to nest in medium-sized (48-90 centimeters, or 19-35 inches) live sagebrush within relatively dense (26-42 percent canopy cover) stands (Walker 2004). Grass height and density are important factors for nest concealment. Although tolerant of human visitation, this species may abandon a nest if disturbed during the construction process. Brewer’s sparrows feed primarily on small insects and, to a lesser extent, seeds from grasses and forbs. Throughout areas where they have been surveyed, the species appears to have undergone and continues to undergo statistically significant declines (Rotenberry et al. 1999). Major threats to Brewer's sparrow populations are similar to those faced by other declining sagebrush-obligate species and include habitat conversion and fragmentation, invasion by non native plants, altered fire regimes, livestock overgrazing, conifer encroachment, energy development, and conversion to urban or residential housing (Walker 2004). Existing Conditions Brewer’s sparrows are common summer residents within the TBNG and southern Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004). Breeding bird survey data from annual monitoring and baseline studies conducted for the Black Thunder Mine, and incidental observations over time, have shown that the Brewer’s sparrow is a common but limited breeder in the area. This species has been recorded in sagebrush habitats near the mine during many of the last 14 years (1994-2007). Although no nests have been encountered in the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, the presence and behavior (singing) of birds throughout spring and summer suggest that Brewer’s sparrows nest in the sagebrush stands common to that area. Direct and Indirect Effects As described for the ferruginous hawk, above, habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush communities in the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract would result from a variety of large- and smallscale mining operations such as topsoil stripping, drilling, and reservoir construction, among others. Potential nesting and foraging habitat would also be fragmented by linear disturbances such as the construction, maintenance, and removal of roads, fences, power lines, and pipelines. Those disturbances could also create new travel corridors for mammalian predators that reside in or pass through the area. However, many such disturbances would occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, typically over a period of days. Additionally, those structures are often constructed immediately prior to the removal of similar features elsewhere in the area, often resulting in minimal or no net gain of new linear disturbances. All mine-related habitat disturbances and reclamation efforts would shift throughout the expanded permit area as operations progress.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-71

Appendix H The use of existing roads, when possible, could minimize impacts related to traffic hazards and predator travel corridors. Increased activity and noise, especially during the nest initiation period, could inhibit nesting proximate to mining activities. Foraging could also be hindered within these areas, especially where active mining occurs. Additional infrastructure and activity associated with the expansion of the mine, in combination with other ongoing disturbances (e.g., CBNG operations), could displace Brewer’s sparrows from any historical use areas that might occur in the area. Those birds could potentially move into other sagebrush stands in the general vicinity, assuming they are not already occupied. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed in a given portion of the mine and will eventually mitigate impacts to sagebrush habitats to some degree, though such efforts could take decades to benefit sagebrush obligates such as the Brewer’s sparrow. Impacts to sagebrush habitat on USFS lands could be further mitigated off-site by efforts to preserve and enhance such habitat on adjacent and nearby private lands, as described above. Standards and Guidelines for sagebrush habitats outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, pages 1-18; Appendix D) would be implemented as necessary, and could serve to sustain regional populations of this sparrow. Those management guidelines would apply only to activities beyond the North Hilight Field LBA Tract. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Some habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would occur on and near USFS lands in the general analysis area for the North Hilight Field LBA Tract, along with potential impacts to individuals. However, the presence of large stands of sagebrush elsewhere in the general vicinity suggests that Brewer’s sparrows would remain viable within the TBNG for at least the shortterm. Additionally, the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan (USFS 2002) or future objectives to manage the area for this species. Application of appropriate USFS Standards and Guidelines, successful reclamation efforts, and proper land management on adjoining lands could mitigate potential impacts, to some degree. H-3.4 South Hilight Field LBA Tract

H-3.4.1 Prairie moonwort (Botrychium campestre) The prairie moonwort, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species was only recorded in Wyoming in a semi-shady mixed deciduous and ponderosa pine forest on sandy soils in the Black Hills. Prairie moonworts are known to exist in a variety of other habitats such as those underlain by Pierre shale, the Laramie Formation, calcareous sedimentary rocks, calcareous soils underlain by limestone, sandy soils and loess prairie. H-72 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H These habitats are generally limited on the South Hilight Field general analysis area, with only some areas dominated by sandy soils present. Existing Conditions Prime habitats for the prairie moonwort are not present on the USFS lands within the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract. Sites with sandy soils are present on USFS lands and other portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas are rather sparsely vegetated and do not provide habitat preferred by this plant species. Prairie moonworts have not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential for loss of individuals or preferred habitats is very low. H-3.4.2 Narrowleaf moonwort (Botrychium lineare) The narrowleaf moonwort, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species has an affinity for riparian areas and is associated with spruce/fir forests, lodgepole pine forests, and forest meadows. Existing Conditions Habitats for the narrowleaf moonwort are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian habitats or forest habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The narrowleaf moonwort has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-73

Appendix H planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is very low. H-3.4.3 Leathery grapefern (Botrychium multifidum var. coulteri) The leathery grapefern, a plant species of local concern, has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for meadows, wetlands, floodplains and other wet areas in open to forested habitats within forests. Existing Conditions Habitats for the leathery grapefern are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian habitats or forest habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on other portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The leathery grapefern has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the leathery grapefern. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.4.4 Foxtail sedge (Carex alopecoidea) The foxtail sedge, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial plant species and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. The foxtail sedge generally has an affinity for wet meadows and willow-sedge communities along wet, shady creek bottoms and springs. Existing Conditions Habitats for the foxtail sedge are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wet meadows or willow-sedge communities are not present on these USFS lands. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on other portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The foxtail sedge has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. H-74 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the foxtail sedge. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential for loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.4.5 Elliptic spikerush (Eleocharis elliptica) The elliptic spikerush, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for wetland areas created by seeps or springs but may also be found in temporarily flooded areas. Existing Conditions Habitats for the elliptic spikerush are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wetland habitats are not present on these USFS lands. Few wetland sites associated with various ephemeral drainages and playas are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The elliptic spikerush has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to lack of abundant suitable habitat the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field does not provide abundant habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is low. H-3.4.6 Hall’s fescue (Festuca hallii) The Hall’s fescue, a sensitive plant species, is a tufted perennial grass and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for montane meadows, slopes and edges of open coniferous woods and meadows above 6,000 feet in Wyoming. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-75

Appendix H Existing Conditions Habitats for the Hall’s fescue are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable montane habitats above 6,000 feet are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the Hall’s fescue has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the Hall’s fescue. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.4.7 Wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum) The wood lily, a plant species of local concern, is a perennial herb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for woodland meadows and woodland grasslands. Existing Conditions Habitats for the wood lily are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable woodland meadow or grassland habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the wood lily has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the wood lily. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.4.8 Largeflower triteleia (Triteleia grandiflora) The largeflower triteleia, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial herb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity H-76 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H for grassy areas in sagebrush at the edge of aspen and lodgepole pine forests and in pinon-juniper woodlands to pine forests and hills. Existing Conditions Habitats for the largeflower triteleia are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable grassy areas in sagebrush at the edge of aspen and lodgepole pine forests and pinon-juniper woodlands or pine forests and hills are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the largeflower triteleia has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the largeflower triteleia. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.4.9 Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii) The Barr’s milkvetch, a sensitive plant species, is a matt-forming perennial forb that is known from numerous occurrences on the USFS lands within the TBNG. As more surveys are completed, new occurrences are reported. The Barr’s milkvetch is found primarily on dry, sparsely-vegetated rocky prairie breaks, knolls, hillsides and ridges. Parent material is calcareous soft shale, siltstone or silty sandstone. Most populations appear to be stable, although populations may decline under drought conditions. Existing Conditions Astragalus barrii is a regional endemic plant of the plains in southwestern South Dakota, eastern Wyoming, southeastern Montana, and northwestern Nebraska. According to USFS, this plant species is known to occur in six counties in Wyoming, and there are eleven known occurrences of A. barrii in the USFS TBNG. Suitable habitat for the Barr’s milkvetch is present on the USFS lands within the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract as well as other lands within the general Wright analysis area. Populations and individuals have not been documented in the general Wright analysis area, but have been identified in surrounding areas. A pedestrian survey of the tract’s general analysis area was conducted in April 2008, when the Barr’s milkvetch is in bloom, and no individuals of this species were found. Barr’s milkvetch has been collected and positively identified approximately 15 miles south of the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, in the Section 21 of Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-77

Appendix H T.40N., R.71W., based on specimens on file with the Rocky Mountain Herbarium in Laramie, Wyoming. Indirect and Direct Impacts If lands within the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract are leased and mined, potential habitat, individuals, and A. barrii populations could be lost due to surface disturbances caused by mining activities. These losses would most likely be permanent unless disturbed lands are reclaimed to habitats that would support this plant species. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing because there are Astragalus barrii occurrences outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.4.10 Smooth goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum) The smooth goosefoot, a plant species of local concern, is an annual forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for sand bars and sandy blowouts in riparian areas. Existing Conditions Habitats for the smooth goosefoot are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian areas are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few riparian areas associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas do not contain the required sand bar or sandy blowout habitats required for this plant species. The smooth goosefoot has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the smooth goosefoot. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.4.11 Flat-top goldentop (Euthamia graminifolia) The flat-top goldentop, a plant species of local concern, is a rhizomatous perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring H-78 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for stony sandbars and streambanks but may also be found on moist or drying sites along open streambanks or roadside ditches. Existing Conditions Habitats for the flat-top goldentop are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wetland or streambank areas are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Streambanks and a few wetland areas in association with various ephemeral drainages are present within portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas generally do not contain the typical habitats required for this plant species, but marginal habitats are present. The flat-top goldentop has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis areas or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is low. H-3.4.12 Rosy palafox (Palafoxia rosea var. macrolepis) The rosy palafox, a plant species of local concern, is an annual forb that has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area but has been recorded on other lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie habitats on sandy soils. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by the rosy palafox are present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area and on other surrounding lands. Sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie plant communities are present on sandy soils in the general Wright analysis area. However, rosy palafox has not been recorded on these lands but is potentially present. This plant species has been documented southeast of the general Wright analysis area. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract, and the fact that this Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-79

Appendix H plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does contain some suitable habitat for this plant species but the rosy palafox has not been documented. This species has been documented southeast of the general Wright analysis area and abundant habitat is present on other sites that would not be affected H-3.4.13 Lemonscent (Pectis angustifolia) The lemonscent, a plant species of local concern, is an annual forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area but has been recorded on other lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for gravel hills and scoria slopes. Lemonscent is also known to occur in low areas in sandy ravines and on sandbars. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by lemonscent are present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area and on other surrounding lands. However, lemonscent has not been recorded in the general Wright analysis area but could potentially be present. This plant species has been documented south of the general Wright analysis area. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract, and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does contain some suitable habitat for this plant species but the lemonscent has not been documented. This species has been documented south of the general Wright analysis area and abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2.

H-80

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H H-3.4.14 Larchleaf beardtongue (Penstemon laricifolius spp. exifolius) The larchleaf beardtongue (penstemon), a plant species of local concern, is a perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for dry, rocky, gravelly or sandy slopes, ridgetops and upland flats with shallow soils. Most populations in Wyoming are found at elevations above 6,000 feet, but this species has been documented at lower elevations in the state. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by larchleaf beardtongue are marginally present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few rocky, gravelly hill slopes and rough breaks provide potential habitat, but the larchleaf beardtongue has not been recorded on these lands. This plant species has not been documented near the general Wright analysis area but is potentially present. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general Wright analysis area and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does contain marginal habitat for this plant species but the larchleaf beardtongue has not been documented. This species has been documented and is common in southern Wyoming and abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.4.15 Wooly twinpod (Physaria didymocarpa var. lanata) The wooly twinpod, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for dry redbed clay-shale slopes, limey-sandstone outcrops, roadcuts and other exposed rock-cliff substrates. Most populations in Wyoming have been documented in the foothills of the Big Horn Mountains. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by the wooly twinpod are marginally present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few sandstone outcrops and exposed rock-cliff substrates provide potential habitat, but the wooly twinpod Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-81

Appendix H has not been recorded on these lands. This plant species has not been documented near the general Wright analysis area but is potentially present. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general Wright analysis area and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does contain marginal habitat for this plant species but the wooly twinpod has not been documented. This species has been documented and is common in north-central Wyoming and abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.4.16 Visher’s buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri) The Visher’s buckwheat, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area but has been tentatively identified elsewhere within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for gullied ridges and eroded badland hills. These sites generally consist of barren shale and clay outcrops with at least 50 percent bare soil, high salt content and shrink/swell clay soils. Typical habitat includes badland islands in grasslands. Existing Conditions Habitats for the Visher’s buckwheat are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few areas of highly eroded gullies consisting of barren shale or clay outcrops may be found in portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these sites do not appear to provide suitable habitat for this species. The Visher’s buckwheat has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the Visher’s buckwheat. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does not provide optimum suitable habitat for this H-82 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.4.17 Highbush-cranberry (Viburnum opulus var. americanum) The highbush-cranberry, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. In Wyoming, this plant species is found within Crook County and is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for moist sites including wooded hillsides, thickets or low woodlands. The highbush-cranberry is found all across northern North America. Existing Conditions Habitats for the highbush-cranberry are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable moist, wooded habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. The highbush-cranberry has not been recorded within the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the highbush-cranberry. As indicated, this species has not been documented in the general Wright analysis area and the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.4.18 Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Northern leopard frogs range from the Great Slave Lake and Hudson Bay, south to Kentucky and New Mexico (NatureServe 2007). This species is considered relatively common within Wyoming (Baxter and Stone 1980, Cerovski et al. 2004). Northern leopard frogs require shallow, permanent, or semi-permanent standing water with at least some emergent vegetation for breeding (Wagner 1997). Conversely, they use deeper lakes or ponds with well-oxygenated water that does not freeze to the bottom as overwintering habitat (Wagner 1997). Leopard frogs must have good quality water to successfully reproduce, as degraded or turbid water has the potential to negatively affect development of eggs and tadpoles. Overcrowding and changes in water temperature and pH (5.5 or lower) can increase the incidence of disease and mortality (NatureServe 2007) in this species. Adult frogs feed upon a variety of insects and other invertebrates, tadpoles, snakes, and fish (Cerovski et al. 2004), while tadpoles feed primarily upon small invertebrates, plant tissue, and organic debris. Adults also forage within aquatic and upland habitats, whereas tadpoles are restricted to aquatic habitats. Although their overall range remains essentially Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-83

Appendix H undiminished in size, many populations are declining. Major factors affecting leopard frog populations are habitat loss in some portions of their range, habitat degradation, overexploitation, interactions with non-native species, climate change, disease, and other unknown causes (Wagner 1997). Existing Conditions The northern leopard frog has been observed in southern Campbell County, but has not officially been recognized as breeding there (Cerovski et al. 2004). Although formal anuran surveys were not required or conducted at the adjacent Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, or North Antelope Rochelle mines, annual monitoring efforts for other species conducted in overlapping survey areas from 1983 through 2007 have not revealed the presence of northern leopard frogs or anuran egg masses on USFS lands or elsewhere within the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Those surveys occurred during all seasons, with biologists watching and listening for northern leopard frogs and other herptiles while conducting all other surveys throughout the area. It is unlikely that northern leopard frogs would have remained undetected during multiple surveys conducted during that long-term period if they were present in the area. Results from annual wildlife monitoring and baseline studies for the three mines are on file with, and available from, the WDEQ/LQD in Sheridan or Cheyenne, Wyoming and USFS Douglas Ranger District; those reports also include detailed descriptions of survey areas (including maps), methods, and dates for each year. Habitat conditions on USFS and non-USFS lands within the tract’s general analysis area are classified as poor potential to unsuitable, as there are only limited seasonal water sources available. No permanent or semi-permanent waters are present anywhere on those USFS lands. Little Thunder Creek passes through USFS lands within the South Hilight Field tract. In its natural state, this ephemeral stream is typically dry by mid to late summer, and without flow to maintain open water, any pools persisting until winter freeze solid, thus limiting overwintering habitat for this species. Like Little Thunder Creek, all other drainages throughout the tract’s general analysis area are ephemeral in nature and only carry water during or immediately following high intensity precipitation events, resulting in low quality or unsuitable habitat conditions for this frog species. Water discharged from CBNG wells has enhanced the water supply within some portions of Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries, which has increased potential habitat for some aquatic and semi-aquatic species. However, those enhanced areas are still relatively limited and/or isolated in nature. Water levels in drainages are typically too temporary and/or shallow to support tadpoles until metamorphosis, or allow frogs to successfully overwinter, respectively. The general lack of emergent vegetation near temporary water bodies limits their value to northern leopard frogs. Direct and Indirect Effects Wetland and aquatic habitats for northern leopard frogs are considered very poor to unsuitable on USFS lands and elsewhere in the general analysis area H-84 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, as described above. Furthermore, no frog sightings have been recorded on USFS lands during baseline surveys or annual monitoring completed between 1983 and 2007. Consequently, northern leopard frogs and their aquatic and terrestrial habitats are not expected to be impacted if the USFS lands in this LBA Tract were leased. In the unlikely event that this species is present in the future, direct loss of, or injury to, foraging and dispersing frogs could result from encounters with mine vehicles or heavy equipment during topsoil stripping or other surface disturbance near Little Thunder Creek, although such risks are minimal due to the lack of frog sightings to date. It is possible that existing reservoirs and ponds (natural and those enhanced by CBNG discharge water), and those created for flood control, sedimentation, water storage purposes, or wetland mitigation measures could provide suitable foraging or breeding habitat for northern leopard frogs in the future. However, most artificial water structures would still be limited to relatively shallow, seasonal waters with little emergent vegetation that would not provide for the year-round habitat needs of this frog species. Should those efforts result in improved aquatic habitats, adult frogs, tadpoles, and/or egg masses present in the area could be injured or killed during activities associated with additional construction of diversion dikes or associated channels, or the dewatering of potential habitats downstream of a dike. Under those limited circumstances, potential impacts could include loss of individuals and foraging habitat, increased predation, and changes in stream morphology and hydrology. Standard mining procedures such as the use of silt barriers across affected stream channels and other similar efforts would minimize any negative impacts that might result from mine-related operations. Likewise, adherence to the Thunder Basin National Grassland Plan Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002) pertaining to water and wetlands would ensure that leopard frogs and other aquatic organisms present on USFS lands would not be negatively affected by increased sedimentation, degraded water chemistry, or otherwise damaged aquatic habitats. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, USFS lands and adjacent non-federal lands within the South Hilight Field general analysis area do not contain suitable habitat for northern leopard frogs. Water sources in the drainages in that area are too temporary and shallow to support tadpoles until metamorphosis, or to allow frogs to successfully overwinter. If present, individual adult leopard frogs may be incidentally killed by vehicles or equipment. Habitat may be enhanced or created during certain mine operations, but water flow and depth associated with existing structures at the adjacent Black Thunder Mine have not resulted in adequate conditions to support the life cycle needs of this species, and they are not expected to create those conditions anywhere in this LBA tract. As no northern leopard frogs have ever been documented on USFS lands within the overall general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, potential Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-85

Appendix H effects are expected to be negligible, if they occur at all. Furthermore, northern leopard frogs have been documented at other sites outside of the tract’s general analysis area that will not be affected by coal leasing actions. H-3.4.19 Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) The blacktailed prairie dog was removed from the USFWS federal listing process in 2004. The agency ruled that listing this species may be warranted, but was precluded by higher priority considerations. Consequently, the black-tailed prairie dog is no longer considered a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Black-tailed prairie dogs historically ranged throughout the Great Plains in short-grass and mixed-grass prairies. This species is also a common resident in the short- and mid-grass habitats of eastern Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). The TBNG, which includes USFS lands in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, harbors one of the seven major colony complexes remaining in North America. Black-tailed prairie dogs are highly social, diurnal burrowing rodents that typically feed on grasses and forbs. Prairie dogs form colonies that are the main unit of a prairie dog population. This species has the ability to rapidly expand its distribution and population if not limited by pest control practices or disease, and will readily spread into recently disturbed areas. Many species such as the black-footed ferret, mountain plover, burrowing owl, and swift fox are dependent on prairie dogs during a portion of their life cycle. Black-tailed prairie dog occupied range and abundance has declined dramatically, and continues to exhibit a slow decline (NatureServe 2007). Major factors contributing to the decline include disease (sylvatic plague), urbanization, habitat conversion, and control efforts. Existing Conditions A total of seven prairie dog colonies (approximately 177.2 total acres) were found within 2 miles of the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract in 2007, four of which were present on USFS lands. One colony (approximately 0.1 acre in size) on USFS lands was in the general analysis area itself, while the other three colonies on USFS lands were in the surrounding 2 mile perimeter, and ranged in size from 7.7 to 89.1 acres, for a total of approximately 118 acres. Three additional prairie dog colonies were recorded on non-federal surface within or overlapping the 2-mile wildlife survey area (Figure H-2) in 2007, all three of which were outside of the tract’s general analysis area. The total area for those three colonies was approximately 59 non-contiguous acres, and the sizes range from about 2 to 54 acres. Only the 89.1-acre colony meets the 80-acre minimum for black-footed ferret habitat (USFWS 1989). As noted above, that colony is not on USFS lands nor is it within the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. However, the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts is outside the coal mine region of the PRB of northeast Wyoming (refer to Management Area 3.63) (USFS 2002, Grenier 2003). That coal region includes all USFS and surrounding H-86 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H lands within the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Additionally, some prairie dog colonies in that coal region were recently infested with the plague, while others are currently exposed to year-round disturbance associated with conventional oil and gas, CBNG, and coal (including open pits) resources, as well as seasonal recreational shooting and vehicular travel. Direct and Indirect Effects The current mining plans for the Black Thunder Mine does not project any new surface disturbance in the one prairie dog colony that is located within the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Nevertheless, that colony would be affected by the proposed leasing action at some point in time. As stated above, that very small colony (approximately 0.1 acre in size) is located on USFS lands. Such impacts could have immediate results on prairie dogs if an occupied colony is suddenly subjected to the effects of a soil salvage operation, or is otherwise impacted in a short timeframe that precludes the dispersal of individuals prior to surface disturbance. However, as those activities typically occur incrementally across various portions of future mining areas, some individuals could disperse to undisturbed portions of the affected colony, or create one or more new colonies within the area. Smaller-scale disturbances associated with both the mining and CBNG industries can also impact prairie dog colonies and surrounding vegetation through fragmentation or loss of foraging and burrowing habitat. Linear disturbances associated with mining infrastructure, such as roads, power lines, fences, and pipelines will occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, and would be completed within shorter timeframes than the advancement of a surface mine pit. However, such disturbances would still pose some level of risks due to vehicular collisions or by enhancing habitat for mammalian and avian species that prey on prairie dogs. Some linear impacts could be minimized or mitigated through the consolidation of roads and electric utilities within common corridors, applying perch deterrents on overhead power poles, and reseeding pipeline disturbances quickly with appropriate seed mixes for the region. Minor surface disturbance near existing colonies would provide recently upturned soils that could facilitate the expansion of the existing colonies or the establishment of new ones, as prairie dogs will readily move into recently disturbed areas. Postmining reclamation could have similar potential benefits; prairie dogs have already demonstrated their ability to inhabit reclaimed lands at the nearby Antelope Mine (BLM 2008). All USFS Standards and Guidelines applicable to black-tailed prairie dogs outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, page 1-20) would be implemented. To reduce risks and habitat loss for prairie dogs and other wildlife species closely associated with prairie dog colonies, new roads will be aligned outside colony boundaries where possible. If it is necessary to place a new road within a prairie dog colony, the amount of road in the colony will be minimized to the extent that soil, drainage, topographical and other physical factors will allow. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-87

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Only one of the seven black-tailed prairie dog colonies within the wildlife survey area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract would be physically disturbed by mining activities within the tract’s general analysis area, if the lease is issued. That colony encompassed less than 1 acre in 2007, and it was on USFS lands. Given the fact that six of the seven colonies within the wildlife survey area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract were outside of the general analysis area (area of potential surface disturbance) associated with this proposed lease, the tendency of prairie dogs to disperse and expand their boundaries, and the incremental nature of surface coal mining relative to some other disturbance activities, the potential impacts to prairie dog colonies on and near USFS lands in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract would not have adverse consequences for the viability of the local or regional population. Disturbance and reclamation efforts will occur incrementally in varying locations throughout the permit area as mining progresses through the approved lease. H-3.4.20 Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) The swift fox was removed from the USFWS federal listing process in 1995, after extensive field surveys demonstrated that the population was greater than expected. This species is considered to be common within the eastern Great Plains grasslands of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004), though it typically occurs at very low densities. The exact status of the population is unknown but believed to be increasing, especially in the Northern Plains. Swift foxes are largely nocturnal and typically prefer flat to gently rolling, short- or mixed-grass prairies, generally lacking in shrubs or woody vegetation (Cotterill 1997). This species uses multiple den sites year-round for shelter, protection from predators, and rearing young. Burrows of other mammals such as badgers (Taxidea taxus), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and prairie dogs are often used or modified for those purposes. Small to mid-sized mammals constitute the bulk of their diet. Swift foxes have little fear of humans and may den in proximity to human disturbances (residences and busy roadways). This tolerance also makes them susceptible to trapping, vehicle collisions, and attacks by dogs. Major threats faced by the swift fox include habitat loss and degradation, interspecific competition with red fox and coyote (Canis latrans), and vehicle collisions. Existing Conditions Swift fox have been observed in large grassland blocks in southern Campbell County with more frequency in recent years, and are presumed to breed there. This species has also been documented within the overall TBNG. However, sagebrush communities dominate the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, as well as USFS lands in that area. The prevalence of sagebrush throughout the tract’s wildlife survey area largely explains the extremely limited sightings of this grassland fox over the last 25 years, as described below. Burrows within the existing black-tailed prairie dog colonies H-88 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H and scattered badger or red fox burrows could be used by swift foxes as den or shelter sites, and swift fox could forage in the area. No specific surveys for swift fox were conducted for this analysis. However, such efforts were completed in 2002 using USFS survey protocols for other unrelated projects. Those surveys occurred within 2 miles of USFS lands in the South Hilight Field tract’s wildlife survey area, and within 3.5 miles of the tract’s general analysis area. Nocturnal spotlight surveys for rabbits and hares were conducted as part of annual wildlife monitoring at adjacent existing mines every year since at least 1994, with diurnal surveys for a variety of vertebrate species occurring across all seasons annually since the early 1980s. All of those survey efforts overlapped significant portions of the South Hilight Field tract’s wildlife survey area. Despite those combined efforts, only one swift fox has ever been recorded on USFS lands in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during annual monitoring and other surveys conducted over the last 25 years. One sighting was made along Little Thunder Creek between 1995 and 1997 in T.43N., R.71W., SE¼ Section 23 (USFS 2003). A lone fox was also observed on adjacent lands in T.43N., R.71W., SW¼ Section 14 during that period. No swift foxes have been recorded elsewhere in the overall Black Thunder Mine annual monitoring area since surveys began in 1983. Few other swift fox sightings have been recorded elsewhere within the surrounding region during specific surveys or incidental to other searches at local mines over the last 25 years. Those efforts were conducted as part of annual wildlife monitoring by contract and USFS biologists on private and federal lands in the area. One swift fox was documented approximately 4 to 6 miles south of USFS lands within the general analysis areas for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract in March 2002. The fox was observed in T.42N., R.70W., SE¼ Section 15 during spotlight trapping efforts for sage-grouse at the nearby North Antelope Rochelle Mine. The nearest other sighting occurred in T.43N., R.72W., SE¼ Section 20 between 1995 and 1997, approximately 8 miles west of USFS lands in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Reports from all annual monitoring and special studies are on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne. Direct and Indirect Effects Due to the overall poor quality habitat conditions on USFS and adjacent lands in the South Hilight Field LBA tract’s general analysis area, and the lone sighting of a swift fox in that area over the last 25 years of annual monitoring (including spotlight searches for other species), no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated for this species. Given these circumstances, species-specific Standards and Guidelines outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, page 1-20) would not apply.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-89

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Habitat conditions in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area are considered poor quality due to the prevalence of sagebrush shrublands and limited presence of grassland expanses. The only swift fox observation ever recorded on USFS in the South Hilight Field Tract occurred along a creek channel 11 to 13 years ago, despite annual monitoring surveys in all or most of those areas during and subsequent to that time. Only one other observation of a swift fox has been recorded in the tract’s wildlife survey area during that period, although it was outside of the tract’s general analysis area. Furthermore, sufficient suitable habitat (grasslands) is present elsewhere within the general vicinity that could sustain swift foxes as project activities disturb the general analysis area for this LBA tract. Existing and future reclaimed grasslands will create or enhance potential swift fox habitat once mining has been completed in the tract. H-3.4.21 Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Long-billed curlews breed from interior British Columbia and southern Alberta through southern Manitoba, south to central California, and east to western North Dakota, central South Dakota, central Nebraska, western Kansas, northeastern New Mexico, and northern Texas (Dechant et al. 2003a). The long-billed curlew is a relatively uncommon summer resident of grasslands and sagebrush-grasslands in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Curlews are ground nesters, and require large open expanses of grassland, with relatively low vegetation and few shrubs in which to nest (Hill 1998). The nest is typically a shallow scrape or depression, thinly lined with grass, weeds or cow dung, typically near water or moist areas. Curlews use historically occupied sites each year, and some individual birds may reuse the same territories from year to year (Dechant et al. 2003a). Curlews primarily feed upon insects but also eat other invertebrates, small crustaceans, toads, and eggs and nestlings of other birds. This species forages in grasslands, wet meadows, prairie dog colonies, and occasionally along the margins of wetlands. Lakeshores and river valleys are often used during fall as migration staging areas (Hill 1998). Although some populations may be declining, overall population trends suggest long-billed curlew numbers are stable or increasing slightly. The major factor affecting curlew populations is habitat destruction and fragmentation. Existing Conditions Long-billed curlews are uncommon summer residents within the TBNG. The areas evaluated for this analysis include USFS and adjacent lands within the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. As described for the northern leopard frog and swift fox, above, those areas are dominated by sagebrush habitats with scattered stands of upland grasslands and little water. Consequently, habitat conditions in the tract’s general analysis area and surrounding lands would be suitable for foraging migrants, but they do not H-90 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H provide large expanses of grassland areas for nesting activities. No long-billed curlews have ever been documented on USFS lands or adjacent lands in the general analysis area or larger wildlife survey area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Likewise, few curlews have been observed in the surrounding region during annual wildlife monitoring in the area over the last 24 or more years. Most of those sightings occurred during spring months and beyond USFS lands, and were likely individual migrants or non-breeding adults. No significant wetlands (i.e., large lakes) or other persistent conditions that might attract large numbers of curlews during migration exist within the South Hilight Field wildlife survey area. No nesting occurrences have been documented for long-billed curlews in southern Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004), including USFS lands in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area and adjacent lands. Potential foraging habitat is present on USFS and adjacent lands in those areas, and elsewhere within the 2-mile wildlife survey perimeter, but nesting habitat conditions are poor to unsuitable. CBNG development activities are increasing throughout the region, with active mining (including open pits) also occurring in the near vicinity. Therefore, potential foraging habitats would be disturbed by the Proposed Action and Alternatives for this LBA tract. Direct and Indirect Effects Given the lack of sightings of long-billed curlews in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract general analysis area and surrounding perimeters since 1983, and the fact that habitat conditions in those areas are only suitable for foraging migrants or non-breeding adults, the Proposed Action and Alternatives for this LBA tract are unlikely to cause any direct injury or mortality to this species. However, if present, future mining activities could result in injuries or mortalities to foraging individuals. Foraging individuals may also be displaced by human activities and noise associated with mining. Potential foraging habitats may be disturbed, removed, or fragmented by mining activities. The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the tract’s general analysis area as operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed in a given portion of the mine, and will eventually mitigate impacts to some degree. The Black Thunder Mine’s reclamation plan would incorporate the replacement of jurisdictional wetland acreages existing prior to mining with at least equal types and numbers of wetland acreages. The creation of wetland habitats, especially where adjacent to native or reclaimed grassland habitats, could provide additional (although limited) foraging areas for curlews. As no long-billed curlews have been documented within USFS lands or other lands in or near the South Hilight Field LBA Tract general analysis area, and habitat conditions do not provide quality nesting areas, species-specific Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Grassland Plan (USFS 2002) would not apply.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-91

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As this species appears to be an infrequent visitor to the tract’s general analysis area, and good quality foraging and nesting habitat is not present within the area, impacts to this species are likely to be minimal. Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of potential foraging habitat and potential collisions with vehicles may occur. Reclamation of wetlands and grasslands may create limited foraging or nesting habitat. H-3.4.22 Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Ferruginous hawks breed throughout much of the western United States and portions of three Canadian provinces (Johnsgard 1990). This species nests throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004) and occupies portions of the state during winter. Large expanses of grassland and shrubland, where livestock grazing (vs. cultivation) is the predominant land use, provide the most suitable habitat (Schmutz 1989, Johnsgard 1990). Most ferruginous hawks in the PRB nest on the ground (usually elevated sites, though some pairs nest in small trees). Typical nest sites include hilltops, rock outcrops, eroded creek banks, small trees, and even relatively level ground. The ferruginous hawk relies primarily on two mammalian families for the majority of its prey: Leporidae (rabbits and hares) and Sciuridae (ground squirrels and prairie dogs). Numerous nests can occur within the territory of a single pair, and ferruginous hawks often reuse nests for many years. This species may be sensitive to human disturbance, especially during the nesting period (White and Thurow 1985). This sensitivity can be heightened in years of low prey abundance. Accurate information regarding the trend for the ferruginous hawk is limited and mixed. Some populations may be declining (Bechard and Schmutz 1995); however, overall population trends suggest numbers are stable or increasing (NatureServe 2007). Major factors affecting ferruginous hawk populations include habitat destruction and fragmentation, and human disturbance. Existing Conditions Annual monitoring has documented that ferruginous hawks nested in the vicinity of the Black Thunder Mine during each of the last 25 years, and fledged young in all but one of those years. Similar long-term nesting has occurred at the neighboring Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle mines. Many of those nests were located on USFS lands. Details describing the number of intact and active nests within the mine monitoring survey areas in a given year are available in annual monitoring and baseline wildlife reports on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne. The presence or absence of nest material does not determine whether the USFS considers a site as “active” (occupied during at least 1 of the last 7 years). Seven ferruginous hawk nest sites in two territories have been documented on H-92 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H USFS lands within the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during annual wildlife monitoring surveys conducted through 2007 (Figure H-2). Two of the seven sites still had nest material present that year. No nest sites were present on non-federal lands within the general analysis area during any monitoring year. Nine additional ferruginous hawk nest sites in five territories have been recorded on USFS surface within the tract’s 2-mile wildlife survey area through 2007; two of the nine sites had been used by ferruginous hawks and at least one other raptor species over the years. Five nest sites were still physically present in 2007. The remaining 30 nest sites (25 individual nests plus 5 multispecies sites) are located on non-federal lands within the 2-mile wildlife survey area; none of those nests are within the tract’s general analysis area itself. The 30 nests were in at least 10 different territories. Only 10 of the 30 sites still had nest material present in 2007. Direct and Indirect Effects Over time, the Black Thunder Mine has avoided, where possible, or mitigated mining impacts on raptor nests through a variety of means. The mine has voluntarily monitored nesting raptor populations in a perimeter larger than required annually since 1983, maintained and implemented current USFWS approved Raptor Mitigation Plans, adjusted operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests, and ensured that new power lines at the mine conform to current Avian Power Line Interaction Commission (APLIC) guidelines. Provided those practices are continued, direct impacts on ferruginous hawks and their active nest sites will be minimized, both on and near USFS lands. Due to restrictions on disturbance near active nest sites, the most probable source of potential impact to ferruginous hawks themselves would be an increase in injuries and fatalities of individuals foraging within the general analysis area due to vehicle collisions associated with ongoing or future mining and other activities. The use of existing roads in the area, when possible, would help to minimize this risk. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would result from a variety of large- and small-scale mining operations such as soil salvaging and reservoir/flood control construction, among others. Potential nesting and foraging habitat might also be fragmented by linear disturbances such as the construction, maintenance, and removal of roads, fences, power lines, and pipelines. Those disturbances could also create new travel corridors for mammalian predators that reside in or pass through the area. However, many such disturbances would occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, typically over a period of days. Additionally, those structures are often constructed immediately prior to the removal of similar features elsewhere in the area, often resulting in minimal or no net gain of new linear disturbances. All mine-related habitat disturbances would shift throughout the expanded permit area as operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas would occur incrementally as resource recovery is completed in a given portion of the mine, and would mitigate impacts to some degree. Surface Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-93

Appendix H disturbing activities could also result in a short-term, localized decrease in the prey base (lagomorphs and rodents) for ferruginous hawks. However, due to their high reproductive potential and tendencies to re-populate and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase quickly after the disturbance. USFS Standards and Guidelines would be implemented and offer additional protections for active nests; they would apply only to activities outside of the lease area. These protocols should help ensure that the Proposed Action and Alternatives do not significantly degrade the quality of existing ferruginous hawk territories and nest sites. Standards and Guidelines specific to ferruginous hawks outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, page 1-20-21) are as follows: 73. To help prevent abandonment, reproductive failure or nest destruction, prohibit development of new facilities within 0.25 mile (or line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests. For the ferruginous hawk, a nest is no longer considered active if it is known to have been unoccupied for the last seven years. This does not apply to pipelines, fences and underground utilities. 74. To help reduce disturbances to nesting ferruginous hawks, prohibit the following activities within 0.5 mile (or line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests from 1 March through 31 July: construction (e.g., roads, water impoundments, oil and gas facilities), reclamation, gravel mining operations, drilling of water wells, and oil and gas drilling. 75. To help reduce disturbances to nesting ferruginous hawks, do not authorize the following activities within 0.5 mile (line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests from 1 March through 31 July: construction (e.g., pipelines, utilities, fencing), seismic exploration, and workover operations for maintenance of oil and gas wells. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. All ferruginous hawk nests located within the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area are located on federal surface. Many nests on USFS lands have alternate sites within the same territories that are beyond the tract’s general analysis area, and thus are less likely to be impacted by future mining disturbance associated with the proposed leasing action. Some individuals or pairs may experience disturbance, destruction, or fragmentation of nesting and foraging habitat. Increased disturbance to individuals due to human activity may also occur. However, several factors should minimize the potential mining-related impacts on this species, including the availability of alternate nest sites located further away from pending disturbance in each affected territory, implementation of USFWS and USFS approved mitigation H-94 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H measures, reclaiming habitats as soon as feasible, encouraging nesting within mine reclamation lands through artificial nest structures and habitat features such as rock piles and tree plantings that attract prey species, and continued monitoring of this species to ensure that mitigation methods are applied when necessary. H-3.4.23 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Burrowing owls breed from southern Alberta to southwestern Saskatchewan, south through east-central Washington, central Oregon, and southern California, and east to eastern North Dakota, west-central Kansas, and Texas (Klute et al. 2003, pg 7). The burrowing owl is a summer resident of open rangeland habitats throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species requires burrows of fossorial mammals, primarily badgers and prairie dogs, for nesting and roosting (Klute et al. 2003, pg 12). Most burrowing owl nests within the TBNG are located within prairie dog colonies (USFS 2003). Burrowing owls typically reuse traditional nesting areas. Burrow mounds, shrubs, fence posts or boulders may be used as observation perches. This species is usually tolerant of human activity but is vulnerable to predation by pets (cats, dogs). Burrowing owls forage within a variety of habitats, including cropland, pasture, prairie dog colonies, fallow fields, and sparsely vegetated areas. This species is often active during daylight hours. Insects and small mammals (mice and voles) are the owls’ primary prey items. Burrowing owl populations have been declining throughout its range, primarily due to habitat loss. Existing Conditions Burrowing owls are common summer residents within the TBNG (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species was first recorded nesting in the Black Thunder Mine annual monitoring 2-mile perimeter in 1988. Despite the presence of potential nesting habitat (prairie dog and badger burrows) in the monitoring area, this species nested in only 5 of the subsequent 19 years. All known burrowing owl nest sites in the mine monitoring area have been in prairie dog burrows. Four artificial nest boxes have been constructed in the mine’s 2-mile perimeter wildlife survey area for mitigation purposes over the years, but no owls have ever been observed at or near them. No burrowing owl nest sites had been documented within the entire South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area or the tract’s surrounding wildlife survey area through 2007, including all USFS lands in that area. Only one small (less than 1 acre) prairie dog colony (potential burrowing owl nesting habitat) is present within the tract’s general analysis area, though larger colonies do occur in the surrounding 2-mile wildlife survey area. Badger burrows undoubtedly occur in the area, but are not typically recorded. Direct and Indirect Effects No known burrowing owl nest sites are present on USFS lands in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, or within 0.25 mile of those Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-95

Appendix H lands (the USFS buffer for that species). Potential nesting habitat is largely limited to a lone, very small prairie dog colony in the tract’s general analysis area. Therefore, leasing the South Hilight Field LBA Tract would not result in any direct or indirect effects to nesting burrowing owls. Both USFS Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002) and the Black Thunder Mine’s mine permit (TBCC 2005) stipulate that clearance surveys will be conducted and approved by the appropriate agencies before any colony is disturbed during the breeding season. That process will preclude most direct impacts to new nesting burrowing owls in that area. Because burrowing owls are active during daylight hours, the most probable source of direct impacts would be the death of, or injury to, individuals fleeing heavy equipment, or being killed or injured by equipment while feeding or moving through the mine area. Burrowing owls are generally tolerant of human activities, but increased presence and noise, especially during the nest initiation period, may displace individuals or inhibit nesting proximate to mine operations. Foraging could also be hindered within these areas, especially where mining activities occur near prairie dog colonies. As described previously, mining could eventually disturb or eliminate prairie dog colonies (potential nesting habitat) in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract (1 acre). However, the limited presence or longterm absence of nesting burrowing owls in that colony, in combination with the presence of other non-disturbed colonies in the area and the ability for prairie dogs to recolonize reclamation, would mitigate those losses to a large extent. Surface disturbing activities could also result in a short-term, localized decrease in the prey base (rodents, non-flying insects) for burrowing owls. However, due to their high reproductive potential and tendencies to re-populate and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase quickly after the disturbance. Additionally, the tendency of prairie dogs to quickly colonize nearby areas when their colonies are disturbed would create new nesting habitat for burrowing owls. Overall, nesting and foraging habitats will be incrementally affected by a variety of large-and small-scale operations. The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the general analysis area as mining operations progress, thus providing opportunities for burrowing owls to relocate to other suitable habitat within the immediate area. Reclamation will proceed incrementally as areas are mined and activities move to new locations within the mine area. Both activities will create loose soil that should be attractive to dispersing prairie dogs (potential habitat source), at least in the short term. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as resources are extracted in a given portion of the mine, and will eventually mitigate habitat impacts to some degree. However, to date, burrowing owls have rarely been documented nesting within reclaimed habitats at surface mines in the PRB of northeast Wyoming. H-96 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H If nesting burrowing owls are documented on or near USFS lands in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, USFS Standards and Guidelines applicable to this species would be implemented on applicable lands to offer additional protections beyond those outlined in the USFWS approved Raptor Mitigation Plan for the Black Thunder Mine. Annual monitoring of known burrowing owl nest sites within the 2-mile wildlife survey area for the mine, including USFS and adjacent lands, and other nearby colonies will continue through the life of the mine to document their histories of occupancy and production. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. No burrowing owl nests have been documented on or near USFS lands in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during many years of annual monitoring, nor have any nests been located within the tract’s general analysis area itself. Few prairie dog colonies occur in the general vicinity of this LBA tract, and most are located outside of the tract’s general analysis area where future surface disturbance would occur. The Black Thunder Mine has avoided, where possible, and mitigated such impacts in the past through intensive monitoring of both populations and specific nest sites, implementation of USFWS approved mitigation measures, and adjusting operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests (including burrowing owl nests). Mining activities and noise may disturb individuals inhabiting the lease area, thus inhibiting potential nesting or foraging in proximity to lands with ongoing development. Potential collisions with vehicles might also occur, though none have been recorded in the area to date. Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus) The breeding H-3.4.24 range of the chestnut-collared longspur extends from southern Alberta to southern Manitoba, south to west-central Colorado, and east through North Dakota and South Dakota to western Minnesota (Dechant et al. 2003b). The chestnut-collared longspur is a common summer resident of the eastern plains of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species prefers native grasslands as breeding sites, inhabiting open prairie and avoiding excessively shrubby areas. Grasslands with dense litter accumulations are also avoided (Dechant et al. 2003b). Scattered shrubs are often used as singing perches. Nests are typically placed in areas of sparse vegetation (less than 20-30 centimeters), but usually with a taller grass component than sites preferred by McCown’s longspurs. Nests are on the ground in depressions and often placed beside cattle dung, small shrubs, or under a clump of grass (Hill and Gould 1997). Male fidelity to breeding areas has been observed. Chestnut-collared longspurs feed primarily on seeds (especially grasses), insects, and spiders. This species is generally tolerant of short-term intrusion at the nest site but may desert if disturbed during nest building or egg-laying (Hill and Gould 1997). High rates of predation on eggs and nestlings have been reported and pesticides have been shown to reduce hatching success. The chestnut-collared longspur breeding Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-97

Appendix H range has contracted and long-term data suggests population declines (Hill and Gould 1997). These declines have been attributed to loss of native prairie habitat, and conversion to cropland and urban development. Existing Conditions Chestnut-collared longspurs are common summer residents within the TBNG. This species has not been recorded on USFS or other lands in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during annual monitoring in recent years. As described previously, sagebrush habitats dominate USFS and adjacent lands in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Grassland areas are present in the form of prairie dog colonies, upland grasslands, and agricultural pasture grasslands, but they occur in isolated parcels scattered throughout the area rather than in contiguous and/or sizeable blocks that would be attractive to nesting chestnut-collared longspurs. Consequently, only limited suitable habitat conditions exist for this species on USFS lands in the South Hilight Field LBA Tract general analysis area and adjacent lands. Direct and Indirect Effects Due to the similarity of potential impacts from future mining on chestnutcollared longspurs and other grassland species previously discussed (e.g., swift prairie dog and swift fox), detailed descriptions of those impacts are not repeated here. Chestnut-collared longspurs have not been documented as nesting in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Equipment operations associated with future mining operations could result in fatalities or injury to individuals, nests and eggs, and/or young. Increased human activity and noise could inhibit foraging or nesting within suitable habitats on USFS lands or displace individuals during periods of intense activities. Over the life of the mine, potential nesting and foraging habitats in the general analysis area could be disturbed, destroyed, altered, or fragmented, though the type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the general analysis area as mining operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as resources are extracted in a given portion of the mine. Within 1 to 2 years, newly reclaimed areas may create good quality, short-duration nesting habitat for chestnut-collared longspurs. However, as these sites mature, they would become less suitable as nesting habitat for this species. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. USFS lands in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis areas are dominated by sagebrush communities that are not as attractive to grassland species such as the longspur. No individuals have been documented in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Potential and documented alternative habitats for chestnut-collared longspurs are present elsewhere in the vicinity in areas not currently scheduled for mining disturbance. H-98 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H H-3.4.25 McCown’s Longspur (Calcarius mccownii) McCown’s longspurs breed from southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan, south through Montana, eastern and central Wyoming, and north-central Colorado, and east to western Nebraska, north-central South Dakota, and southwestern North Dakota (Dechant et al. 2003c). This species is a common summer resident of the eastern plains and great basin-foothills grasslands, basin-prairie shrublands, and agricultural areas throughout most of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Specifically, this species requires open habitats such as sparsely vegetated, low structured grasslands, and heavily grazed pastures containing a moderate bare ground component for nesting and foraging. Nest sites are typically a natural or shallow scraped depression on the ground placed in the open or beside vegetation such as bunch grasses, cacti, or shrubs. McCown’s longspurs feed on seeds of grasses and forbs, insects, and other arthropods. No strong data suggests breeding site fidelity although some individuals may return to the general nesting area in subsequent years. Individuals vary in response to human intrusion at nest sites, but appear to be relatively more tolerant than most grassland songbird species. High rates of predation on eggs and nestlings occur especially where nests are associated with vegetative structure. Nestlings may also be directly poisoned where insecticides are sprayed in nest areas (With 1994). Populations are declining, especially within the northern portion of the range. Factors directly affecting the McCown’s longspur include the reduction of breeding habitat due to overgrazing, control of prairie fires, plowing, development, and excessive use of pesticides. Conversion of short-grass prairie to agriculture and urban development is the most important factor (With 1994). Existing Conditions McCown’s longspurs are also common summer residents within the TBNG. Observations of the McCown’s longspur mirror those of the chestnut-collared longspur; neither species has been documented in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. The nearest observation to this area occurred on non-federal lands in NE¼SW¼ Section 13, T.43N., R.71W. in May 2000. The height and composition of vegetation (i.e., sagebrush) on most USFS lands in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area is generally too tall and dense, respectively, to provide suitable habitat for McCown’s longspurs. Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects to McCown’s longspurs would be the same as those described above for the chestnut-collared longspur. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. USFS lands in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area are dominated by sagebrush communities that are not as attractive to grassland species such as the longspur. No individuals have been documented in the South Hilight Field general analysis area. Potential and documented Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-99

Appendix H alternative habitats for McCown’s longspurs are present nearby in more appropriate habitats not currently scheduled for mining disturbance. H-3.4.26 Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) The Greater sage-grouse occurs year-round throughout non-forested regions of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Sage-grouse rely on a variety of habitats within sagebrush dominated landscapes to reproduce and survive throughout the year. Early in the spring, grouse gather at breeding display sites called leks. Leks are usually in open areas (playas, ridge tops, sparse sagebrush, or burned areas) that are surrounded by dense sagebrush and escape cover. The surrounding area also typically represents nesting, loafing, and foraging habitat. After being bred, hens typically scratch out a nest under sagebrush (Connelly et al. 1991) within three kilometers of the lek (Schroeder et al. 1999). Nests in some portions of sage-grouse range are typically placed under sagebrush with average height of 36-79 centimeters (Schroeder et al. 1999). However, research conducted within the Southern PRB (Brown and Clayton 2004) indicated that, although shorter sagebrush was present at nest sites, grouse selected shrubs ranging from 55-61 centimeters in height under which to place nests. Renesting may occur if the nest is destroyed early during the laying or incubation period. Nest success is enhanced where both sagebrush and residual grass cover are taller and denser (Gregg et al. 1994). Sage-grouse exhibit high fidelity to seasonal ranges, and may return to the same area to nest in subsequent years. For the first month after hatching, the young depend on relatively open sagebrush stands with an abundance of forbs and insects, especially ants and beetles (Drut et al. 1994, Schroeder et al. 1999). Late-season brood rearing habitats, such as wet meadows and bottomlands, are more mesic and support greater forb cover (Drut et al. 1994). Sage-grouse use a variety of habitats during fall, and the incidence of sagebrush in their diet increases as forbs become less available. During winter, grouse feed upon sagebrush leaves almost exclusively. Winter range is characterized by large expanses of dense, exposed sagebrush. Where snow accumulations are significant, gentle southand west-facing slopes or windblown ridges are preferred. Breeding populations of this species have declined by at least 17 to 47 percent throughout much of its range (Connelly et al. 2004). Within Wyoming, sagegrouse populations have generally declined over the past 4 decades. However, sage-grouse population estimates specifically pertaining to the TBNG suggest an overall increase in individuals since 1995. This same general trend was observed both statewide and within the Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Local Working Group (NWSGWG) area. The NWSGWG identified habitat fragmentation and degradation, disturbance and direct mortality as major influences affecting sage-grouse (NWSGWG 2006). The group identified oil and gas development, vegetation management, H-100 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H invasive plants, and weather as those factors with the most influence on the northeast Wyoming sage-grouse populations and those that may most effectively be addressed to provide the greatest benefit for sage-grouse conservation in northeast Wyoming (NWSGWG 2006). Existing Conditions As described above, USFS lands on and adjacent to the general analysis areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts are dominated by a sagebrush-grassland community, primarily big sagebrush, with shrub cover ranging from 55 to 60 percent. Those areas provide potential year-round habitat for sage-grouse, though habitat quality varies. Sagebrush stands range from sparse to moderately dense throughout the areas, with only a marginal grassy understory in many areas. Despite the prevalence of sagebrush in the combined wildlife survey areas for the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, sage-grouse numbers were never especially high in the area. Five sage-grouse leks are located on and within 2 miles of the North, South, and West Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas: Stuart I, Stuart II, Black Thunder, Butch, and Hansen Lakes (Figures H-1, H-2 and H-3). No sage-grouse leks are present on USFS lands in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Two leks are present on non-federal surface in the tract’s general analysis area: Butch and Hansen Lakes. The Hansen Lakes lek is immediately south of USFS surface in that area (Figure H-1). The Hansen Lakes lek is classified as “occupied” by the WGFD (active in at least 1 of the last 10 years). The Butch lek was first recorded in 1990. The peak male count (15) occurred in 1991, after which numbers declined dramatically. No grouse were recorded at the Butch lek during annual checks conducted over the last 14 years (1994 through 2007). The Butch lek is classified as “unoccupied/abandoned” by the WGFD (no activity for 10 consecutive years). The Butch lek was discovered in 1990, and was active every year through 1993. The Hansen Lakes lek was discovered in 1993, coincidently at the same time peak male counts were dramatically declining at the Butch lek; the leks are approximately 1.5 miles apart. Peak male counts at the Hansen Lakes lek ranged from 14 to 24 birds from 1993 through 2000, but dropped markedly to only 3 birds in 2001. Grouse were present at the lek for the next 2 years, but no birds were observed there after 2003. No other grouse leks are present within 3 miles of the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. The next nearest lek is the Stuart II lek, approximately 4.1 miles southwest of the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-1). No sage-grouse leks are present on USFS lands in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract or within that tract’s 2-mile wildlife survey area (Figure H-2). Likewise, no lek sites have been documented on non-federal surface in South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. The former Black Thunder lek was located on non-federal surface approximately 1 mile east of Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-101

Appendix H the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. The Black Thunder lek was first documented in 1984, when a peak male count of 21 was recorded. Grouse numbers gradually declined over the next several years of annual monitoring, with only one bird observed at the lek in 1993. No grouse were recorded at the Black Thunder lek during annual checks conducted over the subsequent 12 years (1994 through 2005), prior to any mine-related disturbance occurring within several miles. Due to the consistently low counts, WGFD authorized the mine to reduce searches for grouse leks in the permit area and 1-mile perimeter to every third year beginning in 2004 (i.e., 2004, 2007, etc.). That lek was classified as “unoccupied/abandoned” after 10 consecutive years of inactivity, and it was then impacted by topsoil stripping in 2007 and is now officially classified as “unoccupied/destroyed” by WGFD. The Stuart II lek is located on USFS lands approximately 3 miles northwest of the tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-2). The Stuart II lek lies within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract (Figure H-3), and is the only lek on USFS lands in the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Two leks are present on non-federal surface in the vicinity of the West Hilight Field area. The Stuart I lek is approximately 1.25 miles west of the tract’s general analysis area, and the next nearest lek is the former Black Thunder site, approximately 2.25 miles east of the tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-3). The Stuart I lek was first recorded in 1977. The peak male count (29) occurred in 1979, with reduced numbers in the subsequent 2 years. The lek was monitored by the WGFD at approximately 3-year intervals from 1982 through 2003; annual monitoring was conducted by private consultants for unrelated projects each year from 2004 through 2007. Grouse were observed at the lek during only 1 of the 11 survey years from 1982 through 2007. The last sighting occurred in 1991, when two males were recorded at the Stuart I lek. The Stuart II lek was discovered in 1979. Few grouse were seen at the lek over the next 28 years, with a maximum of seven males observed in any survey year. The Stuart II lek was also surveyed primarily at 3-year intervals since its discovery, with annual checks conducted from 2005 through 2007. Because the two Stuart leks were not monitored annually, their management status is “undetermined”, despite consistently low counts when surveys did occur. Grouse counts at these five leks in the combined wildlife survey areas for the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts were consistently low since their respective discoveries, with few birds observed at any location in the last 7 to 20 years, depending on the lek site. Additionally, records from the WGFD (obtained from D. Thiele, Regional Biologist, WGFD, Buffalo, Wyoming), and USFS have not documented any new sage-grouse leks within the approximately 131 square mile area that encompasses the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Telemetry data collected on radio-collared grouse at the nearby North Antelope Rochelle Mine throughout the last 7 years (2001-2007) shows no sage-grouse locations within several miles of the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts during that period (Brown and Clayton 2004, North H-102 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Antelope Rochelle Mine Annual Wildlife Report 2006, 2007). It is important to note that the reduction in grouse attendance at these five leks, and most others in the PRB, preceded physical mining disturbance and, thus, cannot be directly attributable to mine-related activities (Orpet 2007, McKee 2007). Annual counts for each lek are available in annual monitoring and baseline wildlife reports on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne. Annual surveys for sage-grouse broods were conducted in native and reclaimed stream channels at and around the Black Thunder Mine from 1994 through 1999; such surveys were no longer required by WGFD and WDEQ/LQD after that year due to the consistent lack of grouse broods at coal mines throughout the PRB. No new leks or broods were seen during recent baseline inventories conducted for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. All grouse broods that have been recorded over the years occurred as incidental sightings during other wildlife surveys. Areas of suitable habitat for nesting and strutting grounds are widely known as necessary to sustain sage-grouse populations. One recent study suggests that availability of winter habitat may also affect sage-grouse populations (Naugle et al. 2006). Nesting and winter surveys for sage-grouse are not required as part of the annual wildlife programs for the Black Thunder Mine or other applicant mines discussed in this EIS, though winter surveys have been conducted as part of baseline inventories for previous mine expansions. Additionally, periodic winter surveys for other species (i.e., big game, bald eagle roosts) have occurred at all three applicant mines in recent years. Due to their proximity to existing mine permit areas, most USFS lands in the North and South Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas, and those in the eastern half of the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, have been included in a minimum of seven consecutive years (big game surveys 1993-1999) of some level of winter surveys, with additional surveys conducted in some subsequent years. No sage-grouse were ever documented in or near those LBA tracts during those winter surveys. Direct and Indirect Effects Three of the five sage-grouse leks located in the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts occur in an area likely to be disturbed by future mining, if the three proposed leasing actions are approved. One lek (Stuart II in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area) is on USFS lands and the other two (Hansen Lakes and Butch) are on non-federal surface in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Due to the consistently low number of sage-grouse documented in these LBA tracts’ wildlife survey areas over the last 3 decades, despite the presence of apparently suitable habitat, leasing and mining USFS lands and adjacent lands within the general analysis areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts would have limited effects on individual birds. Some potential impacts of mineral development (including coal mining and oil and gas Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-103

Appendix H development) on sage-grouse that might inhabit the area, as well as on known and potential sage-grouse habitat include: alteration of plant and animal communities; loss or degradation of important seasonal habitats; increased human activity and noise which could cause animals to avoid the area and/or reduce their breeding efficiency; increased road traffic and related injuries or mortalities; increased risk of predation from raptors perched on existing or future power poles and/or grouse avoidance of areas with overhead power lines; potential illegal harvest; and reduced water tables resulting in the loss of herbaceous vegetation. Following reclamation, there may be a long term loss of nesting and winter habitat, depending on the amount of sagebrush that is restored relative to the amount of sagebrush that is present before mining. Sagebrush is a component of both the Sagebrush/Grassland and Big Sagebrush vegetation communities, which occupy approximately 55 to 60 percent of the combined vegetation analysis areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. WDEQ/LQD reclamation standards call for restoration of sagebrush on at least 20 percent of the reclaimed area. Estimates for the time it would take to restore shrubs, including sagebrush, to pre-mining density levels range from 20 to 100 years. Until sagebrush returns to its pre-mining density levels, a reduction in potential sage-grouse nesting habitat and winter habitat on the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts would persist. Due to the documented long-term lack of sage-grouse use on USFS lands and adjacent lands in the North, South, and West Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas and surrounding wildlife survey areas, USFS Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002, page 1-18; Appendix D) would have limited applications toward controlling the type, timing, and location of disturbance activities within the three Hilight Field LBA Tract areas. The use of existing roads, when possible, could minimize additional impacts related to traffic hazards and the use of new travel corridors by mammalian predators. Raptor predation does not seem to be a primary source of mortality for the local sagegrouse population (Brown and Clayton 2004). Nevertheless, new overhead power lines could be fitted with perch deterrents to limit opportunities for avian predators to target any grouse that might be in the area. The use of underground power lines to the extent possible would also reduce this risk, and would minimize new vertical structures that could affect grouse use or movements in the area. If precautions are taken to avoid direct mortalities and disturbances to nests and leks during the breeding season, grouse might have the opportunity to disperse away from mine activities. Mine operations and oil and gas development have requirements for reclamation of disturbed areas as recovery of energy resources is completed. Those reclamation efforts can work in concert with Standards and Guidelines toward mitigating impacts to wildlife species and habitats, though reclamation standards are widely variable among industries. New areas disturbed by mining in the general analysis areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts will be reclaimed incrementally, but they may not be attractive to sage-grouse for many years due to slow establishment and growth rates of important sagebrush species. Information gleaned from the multi-year telemetry study at H-104 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H a neighboring coal mine could also be helpful in reclamation efforts for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. In the meantime, the presence of known and apparently suitable sage-grouse habitat elsewhere within the immediate area could provide alternate areas for dispersing grouse to use until reclaimed sagebrush stands have matured adequately to support a local population. In keeping with the Direction Objectives for the Hilight Bill Geographic Area (USFS 2002, page 1-25), impacts to sage-grouse habitat in the general analysis areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts could be further mitigated off-site by efforts to preserve and enhance habitat on adjoining and nearby private lands, such as those currently under way through the Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association. Management planning and processes that are developed through this combined effort among landowners and federal representatives will presumably provide suitable habitat for sagegrouse that disperse from the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts general analysis areas during the interim between habitat disturbance and completed reclamation. Should sage-grouse move onto USFS lands analyzed in this EIS in the future, agency Standards and Guidelines would offer appropriate protections for the species and its important habitats. However, under the current conditions, and the documented absence or consistently low presence of this species in the area, mining USFS lands within the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts would not adversely impact sage-grouse populations in the region, nor would it conflict with the current TBNG Plan or any future objectives to manage the area for this species. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. The sage-grouse is a common year-round resident throughout much of the PRB and TBNG, but has declined on and within 2 miles of the general analysis areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts over the last 30 years. Three decades of regular monitoring have documented that sage-grouse have not consistently inhabited the USFS lands analyzed for the North or South Hilight Field LBA Tracts, nor have they been confirmed as occupying USFS lands analyzed for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract since 1991. Currently, the nearest lek (Payne lek) with regular activity is more than 5.0 miles to the southeast of the USFS lands in the South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Consequently, if the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts are leased, anticipated mining-related disturbances would not affect any identified and actively used seasonal sage-grouse habitats on or near USFS lands in the combined general analysis areas for these three tracts. Annual monitoring will continue for the life of the Black Thunder Mine, and would include new permit expansions and a one-mile perimeter. Should sagegrouse be observed on USFS lands in any of the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ wildlife survey areas, appropriate monitoring and mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize impacts to birds, habitats, and populations. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-105

Appendix H H-3.4.27 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Bald eagles occur throughout North America, from Alaska and Canada south to Florida, the Gulf Coast, and northern Mexico. The northwest coast of North America serves as the stronghold for this species, with approximately one-half of the population inhabiting Alaska. The USFWS officially listed the bald eagle as an endangered species in 43 of the lower 48 states on July 4, 1976. The listing was due to a combination of several factors, including widespread habitat loss, negative effects of pesticide use on reproductive success, indiscriminant shooting, and others. The status of the bald eagle was downgraded to threatened throughout the lower 48 states in 1995. Bald eagle population trends began increasing throughout most of the species’ range in the early 1990’s, and it was proposed for de-listing in 1999. On July 9, 2007, USFWS published a Federal Register notice (72 FR 37346) announcing that the bald eagle would be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.) on August 8, 2007. However, the protections provided to the bald eagle under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 U.S.C. 668, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703, will remain in place. The bald eagle is now recognized as a BLM and USFS Sensitive Species. Bald eagles typically nest in large trees within a stand of mature, similarly sized trees either beside or in proximity (within 0.7 mile) to rivers, lakes, or reservoirs that harbor adequate fish populations. Those areas tend to be remote and experience little disturbance (Johnsgard 1990). Typically, the nest is placed in the crown of a large cottonwood or pine, but if the topography allows, eagles will nest on cliff edges or escarpments. Open-canopied trees and snags provide required perches in nesting and foraging areas. All verified bald eagle nests in northeastern Wyoming (BLM Buffalo Field Office GIS database) are situated in significant, mature cottonwood stands along larger streams or rivers (i.e., Tongue River, Powder River, Clear Creek, and Little Thunder Creek). Nesting attempts are rare on the TBNG (Beske 1994). Fish and waterfowl are the primary source of food for nesting bald eagles. Where available, large to mid-size carrion and large rodents (e.g., prairie dogs) can also be an important dietary component. Bald eagles nest and winter throughout Wyoming, though typically are not locally abundant in the northeastern portion of the state. The species regularly migrates through and winters in Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004), and has often been documented during winter and early spring at nearby coal mines (various coal mine annual reports are on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne). Most eagles that migrate through or winter in Campbell County roost communally in stands of large ponderosa pine, along wooded cottonwood-riparian corridors, or H-106 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H in isolated stands of large trees. As water is scarce in that region, especially during winter, those birds likely forage widely for lagomorphs or carrion. Existing Conditions The bald eagle is seasonally common and most frequently observed during the winter months. Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants in the PRB, but only rarely nest in that region. Potential bald eagle nesting and winter roosting habitat, being primarily scattered stands of mature cottonwood trees, are present on USFS and adjacent lands along Little Thunder Creek, which flows through the general analysis areas for the South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts; no streams flow through the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. In general, the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts do not contain unique or sizeable concentrated prey sources (e.g., fisheries, waterfowl wintering areas) that would be expected to attract bald eagles. As described in the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ black-tailed prairie dog analyses that are included within this appendix and in Section 3.10 of this EIS, two prairie dog colonies encompassing a total of approximately 89.2 acres were present on USFS lands within the three Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas in 2007. A total of four prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 112.1 acres were present in the three combined general analysis areas, and a total of 12 prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 248.9 acres were present in the combined wildlife study areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts in 2007 (Figures H-1, H-2 and H-3). Sheep and their lambs are present in this area in the spring, when bald eagles have typically left the region, and flocks are pastured there infrequently in the winter. The area does not support a large big game herd, though some groups do winter in the area. Ground surveys for bald eagle winter roost sites were most recently conducted within the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field tracts during baseline surveys beginning in 2006. Previous winter roost surveys also encompassed all or most potential habitat within that overall survey area. All winter roost surveys were conducted between ½ hour before and 1 hour after sunrise or between 1 hour before and ½ hour after sunset, per current BLM guidelines for survey timing and frequency. Biologists also watched for nesting bald eagles within the survey area while conducting surveys for other nesting raptors. No bald eagle nests or winter roosts have been documented within 1 mile of USFS lands located within the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during any baseline or annual monitoring studies since they began in the late 1970s and early 1980s, respectively. Similarly, no bald eagle nests or winter roosts have been documented within 1 mile of USFS lands located within the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during any baseline or annual monitoring studies since they began during those same timeframes. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-107

Appendix H The BLM and USFS wildlife databases indicate that the nearest potential bald eagle nest was identified in 2003 in T.43N., R.71W., NE¼NW¼ Section 29, which is in the southwestern corner of the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-3). Although the nest has been labeled as a bald eagle site for that year, the circumstances of the sighting were less than definitive. The lone observation of the nest was made from approximately 1 mile away late in the nesting season, when young golden eagles are fully feathered except for their heads. It is possible that an inexperienced observer could have mistaken a young golden eagle for an adult bald eagle under those circumstances. Additionally, golden eagles were confirmed nesters at the same site location in both 2002 and 2004. Nevertheless, the site could be treated as a potential bald eagle nest for management purposes. Direct and Indirect Effects As no winter roost sites or large groups of bald eagles have been documented in the general analysis area for any of the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts, potential impacts would be limited to occasional foraging individuals rather than a large segment of the population. The increased human presence and noise associated with construction activities, if conducted while eagles are wintering within the area, could harass or displace individual eagles during that period. Nesting eagles could also be distressed to the point of abandoning eggs or young, or their hunting efforts and success impacted. If necessary, the majority of direct effects could be mitigated by controlling the timing and location of disturbance activities, and/or through approved nest relocation efforts. Indirect effects include additional disturbance and fragmentation of already limited foraging habitat within the geographic area. These impacts could result from a variety of large- and small-scale activities described previously for other species, including, but not limited to: topsoil stripping; overburden and coal removal; reclamation activities; and construction of roads, reservoirs, power lines (above ground and buried), fences, and pipelines. The locations of operations would shift throughout the expanded permit area as mining occurred, with habitats disturbed and reclaimed incrementally. Conversely, the addition of fences and raptor-safe power poles could possibly benefit foraging bald eagles by providing additional perch sites. Due to the limited presence of potential nesting or roosting sites, and lack of concentrated sources of prey, the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 to bald eagles are expected to be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. No bald eagle nests have been documented on or within 1 mile of the North or South Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ general analysis areas, and only one dubious nesting event was recorded in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract’s general analysis area over time. Bald eagle winter roost sites are absent from all three Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ wildlife survey areas, and little potential H-108 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H nesting or roosting habitat is present. Therefore, potential hazards for this species would be limited to foraging individuals during winter. Disturbance, fragmentation, and alteration of potential foraging habitat would occur. However, the Black Thunder Mine has avoided, where possible, and mitigated raptor impacts in the past through intensive raptor monitoring, implementation of USFWS approved mitigation measures, and adjusting operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests. H-3.4.28 Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) The mountain plover breeds from southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan through central Montana, south to south-central Wyoming, east-central Colorado and northeastern New Mexico, and east to northern Texas and western Kansas. In Wyoming, this species is a common summer resident (Cerovski et al. 2004). Mountain plovers require flat grasslands with short and sparse vegetation, and a large bare ground component (Knopf 1996) for nesting, foraging, or staging. Within the PRB, heavily grazed prairie dog colonies generally provide the most suitable mountain plover habitat. Mountain plovers are monogamous and possibly polyandrous ground nesters, and typically produce at least two clutches. The nest is a shallow depression occasionally thinly lined with grass. Plovers may utilize the same nesting area in subsequent years (Dechant et al. 2003d). Adults and fledged chicks leave the breeding grounds by early August, and may stage within appropriate habitats before migrating. Plovers feed primarily upon insects. Beetles, grasshoppers, crickets, and ants are the most important prey items (Knopf 1996). This species is highly approachable and does not flee far. Mountain plover populations have historically declined and recent data suggests that this species is continuing to decline in numbers. Causes of population declines have been primarily attributed to regional changes in agricultural practices (Knopf 1996). Existing Conditions Mountain plovers are summer residents within portions of the TBNG. Most observations of mountain plovers in northeast Wyoming have been associated with prairie dog colonies. Approximately 86 percent of recently (since 1993) occupied mountain plover habitat in that region occurred within prairie dog colonies (Byer 2001). As described in the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ black-tailed prairie dog analyses that are included within this appendix and in Section 3.10 of this EIS, two prairie dog colonies encompassing a total of approximately 89.2 acres were present on USFS lands within the three Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas in 2007. A total of four prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 112.1 acres were present in the three combined general analysis areas, and a total of 12 prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 248.9 acres were present in the combined wildlife study areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts in 2007 (Figures H-1, H-2 and H-3).

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-109

Appendix H As previously described for other short-grass species, the dominance of sagebrush in the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tract’s general analysis and wildlife survey areas provides only poor to marginal or unsuitable habitat for mountain plovers. The height and composition of vegetation on most USFS lands in the three Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas is generally too tall and dense to provide suitable habitat for mountain plovers. The lack of occurrence of this species at the Black Thunder Mine and surrounding area, including all USFS lands in the analysis areas, is well documented. The nearest known population of nesting mountain plovers occurs at the Antelope Mine, approximately 9 miles south of the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, and even farther from the other two Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects to mountain plovers in all three general analysis areas for the Hilight Field LBA Tracts would be the same as those described above for the McCown’s longspur. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. USFS lands in the North, South, and West Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas are dominated by sagebrush communities that are not attractive to short-grass species such as the mountain plover. No individuals of this species have been documented in any of the three Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas, though limited potential habitat is present there. Documented alternative habitats for mountain plovers are present in portions of the general area that are more appropriate for this species and are not currently scheduled for mining disturbance. H-3.4.29 Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Loggerhead shrikes breed from Washington, northern Alberta, central Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba, south to California and Florida, and east to southwestern Minnesota, southern Wisconsin, southern Michigan, and Maryland. This species is a common summer resident throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Shrikes prefer relatively open, heterogeneous habitats characterized by grasses and forbs of low stature interspersed with bare ground and shrubs or low trees with perches for hunting. This species will use a wide variety of trees and shrubs, particularly thick or thorny species, as nesting substrates and hunting perches (Prescott and Bjorge 1999). Although some shrike nests are used in subsequent years, fidelity to a nest site is limited. This species forages over relatively open habitats, feeding primarily upon arthropods, amphibians, small to medium-sized reptiles, small mammals, and birds (Yosef 1996). Shrikes may also feed upon road kill and carrion. This species is generally tolerant of human activity near a nest, although they will abandon if disturbed during egg-laying or early in incubation. The loggerhead shrike is declining in both number and overall range. Declines have been H-110 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H attributed to habitat loss and conversion, urbanization, pesticide contamination, and loss of insect prey as a result of pesticide use (Yosef 1996). Existing Conditions Loggerhead shrikes are common summer residents within the TBNG, though they are not often observed on or adjacent to USFS lands within the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Shrikes have occasionally been seen in the 1-mile perimeter wildlife survey area for the adjacent Black Thunder Mine, which overlaps significant portions of USFS lands in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. No actual shrike nests or recently fledged young have been documented on or near USFS lands in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, but this species could potentially nest in the general vicinity. Over time, most sightings have occurred in cottonwoodriparian corridors along primary streams in the general Wright analysis area, or in taller greasewood stands. Neither habitat type is common in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Shrikes have also been infrequently recorded perched on various fences or on overhead power lines at other nearby mines. Shrike foraging habitat is present throughout the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, including USFS lands. As indicated, existing utility and fence lines currently provide good quality hunting perches. Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives could result in direct and indirect impacts to loggerhead shrikes, though such impacts would likely be uncommon. No known nest sites have been documented on or adjacent to USFS lands in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area or elsewhere in the overlapping mine monitoring area for the adjacent Black Thunder Mine. The most probable direct impact would be the mortality of, or injury to, individuals foraging within or passing through the USFS lands due to collisions with future mine-related vehicles, or dispersal of foraging individuals due to active mining. The relatively slow movement of mining equipment and the noise associated with the activity would decrease direct impacts associated with vehicle collisions. As loggerhead shrikes are not especially common in the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, indirect impacts would be limited despite the fragmentation, degradation, or loss of habitat in the short and mid term. Any birds that would be displaced would be forced to travel to other locations with acceptable habitat. This could result in stress to individual birds, as well as potential decreased nesting effort and success. Prey numbers reduced by mining would be expected to rebound following reclamation due to generally high reproductive potential and prey tendencies to re-establish and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas. The locations of mine-related habitat disturbances and reclamation efforts would proceed incrementally throughout the expanded mining area as operations progressed. Additionally, this mining activity would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives to manage the TBNG for this species. USFS Standards and Guidelines would Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-111

Appendix H offer additional protections for any active nest sites that may be present in the area. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Such impacts would be minimized by the lack of regular sightings and known nesting attempts, as well as the relative paucity of suitable nesting habitat on or adjacent to the USFS lands analyzed in this EIS and their surrounding region. Degradation, fragmentation, or loss of potential foraging habitat, reduction in prey populations, and potential collisions with vehicles may occur. Given the lack of birds recorded in the area, and the composition of the shrike’s prey base (insects, small mammals, etc.), impacts to shrikes would be minimal. USFS Standards and Guidelines would apply for active nests during the breeding season. Additionally, mining the USFS lands would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives to manage the TBNG for loggerhead shrikes. H-3.4.30 Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) The breeding range of the Brewer’s sparrow extends from southwestern Yukon, southern Alberta, and southwestern Saskatchewan, south (east of the Cascades and Sierras) to southern California, central Arizona, and northern New Mexico (Rotenberry et al. 1999). The Brewer’s sparrow is a common summer resident of the basinprairie and mountain-foothills throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate species (Rotenberry et al. 1999). This species is an uncommon cowbird (Molothrus ater) host and typically builds a small cup nest low in sagebrush shrubs. Brewer’s sparrows prefer to nest in medium-sized (48-90 centimeters, or 19-35 inches) live sagebrush within relatively dense (26-42 percent canopy cover) stands (Walker 2004). Grass height and density are important factors for nest concealment. Although tolerant of human visitation, this species may abandon a nest if disturbed during the construction process. Brewer’s sparrows feed primarily on small insects and, to a lesser extent, seeds from grasses and forbs. Throughout areas where they have been surveyed, the species appears to have undergone and continues to undergo statistically significant declines (Rotenberry et al. 1999). Major threats to Brewer's sparrow populations are similar to those faced by other declining sagebrush-obligate species and include habitat conversion and fragmentation, invasion by non native plants, altered fire regimes, livestock overgrazing, conifer encroachment, energy development, and conversion to urban or residential housing (Walker 2004). Existing Conditions Brewer’s sparrows are common summer residents within the TBNG and southern Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004). Breeding bird survey data from annual monitoring and baseline studies conducted for the Black Thunder H-112 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Mine, and incidental observations over time, have shown that the Brewer’s sparrow is a common but limited breeder in the area. This species has been recorded in sagebrush habitats near the mine during many of the last 14 years (1994-2007). Although no nests have been encountered in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, the presence and behavior (singing) of birds throughout spring and summer suggest that Brewer’s sparrows nest in the sagebrush stands common to that area. Direct and Indirect Effects As described for the ferruginous hawk, above, habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush communities in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract would result from a variety of large- and smallscale mining operations such as topsoil stripping, drilling, and reservoir construction, among others. Potential nesting and foraging habitat would also be fragmented by linear disturbances such as the construction, maintenance, and removal of roads, fences, power lines, and pipelines. Those disturbances could also create new travel corridors for mammalian predators that reside in or pass through the area. However, many such disturbances would occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, typically over a period of days. Additionally, those structures are often constructed immediately prior to the removal of similar features elsewhere in the area, often resulting in minimal or no net gain of new linear disturbances. All mine-related habitat disturbances and reclamation efforts would shift throughout the expanded permit area as operations progress. The use of existing roads, when possible, could minimize impacts related to traffic hazards and predator travel corridors. Increased activity and noise, especially during the nest initiation period, could inhibit nesting proximate to mining activities. Foraging could also be hindered within these areas, especially where active mining occurs. Additional infrastructure and activity associated with the expansion of the mine, in combination with other ongoing disturbances (e.g., CBNG operations), could displace Brewer’s sparrows from any historical use areas that might occur in the area. Those birds could potentially move into other sagebrush stands in the general vicinity, assuming they are not already occupied. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed in a given portion of the mine and will eventually mitigate impacts to sagebrush habitats to some degree, though such efforts could take decades to benefit sagebrush obligates such as the Brewer’s sparrow. Impacts to sagebrush habitat on USFS lands could be further mitigated off-site by efforts to preserve and enhance such habitat on adjacent and nearby private lands, as described above. Standards and Guidelines for sagebrush habitats outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, pages 1-18; Appendix D) would be implemented as necessary, and could serve to sustain regional populations of this sparrow. Those management guidelines would apply only to activities beyond the South Hilight Field LBA Tract. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-113

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Some habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would occur on and near USFS lands in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract, along with potential impacts to individuals. However, the presence of large stands of sagebrush elsewhere in the general vicinity suggests that Brewer’s sparrows would remain viable within the TBNG for at least the shortterm. Additionally, the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan (USFS 2002) or future objectives to manage the area for this species. Application of appropriate USFS Standards and Guidelines, successful reclamation efforts, and proper land management on adjoining lands could mitigate potential impacts, to some degree. H-3.5 West Hilight Field LBA Tract

H-3.5.1 Prairie moonwort (Botrychium campestre) The prairie moonwort, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species was only recorded in Wyoming in a semi-shady mixed deciduous and ponderosa pine forest on sandy soils in the Black Hills. Prairie moonworts are known to exist in a variety of other habitats such as those underlain by Pierre shale, the Laramie Formation, calcareous sedimentary rocks, calcareous soils underlain by limestone, sandy soils and loess prairie. These habitats are generally limited on the West Hilight Field general analysis area, with only some areas dominated by sandy soils present. Existing Conditions Prime habitats for the prairie moonwort are not present on the USFS lands within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract. Sites with sandy soils are present on USFS lands and other portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas are rather sparsely vegetated and do not provide habitat preferred by this plant species. Prairie moonworts have not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential for loss of individuals or preferred habitats is very low. H-114 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H H-3.5.2 Narrowleaf moonwort (Botrychium lineare) The narrowleaf moonwort, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species has an affinity for riparian areas and is associated with spruce/fir forests, lodgepole pine forests, and forest meadows. Existing Conditions Habitats for the narrowleaf moonwort are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian habitats or forest habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The narrowleaf moonwort has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is very low. H-3.5.3 Leathery grapefern (Botrychium multifidum var. coulteri) The leathery grapefern, a plant species of local concern, has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for meadows, wetlands, floodplains and other wet areas in open to forested habitats within forests. Existing Conditions Habitats for the leathery grapefern are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian habitats or forest habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on other portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The leathery grapefern has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-115

Appendix H Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the leathery grapefern. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.5.4 Foxtail sedge (Carex alopecoidea) The foxtail sedge, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial plant species and has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. The foxtail sedge generally has an affinity for wet meadows and willow-sedge communities along wet, shady creek bottoms and springs. Existing Conditions Habitats for the foxtail sedge are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wet meadows or willow-sedge communities are not present on these USFS lands. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on other portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The foxtail sedge has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the foxtail sedge. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential for loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.5.5 Elliptic spikerush (Eleocharis elliptica) The elliptic spikerush, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial and has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for wetland areas created by seeps or springs but may also be found in temporarily flooded areas.

H-116

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Existing Conditions Habitats for the elliptic spikerush are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wetland habitats are not present on these USFS lands. Few wetland sites associated with various ephemeral drainages and playas are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The elliptic spikerush has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to lack of abundant suitable habitat the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field does not provide abundant habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is low. H-3.5.6 Hall’s fescue (Festuca hallii) The Hall’s fescue, a sensitive plant species, is a tufted perennial grass and has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for montane meadows, slopes and edges of open coniferous woods and meadows above 6,000 feet in Wyoming. Existing Conditions Habitats for the Hall’s fescue are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable montane habitats above 6,000 feet are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the Hall’s fescue has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the Hall’s fescue. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-117

Appendix H H-3.5.7 Wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum) The wood lily, a plant species of local concern, is a perennial herb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for woodland meadows and woodland grasslands. Existing Conditions Habitats for the wood lily are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable woodland meadow or grassland habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the wood lily has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the wood lily. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.5.8 Largeflower triteleia (Triteleia grandiflora) The largeflower triteleia, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial herb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for grassy areas in sagebrush at the edge of aspen and lodgepole pine forests and in pinon-juniper woodlands to pine forests and hills. Existing Conditions Habitats for the largeflower triteleia are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable grassy areas in sagebrush at the edge of aspen and lodgepole pine forests and pinon-juniper woodlands or pine forests and hills are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the largeflower triteleia has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities.

H-118

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the largeflower triteleia. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.5.9 Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii) The Barr’s milkvetch, a sensitive plant species, is a matt-forming perennial forb that is known from numerous occurrences on the USFS lands within the TBNG. As more surveys are completed, new occurrences are reported. The Barr’s milkvetch is found primarily on dry, sparsely-vegetated rocky prairie breaks, knolls, hillsides and ridges. Parent material is calcareous soft shale, siltstone or silty sandstone. Most populations appear to be stable, although populations may decline under drought conditions. Existing Conditions Astragalus barrii is a regional endemic plant of the plains in southwestern South Dakota, eastern Wyoming, southeastern Montana, and northwestern Nebraska. According to USFS, this plant species is known to occur in six counties in Wyoming, and there are eleven known occurrences of A. barrii in the USFS TBNG. Suitable habitat for the Barr’s milkvetch is present on the USFS lands within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract as well as other lands within the general Wright analysis area. Populations and individuals have not been documented in the general Wright analysis area, but have been identified in surrounding areas. A pedestrian survey of the tract’s general analysis area was conducted in April 2008, when the Barr’s milkvetch is in bloom, and no individuals of this species were found. Barr’s milkvetch has been collected and positively identified approximately 16 miles south of the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, in the Section 21 of T.40N., R.71W., based on specimens on file with the Rocky Mountain Herbarium in Laramie, Wyoming. Indirect and Direct Impacts If lands within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract are leased and mined, potential habitat, individuals, and A. barrii populations could be lost due to surface disturbances caused by mining activities. These losses would most likely be permanent unless disturbed lands are reclaimed to habitats that would support this plant species. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing because there are Astragalus barrii occurrences outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-119

Appendix H H-3.5.10 Smooth goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum) The smooth goosefoot, a plant species of local concern, is an annual forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for sand bars and sandy blowouts in riparian areas. Existing Conditions Habitats for the smooth goosefoot are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian areas are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few riparian areas associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas do not contain the required sand bar or sandy blowout habitats required for this plant species. The smooth goosefoot has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the smooth goosefoot. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. The flat-top H-3.5.11 Flat-top goldentop (Euthamia graminifolia) goldentop, a plant species of local concern, is a rhizomatous perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for stony sandbars and streambanks but may also be found on moist or drying sites along open streambanks or roadside ditches. Existing Conditions Habitats for the flat-top goldentop are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wetland or streambank areas are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Streambanks and a few wetland areas in association with various ephemeral drainages are present within portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas generally do not contain the typical habitats required for this plant species, but marginal habitats are present. The flat-top goldentop has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis areas or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would H-120 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is low. H-3.5.12 Rosy palafox (Palafoxia rosea var. macrolepis) The rosy palafox, a plant species of local concern, is an annual forb that has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area but has been recorded on other lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for sagebrush and mixedgrass prairie habitats on sandy soils. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by the rosy palafox are present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area and on other surrounding lands. Sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie plant communities are present on sandy soils in the general Wright analysis area. However, rosy palafox has not been recorded on these lands but is potentially present. This plant species has been documented southeast of the general Wright analysis area. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract, and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does contain some suitable habitat for this plant species but the rosy palafox has not been documented. This species has been documented southeast of the general Wright analysis area and abundant habitat is present on other sites that would not be affected H-3.5.13 Lemonscent (Pectis angustifolia) The lemonscent, a plant species of local concern, is an annual forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area but has been recorded on other lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-121

Appendix H this species generally has an affinity for gravel hills and scoria slopes. Lemonscent is also known to occur in low areas in sandy ravines and on sandbars. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by lemonscent are present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area and on other surrounding lands. However, lemonscent has not been recorded in the general Wright analysis area but could potentially be present. This plant species has been documented south of the general Wright analysis area. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract, and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does contain some suitable habitat for this plant species but the lemonscent has not been documented. This species has been documented south of the general Wright analysis area and abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.5.14 Larchleaf beardtongue (Penstemon laricifolius spp. exifolius) The larchleaf beardtongue (penstemon), a plant species of local concern, is a perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for dry, rocky, gravelly or sandy slopes, ridgetops and upland flats with shallow soils. Most populations in Wyoming are found at elevations above 6,000 feet, but this species has been documented at lower elevations in the state. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by larchleaf beardtongue are marginally present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few rocky, gravelly hill slopes and rough breaks provide potential habitat, but the larchleaf beardtongue has not been recorded on these lands. This plant species has not been documented near the general Wright analysis area but is potentially present.

H-122

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general Wright analysis area and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does contain marginal habitat for this plant species but the larchleaf beardtongue has not been documented. This species has been documented and is common in southern Wyoming and abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.5.15 Wooly twinpod (Physaria didymocarpa var. lanata) The wooly twinpod, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for dry redbed clay-shale slopes, limey-sandstone outcrops, roadcuts and other exposed rock-cliff substrates. Most populations in Wyoming have been documented in the foothills of the Big Horn Mountains. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by the wooly twinpod are marginally present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few sandstone outcrops and exposed rock-cliff substrates provide potential habitat, but the wooly twinpod has not been recorded on these lands. This plant species has not been documented near the general Wright analysis area but is potentially present. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general Wright analysis area and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does contain marginal habitat for this plant species but the wooly twinpod has not been documented. This species has been documented and is common in north-central Wyoming and abundant habitat is present on other Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-123

Appendix H sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.5.16 Visher’s buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri) The Visher’s buckwheat, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area but has been tentatively identified elsewhere within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for gullied ridges and eroded badland hills. These sites generally consist of barren shale and clay outcrops with at least 50 percent bare soil, high salt content and shrink/swell clay soils. Typical habitat includes badland islands in grasslands. Existing Conditions Habitats for the Visher’s buckwheat are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few areas of highly eroded gullies consisting of barren shale or clay outcrops may be found in portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these sites do not appear to provide suitable habitat for this species. The Visher’s buckwheat has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the Visher’s buckwheat. As indicated, the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does not provide optimum suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.5.17 Highbush-cranberry (Viburnum opulus var. americanum) The highbush-cranberry, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area or within the TBNG. In Wyoming, this plant species is found within Crook County and is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for moist sites including wooded hillsides, thickets or low woodlands. The highbush-cranberry is found all across northern North America. Existing Conditions Habitats for the highbush-cranberry are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable moist, wooded habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. The highbush-cranberry has not been recorded within the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. H-124 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the highbush-cranberry. As indicated, this species has not been documented in the general Wright analysis area and the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.5.18 Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Northern leopard frogs range from the Great Slave Lake and Hudson Bay, south to Kentucky and New Mexico (NatureServe 2007). This species is considered relatively common within Wyoming (Baxter and Stone 1980, Cerovski et al. 2004). Northern leopard frogs require shallow, permanent, or semi-permanent standing water with at least some emergent vegetation for breeding (Wagner 1997). Conversely, they use deeper lakes or ponds with well-oxygenated water that does not freeze to the bottom as overwintering habitat (Wagner 1997). Leopard frogs must have good quality water to successfully reproduce, as degraded or turbid water has the potential to negatively affect development of eggs and tadpoles. Overcrowding and changes in water temperature and pH (5.5 or lower) can increase the incidence of disease and mortality (NatureServe 2007) in this species. Adult frogs feed upon a variety of insects and other invertebrates, tadpoles, snakes, and fish (Cerovski et al. 2004), while tadpoles feed primarily upon small invertebrates, plant tissue, and organic debris. Adults also forage within aquatic and upland habitats, whereas tadpoles are restricted to aquatic habitats. Although their overall range remains essentially undiminished in size, many populations are declining. Major factors affecting leopard frog populations are habitat loss in some portions of their range, habitat degradation, overexploitation, interactions with non-native species, climate change, disease, and other unknown causes (Wagner 1997). Existing Conditions The northern leopard frog has been observed in southern Campbell County, but has not officially been recognized as breeding there (Cerovski et al. 2004). Although formal anuran surveys were not required or conducted at the adjacent Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, or North Antelope Rochelle mines, annual monitoring efforts for other species conducted in overlapping survey areas from 1983 through 2007 have not revealed the presence of northern leopard frogs or anuran egg masses on USFS lands or elsewhere within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. Those surveys occurred during all seasons, with biologists watching and listening for northern leopard frogs and other herptiles while conducting all other surveys throughout the area. It is unlikely that northern leopard frogs would have remained undetected during multiple surveys conducted during that long-term period if they were present in the area. Results from annual wildlife monitoring and Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-125

Appendix H baseline studies for the three mines are on file with, and available from, the WDEQ/LQD in Sheridan or Cheyenne, Wyoming and USFS Douglas Ranger District; those reports also include detailed descriptions of survey areas (including maps), methods, and dates for each year. Habitat conditions on USFS and non-USFS lands within the tract’s general analysis area are classified as poor potential to unsuitable, as there are only limited seasonal water sources available. No permanent or semi-permanent waters are present anywhere on those USFS lands. Little Thunder Creek passes through USFS lands within the West Hilight Field tract. In its natural state, this ephemeral stream is typically dry by mid to late summer, and without flow to maintain open water, any pools persisting until winter freeze solid, thus limiting overwintering habitat for this species. Like Little Thunder Creek, all other drainages throughout the tract’s general analysis area are ephemeral in nature and only carry water during or immediately following high intensity precipitation events, resulting in low quality or unsuitable habitat conditions for this frog species. Water discharged from CBNG wells has enhanced the water supply within some portions of Little Thunder Creek and its tributaries, which has increased potential habitat for some aquatic and semi-aquatic species. However, those enhanced areas are still relatively limited and/or isolated in nature. A portion of Little Thunder Creek on USFS lands in the W½ Section 22, T.43N., R.71W. (Little Thunder Reservoir) has been dammed to retain water for at least part of each year. Despite that occasional increased water supply, the reservoir often lacks the emergent vegetation that is important for breeding and foraging leopard frogs. Water levels in drainages are typically too temporary and/or shallow to support tadpoles until metamorphosis, or allow frogs to successfully overwinter, respectively. The general lack of emergent vegetation near temporary water bodies limits their value to northern leopard frogs. Direct and Indirect Effects Wetland and aquatic habitats for northern leopard frogs are considered very poor to unsuitable on USFS lands and elsewhere in the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, as described above. Furthermore, no frog sightings have been recorded on USFS lands during baseline surveys or annual monitoring completed between 1983 and 2007. Consequently, northern leopard frogs and their aquatic and terrestrial habitats are not expected to be impacted if the USFS lands in this LBA tract were leased. In the unlikely event that this species is present in the future, direct loss of, or injury to, foraging and dispersing frogs could result from encounters with mine vehicles or heavy equipment during topsoil stripping or other surface disturbance near Little Thunder Creek, although such risks are minimal due to the lack of frog sightings to date. It is possible that existing reservoirs and ponds (natural and those enhanced by CBNG discharge water), and those created for flood control, sedimentation, water storage purposes, or wetland mitigation measures could provide suitable foraging or breeding habitat for northern leopard frogs in the future. However, H-126 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H most artificial water structures would still be limited to relatively shallow, seasonal waters with little emergent vegetation that would not provide for the year-round habitat needs of this frog species. Should those efforts result in improved aquatic habitats, adult frogs, tadpoles, and/or egg masses present in the area could be injured or killed during activities associated with additional construction of diversion dikes or associated channels, or the dewatering of potential habitats downstream of a dike. Under those limited circumstances, potential impacts could include loss of individuals and foraging habitat, increased predation, and changes in stream morphology and hydrology. Standard mining procedures such as the use of silt barriers across affected stream channels and other similar efforts would minimize any negative impacts that might result from mine-related operations. Likewise, adherence to the Thunder Basin National Grassland Plan Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002) pertaining to water and wetlands would ensure that leopard frogs and other aquatic organisms present on USFS lands would not be negatively affected by increased sedimentation, degraded water chemistry, or otherwise damaged aquatic habitats. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, USFS lands and adjacent non-federal lands within the West Hilight Field general analysis area do not contain suitable habitat for northern leopard frogs. Water sources in the drainages in that area are too temporary and shallow to support tadpoles until metamorphosis, or to allow frogs to successfully overwinter. If present, individual adult leopard frogs may be incidentally killed by vehicles or equipment. Habitat may be enhanced or created during certain mine operations, but water flow and depth associated with existing structures at the adjacent Black Thunder Mine have not resulted in adequate conditions to support the life cycle needs of this species, and they are not expected to create those conditions anywhere in this LBA tract. As no northern leopard frogs have ever been documented on USFS lands within the overall general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, potential effects are expected to be negligible, if they occur at all. Furthermore, northern leopard frogs have been documented at other sites outside of the tract’s general analysis area that will not be affected by coal leasing actions. H-3.5.19 Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) The blacktailed prairie dog was removed from the USFWS federal listing process in 2004. The agency ruled that listing this species may be warranted, but was precluded by higher priority considerations. Consequently, the black-tailed prairie dog is no longer considered a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Black-tailed prairie dogs historically ranged throughout the Great Plains in short-grass and mixed-grass prairies. This species is also a common resident in the short- and mid-grass habitats of eastern Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). The TBNG, which includes USFS lands in the general analysis area for the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-127

Appendix H West Hilight Field LBA Tract, harbors one of the seven major colony complexes remaining in North America. Black-tailed prairie dogs are highly social, diurnal burrowing rodents that typically feed on grasses and forbs. Prairie dogs form colonies that are the main unit of a prairie dog population. This species has the ability to rapidly expand its distribution and population if not limited by pest control practices or disease, and will readily spread into recently disturbed areas. Many species such as the black-footed ferret, mountain plover, burrowing owl, and swift fox are dependent on prairie dogs during a portion of their life cycle. Black-tailed prairie dog occupied range and abundance has declined dramatically, and continues to exhibit a slow decline (NatureServe 2007). Major factors contributing to the decline include disease (sylvatic plague), urbanization, habitat conversion, and control efforts. Existing Conditions A total of eight prairie dog colonies (approximately 167.5 total acres) were found within the wildlife survey area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract in 2007, three of which were present on USFS lands. The West Hilight Field wildlife survey area for this tract includes lands added by the BLM under Alternative 3 and the surrounding 2-mile perimeter. One colony (approximately 89.1 acres in size) on USFS lands was in the general analysis area itself, while the other two colonies on USFS lands were in the surrounding 2-mile perimeter, and ranged from less than 1 acre to about 7 acres in size, for a total of approximately 96 acres. Five additional prairie dog colonies were recorded on non-federal surface within or overlapping the 2-mile wildlife survey area (Figure H-3) in 2007, all five of which were outside of the tract’s general analysis area. No colonies were present on adjacent lands within Alternative 3. The total area for those five colonies was approximately 63 non-contiguous acres, and the sizes range from about 2.6 to 27.2 acres. Only the 89.1-acre colony meets the 80-acre minimum for black-footed ferret habitat (USFWS 1989). As noted above, that colony is on USFS lands and is also within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. However, the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts is outside the coal mine region of the PRB of northeast Wyoming (refer to Management Area 3.63) (USFS 2002, Grenier 2003). That coal region includes all USFS and surrounding lands within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. Additionally, some prairie dog colonies in that coal region were recently infested with the plague, while others are currently exposed to year-round disturbance associated with conventional oil and gas, CBNG, and coal (including open pits) resources, as well as seasonal recreational shooting and vehicular travel. Direct and Indirect Effects The current mining plans for the Black Thunder Mine does not project any new surface disturbance in the one prairie dog colony that is located within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. Nevertheless, that colony would be affected by the proposed leasing action at some point in time. As stated above, that colony (89.1 acres in size) is located on USFS lands. H-128 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Such impacts could have immediate results on prairie dogs if an occupied colony is suddenly subjected to the effects of a soil salvage operation, or is otherwise impacted in a short timeframe that precludes the dispersal of individuals prior to surface disturbance. However, as those activities typically occur incrementally across various portions of future mining areas, some individuals could disperse to undisturbed portions of the affected colony, or create one or more new colonies within the area. Smaller-scale disturbances associated with both the mining and CBNG industries can also impact prairie dog colonies and surrounding vegetation through fragmentation or loss of foraging and burrowing habitat. Linear disturbances associated with mining infrastructure, such as roads, power lines, fences, and pipelines will occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, and would be completed within shorter timeframes than the advancement of a surface mine pit. However, such disturbances would still pose some level of risks due to vehicular collisions or by enhancing habitat for mammalian and avian species that prey on prairie dogs. Some linear impacts could be minimized or mitigated through the consolidation of roads and electric utilities within common corridors, applying perch deterrents on overhead power poles, and reseeding pipeline disturbances quickly with appropriate seed mixes for the region. Minor surface disturbance near existing colonies would provide recently upturned soils that could facilitate the expansion of the existing colonies or the establishment of new ones, as prairie dogs will readily move into recently disturbed areas. Postmining reclamation could have similar potential benefits; prairie dogs have already demonstrated their ability to inhabit reclaimed lands at the nearby Antelope Mine (BLM 2008). All USFS Standards and Guidelines applicable to black-tailed prairie dogs outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, page 1-20) would be implemented. To reduce risks and habitat loss for prairie dogs and other wildlife species closely associated with prairie dog colonies, new roads will be aligned outside colony boundaries where possible. If it is necessary to place a new road within a prairie dog colony, the amount of road in the colony will be minimized to the extent that soil, drainage, topographical and other physical factors will allow. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Only one of the eight black-tailed prairie dog colonies within the wildlife survey area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would be physically disturbed by mining activities within the tract’s general analysis area, if the lease is issued. That colony encompassed 89.1 acres in 2007, and it was on USFS lands. Given the fact that seven of the eight colonies within the wildlife survey area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract were outside of the general analysis area (area of potential surface disturbance) associated with this proposed lease, the tendency of prairie dogs to disperse and expand their Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-129

Appendix H boundaries, and the incremental nature of surface coal mining relative to some other disturbance activities, the potential impacts to prairie dog colonies on and near USFS lands in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would not have adverse consequences for the viability of the local or regional population. Disturbance and reclamation efforts will occur incrementally in varying locations throughout the permit area as mining progresses through the approved lease. H-3.5.20 Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) The swift fox was removed from the USFWS federal listing process in 1995, after extensive field surveys demonstrated that the population was greater than expected. This species is considered to be common within the eastern Great Plains grasslands of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004), though it typically occurs at very low densities. The exact status of the population is unknown but believed to be increasing, especially in the Northern Plains. Swift foxes are largely nocturnal and typically prefer flat to gently rolling, short- or mixed-grass prairies, generally lacking in shrubs or woody vegetation (Cotterill 1997). This species uses multiple den sites year-round for shelter, protection from predators, and rearing young. Burrows of other mammals such as badgers (Taxidea taxus), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and prairie dogs are often used or modified for those purposes. Small to mid-sized mammals constitute the bulk of their diet. Swift foxes have little fear of humans and may den in proximity to human disturbances (residences and busy roadways). This tolerance also makes them susceptible to trapping, vehicle collisions, and attacks by dogs. Major threats faced by the swift fox include habitat loss and degradation, interspecific competition with red fox and coyote (Canis latrans), and vehicle collisions. Existing Conditions Swift fox have been observed in large grassland blocks in southern Campbell County with more frequency in recent years, and are presumed to breed there. This species has also been documented within the overall TBNG. However, sagebrush communities dominate the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, as well as USFS lands in that area. The prevalence of sagebrush throughout the tract’s wildlife survey area largely explains the extremely limited sightings of this grassland fox over the last 25 years, as described below. Burrows within the existing black-tailed prairie dog colonies and scattered badger or red fox burrows could be used by swift foxes as den or shelter sites, and swift fox could forage in the area. No specific surveys for swift fox were conducted for this analysis. However, such efforts were completed in 2002 using USFS survey protocols for other unrelated projects. Those surveys were within 6 miles of USFS lands in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Nocturnal spotlight surveys for rabbits and hares were conducted as part of annual wildlife monitoring at adjacent existing mines every year since at least 1994, with diurnal surveys for a variety of vertebrate species occurring across all seasons annually since the early 1980s. All of those survey efforts overlapped significant portions of the West Hilight Field tract’s wildlife survey area. H-130 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Despite those combined efforts, no swift foxes have ever been recorded on USFS or other lands within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. One sighting was made on adjacent lands east of this LBA tract along Little Thunder Creek between 1995 and 1997 in T.43N., R.71W., SE¼ Section 23 (USFS 2003). A lone fox was also observed on adjacent lands east of this LBA tract in T.43N., R.71W., SW¼ Section 14 during that same period. No swift foxes have been recorded elsewhere in the overall Black Thunder Mine annual monitoring area since surveys began in 1983. Few other swift fox sightings have been recorded elsewhere within the surrounding region during specific surveys or incidental to other searches at local mines over the last 25 years. Those efforts were conducted as part of annual wildlife monitoring by contract and USFS biologists on private and federal lands in the area. One swift fox was documented approximately 6 to 7 miles southeast of USFS lands within the general analysis areas for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract in March 2002. The fox was observed in T.42N., R.70.W., SE¼ Section 15 during spotlight trapping efforts for sage-grouse at the nearby North Antelope Rochelle Mine. The nearest other sighting occurred in T.43N., R.72W., SE¼ Section 20 between 1995 and 1997, approximately 6 miles west of USFS lands in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Reports from all annual monitoring and special studies are on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne. H-3.5.21 Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Long-billed curlews breed from interior British Columbia and southern Alberta through southern Manitoba, south to central California, and east to western North Dakota, central South Dakota, central Nebraska, western Kansas, northeastern New Mexico, and northern Texas (Dechant et al. 2003a). The long-billed curlew is a relatively uncommon summer resident of grasslands and sagebrush-grasslands in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Curlews are ground nesters, and require large open expanses of grassland, with relatively low vegetation and few shrubs in which to nest (Hill 1998). The nest is typically a shallow scrape or depression, thinly lined with grass, weeds or cow dung, typically near water or moist areas. Curlews use historically occupied sites each year, and some individual birds may reuse the same territories from year to year (Dechant et al. 2003a). Curlews primarily feed upon insects but also eat other invertebrates, small crustaceans, toads, and eggs and nestlings of other birds. This species forages in grasslands, wet meadows, prairie dog colonies, and occasionally along the margins of wetlands. Lakeshores and river valleys are often used during fall as migration staging areas (Hill 1998). Although some populations may be declining, overall population trends suggest long-billed curlew numbers are stable or increasing slightly. The major factor affecting curlew populations is habitat destruction and fragmentation.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-131

Appendix H Existing Conditions Long-billed curlews are uncommon summer residents within the TBNG. The areas evaluated for this analysis include USFS and adjacent lands within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. As described for the northern leopard frog and swift fox, above, those areas are dominated by sagebrush habitats with scattered stands of upland grasslands and little water. Consequently, habitat conditions in the tract’s general analysis area and surrounding lands would be suitable for foraging migrants, but they do not provide large expanses of grassland areas for nesting activities. No long-billed curlews have ever been documented on USFS lands or adjacent lands in the general analysis area or larger wildlife survey area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. Likewise, few curlews have been observed in the surrounding region during annual wildlife monitoring in the area over the last 24 or more years. Most of those sightings occurred during spring months and beyond USFS lands, and were likely individual migrants or non-breeding adults. No significant wetlands (i.e., large lakes) or other persistent conditions that might attract large numbers of curlews during migration exist within the West Hilight Field wildlife survey area. No nesting occurrences have been documented for long-billed curlews in southern Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004), including USFS lands in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area and adjacent lands. Potential foraging habitat is present on USFS and adjacent lands in those areas, and elsewhere within the 2-mile wildlife survey perimeter, but nesting habitat conditions are poor to unsuitable. CBNG development activities are increasing throughout the region, with active mining (including open pits) also occurring in the near vicinity. Therefore, potential foraging habitats would be disturbed by the Proposed Action and Alternatives for this LBA tract. Direct and Indirect Effects Given the lack of sightings of long-billed curlews in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract general analysis area and surrounding area since 1983, and the fact that habitat conditions in those areas are only suitable for foraging migrants or non-breeding adults, the Proposed Action and Alternatives for this LBA tract are unlikely to cause any direct injury or mortality to this species. However, if present, future mining activities could result in injuries or mortalities to foraging individuals. Foraging individuals may also be displaced by human activities and noise associated with mining. Potential foraging habitats may be disturbed, removed, or fragmented by mining activities. The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the tract’s general analysis area as operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed in a given portion of the mine, and will eventually mitigate impacts to some degree. The Black Thunder Mine’s reclamation plan would incorporate the replacement of jurisdictional wetland acreages existing prior to mining with at least equal types and numbers of wetland acreages. The creation of wetland habitats, especially where adjacent to native or reclaimed grassland habitats, could provide additional (although limited) foraging areas for curlews. H-132 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H As no long-billed curlews have been documented within USFS lands or other lands in or near the West Hilight Field LBA Tract general analysis area, and habitat conditions do not provide quality nesting areas, species-specific Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Grassland Plan (USFS 2002) would not apply. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As this species appears to be an infrequent visitor to the tract’s general analysis area, and good quality foraging and nesting habitat is not present within the area, impacts to this species are likely to be minimal. Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of potential foraging habitat and potential collisions with vehicles may occur. Reclamation of wetlands and grasslands may create limited foraging or nesting habitat. H-3.5.22 Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Ferruginous hawks breed throughout much of the western United States and portions of three Canadian provinces (Johnsgard 1990). This species nests throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004) and occupies portions of the state during winter. Large expanses of grassland and shrubland, where livestock grazing (vs. cultivation) is the predominant land use, provide the most suitable habitat (Schmutz 1989, Johnsgard 1990). Most ferruginous hawks in the PRB nest on the ground (usually elevated sites, though some pairs nest in small trees). Typical nest sites include hilltops, rock outcrops, eroded creek banks, small trees, and even relatively level ground. The ferruginous hawk relies primarily on two mammalian families for the majority of its prey: Leporidae (rabbits and hares) and Sciuridae (ground squirrels and prairie dogs). Numerous nests can occur within the territory of a single pair, and ferruginous hawks often reuse nests for many years. This species may be sensitive to human disturbance, especially during the nesting period (White and Thurow 1985). This sensitivity can be heightened in years of low prey abundance. Accurate information regarding the trend for the ferruginous hawk is limited and mixed. Some populations may be declining (Bechard and Schmutz 1995); however, overall population trends suggest numbers are stable or increasing (NatureServe 2007). Major factors affecting ferruginous hawk populations include habitat destruction and fragmentation, and human disturbance. Existing Conditions Annual monitoring has documented that ferruginous hawks nested in the vicinity of the Black Thunder Mine during each of the last 25 years, and fledged young in all but one of those years. Similar long-term nesting has occurred at the neighboring Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle mines. Many of those nests were located on USFS lands. Details describing the number of intact and active nests within the mine monitoring survey areas in a given year are available in annual monitoring and baseline wildlife reports on file at the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-133

Appendix H USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne. The presence or absence of nest material does not determine whether the USFS considers a site as “active” (occupied during at least 1 of the last 7 years). Three ferruginous hawk nest sites in two territories have been documented on USFS lands within the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during annual wildlife monitoring surveys conducted through 2007. Two sites still had nest material present that year (Figure H-3). Only one additional nest site has been recorded on USFS surface within the 2 mile wildlife survey area through 2007. No material was present at the nest site in 2007. Nine additional nest sites in three territories were present on non-federal lands within the tract’s general analysis area during the 2007 survey. Nest material was present at four of the nine sites that year. An additional 40 nest sites (24 individual nests plus 6 multi-species sites) were located on non-federal lands within the tract’s 2-mile wildlife survey area through 2007. The 40 nests were in at least 16 different territories. Only 23 of the 40 sites still had nest material present in 2007. Direct and Indirect Effects Over time, the Black Thunder Mine has avoided, where possible, or mitigated mining impacts on raptor nests through a variety of means. The mine has voluntarily monitored nesting raptor populations in a perimeter larger than required annually since 1983, maintained and implemented current USFWS approved Raptor Mitigation Plans, adjusted operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests, and ensured that new power lines at the mine conform to current Avian Power Line Interaction Commission (APLIC) guidelines. Provided those practices are continued, direct impacts on ferruginous hawks and their active nest sites will be minimized, both on and near USFS lands. Due to restrictions on disturbance near active nest sites, the most probable source of potential impact to ferruginous hawks themselves would be an increase in injuries and fatalities of individuals foraging within the general analysis area due to vehicle collisions associated with ongoing or future mining and other activities. The use of existing roads in the area, when possible, would help to minimize this risk. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would result from a variety of large- and small-scale mining operations such as soil salvaging and reservoir/flood control construction, among others. Potential nesting and foraging habitat might also be fragmented by linear disturbances such as the construction, maintenance, and removal of roads, fences, power lines, and pipelines. Those disturbances could also create new travel corridors for mammalian predators that reside in or pass through the area. However, many such disturbances would occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, typically over a period of days. Additionally, those structures are often constructed immediately prior to the removal of similar features H-134 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H elsewhere in the area, often resulting in minimal or no net gain of new linear disturbances. All mine-related habitat disturbances would shift throughout the expanded permit area as operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas would occur incrementally as resource recovery is completed in a given portion of the mine, and would mitigate impacts to some degree. Surface disturbing activities could also result in a short-term, localized decrease in the prey base (lagomorphs and rodents) for ferruginous hawks. However, due to their high reproductive potential and tendencies to re-populate and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase quickly after the disturbance. USFS Standards and Guidelines would be implemented and offer additional protections for active nests; they would apply only to activities outside of the lease area. These protocols should help ensure that the Proposed Action and Alternatives do not significantly degrade the quality of existing ferruginous hawk territories and nest sites. Standards and Guidelines specific to ferruginous hawks outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, page 1-20-21) are as follows: 73. To help prevent abandonment, reproductive failure or nest destruction, prohibit development of new facilities within 0.25 mile (or line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests. For the ferruginous hawk, a nest is no longer considered active if it is known to have been unoccupied for the last seven years. This does not apply to pipelines, fences and underground utilities. 74. To help reduce disturbances to nesting ferruginous hawks, prohibit the following activities within 0.5 mile (or line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests from 1 March through 31 July: construction (e.g., roads, water impoundments, oil and gas facilities), reclamation, gravel mining operations, drilling of water wells, and oil and gas drilling. 75. To help reduce disturbances to nesting ferruginous hawks, do not authorize the following activities within 0.5 mile (line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests from 1 March through 31 July: construction (e.g., pipelines, utilities, fencing), seismic exploration, and workover operations for maintenance of oil and gas wells. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Most ferruginous hawk nests located within the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area are located on non-federal surface. Many nests on USFS lands have alternate sites within the same territories that are beyond the general analysis area, and thus are less likely to be impacted by future mining disturbance associated with the proposed leasing action. Some individuals or pairs may experience disturbance, destruction, or fragmentation Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-135

Appendix H of nesting and foraging habitat. Increased disturbance to individuals due to human activity may also occur. However, several factors should minimize the potential mining-related impacts on this species, including the availability of alternate nest sites located further away from pending disturbance in each affected territory, implementation of USFWS and USFS approved mitigation measures, reclaiming habitats as soon as feasible, encouraging nesting within mine reclamation lands through artificial nest structures and habitat features such as rock piles and tree plantings that attract prey species, and continued monitoring of this species to ensure that mitigation methods are applied when necessary. H-3.5.23 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Burrowing owls breed from southern Alberta to southwestern Saskatchewan, south through east-central Washington, central Oregon, and southern California, and east to eastern North Dakota, west-central Kansas, and Texas (Klute et al. 2003, pg 7). The burrowing owl is a summer resident of open rangeland habitats throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species requires burrows of fossorial mammals, primarily badgers and prairie dogs, for nesting and roosting (Klute et al. 2003, pg 12). Most burrowing owl nests within the TBNG are located within prairie dog colonies (USFS 2003). Burrowing owls typically reuse traditional nesting areas. Burrow mounds, shrubs, fence posts or boulders may be used as observation perches. This species is usually tolerant of human activity but is vulnerable to predation by pets (cats, dogs). Burrowing owls forage within a variety of habitats, including cropland, pasture, prairie dog colonies, fallow fields, and sparsely vegetated areas. This species is often active during daylight hours. Insects and small mammals (mice and voles) are the owls’ primary prey items. Burrowing owl populations have been declining throughout its range, primarily due to habitat loss. Existing Conditions Burrowing owls are common summer residents within the TBNG (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species was first recorded nesting in the Black Thunder Mine annual monitoring 2-mile perimeter in 1988. Despite the presence of potential nesting habitat (prairie dog and badger burrows) in the monitoring area, this species nested in only 5 of the subsequent 19 years. All known burrowing owl nest sites in the mine monitoring area have been in prairie dog burrows. Four artificial nest boxes have been constructed in the mine’s 2-mile perimeter wildlife survey area for mitigation purposes over the years, but no owls have ever been observed at or near them. No burrowing owl nest sites had been documented within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract through 2007, including USFS lands within that area. One burrowing owl nest site has been recorded on nonfederal lands in the northwestern corner of the general analysis area and approximately 0.25 mile from the nearest USFS lands (Figure H-3). The disturbance-free buffer for active nests of this species is 0.25 mile. This nest H-136 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H site was active in 2007, but no young fledged. Two additional burrowing owl nest sites (one territory) have been documented in the northeastern portion of the two-mile wildlife survey area. Those nests are located within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract as applied for (refer to Section H-3.3.23). Potential nesting habitat for burrowing owls is present in a prairie dog colony (approximately 89 acres in size) within the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, which is located on USFS lands. Another prairie dog colony (about 7 acres in size) is located about 0.25 mile east of the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-3), and in any badger burrows that might be present in the area would also provide potential nesting habitat for burrowing owls. Direct and Indirect Effects No known burrowing owl nest sites are present on USFS lands in the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. One existing nest site is approximately 0.25 mile of those lands (the USFS buffer for that species is 0.25 mile). Potential nesting habitat in the vicinity of this LBA tract is largely limited to the large prairie dog colony located along Little Thunder Creek within the tract’s general analysis area. Therefore, leasing the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would not result in any direct or indirect effects to nesting burrowing owls. Both USFS Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002) and the Black Thunder Mine’s mine permit (TBCC 2005) stipulate that clearance surveys will be conducted and approved by the appropriate agencies before any colony is disturbed during the breeding season. That process will preclude most direct impacts to new nesting burrowing owls in that area. Because burrowing owls are active during daylight hours, the most probable source of direct impacts would be the death of, or injury to, individuals fleeing heavy equipment, or being killed or injured by equipment while feeding or moving through the mine area. Burrowing owls are generally tolerant of human activities, but increased presence and noise, especially during the nest initiation period, may displace individuals or inhibit nesting proximate to mine operations. Foraging could also be hindered within these areas, especially where mining activities occur near prairie dog colonies. As described previously, mining could eventually disturb or eliminate prairie dog colonies (potential nesting habitat) on USFS lands in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area (approximately 89 acres). However, the limited presence or long-term absence of nesting burrowing owls in that colony, in combination with the presence of other non-disturbed colonies in the area and the ability for prairie dogs to recolonize reclamation, would mitigate those losses to a large extent. Surface disturbing activities could also result in a short-term, localized decrease in the prey base (rodents, non-flying insects) for burrowing owls. However, due to their high reproductive potential and tendencies to re-populate and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase quickly after the disturbance.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-137

Appendix H Additionally, the tendency of prairie dogs to quickly colonize nearby areas when their colonies are disturbed would create new nesting habitat for burrowing owls. Overall, nesting and foraging habitats will be incrementally affected by a variety of large-and small-scale operations. The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the general analysis area as mining operations progress, thus providing opportunities for burrowing owls to relocate to other suitable habitat within the immediate area. Reclamation will proceed incrementally as areas are mined and activities move to new locations within the mine area. Both activities will create loose soil that should be attractive to dispersing prairie dogs (potential habitat source), at least in the short term. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as resources are extracted in a given portion of the mine, and will eventually mitigate habitat impacts to some degree. However, to date, burrowing owls have rarely been documented nesting within reclaimed habitats at surface mines in the PRB of northeast Wyoming. If nesting burrowing owls are documented on or near USFS lands in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, USFS Standards and Guidelines applicable to this species would be implemented on applicable lands to offer additional protections beyond those outlined in the USFWS approved Raptor Mitigation Plan for the Black Thunder Mine. Annual monitoring of known burrowing owl nest sites within the 2-mile wildlife survey area for the mine, including USFS and adjacent lands, and other nearby colonies will continue through the life of the mine to document their histories of occupancy and production. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. No burrowing owl nests have been documented on USFS lands in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during many years of annual monitoring, and only a single nest site is located approximately 0.25 mile from the nearest USFS lands in the tract’s general analysis area. Disturbance, fragmentation, and alteration of foraging and nesting habitats would occur if this tract is leased and mined. However, excluding the single large colony that is located in the tract’s general analysis area, few prairie dog colonies occur in the general vicinity of this LBA tract, and most are located outside of the tract’s general analysis area. The Black Thunder Mine has avoided, where possible, and mitigated such impacts in the past through intensive monitoring of both populations and specific nest sites, implementation of USFWS approved mitigation measures, and adjusting operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests (including burrowing owl nests). Mining activities and noise may disturb individuals inhabiting the lease area, thus inhibiting potential nesting or foraging in proximity to lands with ongoing development. Potential collisions with vehicles might also occur, though none have been recorded in the area to date. H-138 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H H-3.5.24 Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus) The breeding range of the chestnut-collared longspur extends from southern Alberta to southern Manitoba, south to west-central Colorado, and east through North Dakota and South Dakota to western Minnesota (Dechant et al. 2003b). The chestnut-collared longspur is a common summer resident of the eastern plains of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species prefers native grasslands as breeding sites, inhabiting open prairie and avoiding excessively shrubby areas. Grasslands with dense litter accumulations are also avoided (Dechant et al. 2003b). Scattered shrubs are often used as singing perches. Nests are typically placed in areas of sparse vegetation (less than 20-30 centimeters), but usually with a taller grass component than sites preferred by McCown’s longspurs. Nests are on the ground in depressions and often placed beside cattle dung, small shrubs, or under a clump of grass (Hill and Gould 1997). Male fidelity to breeding areas has been observed. Chestnut-collared longspurs feed primarily on seeds (especially grasses), insects, and spiders. This species is generally tolerant of short-term intrusion at the nest site but may desert if disturbed during nest building or egg-laying (Hill and Gould 1997). High rates of predation on eggs and nestlings have been reported and pesticides have been shown to reduce hatching success. The chestnut-collared longspur breeding range has contracted and long-term data suggests population declines (Hill and Gould 1997). These declines have been attributed to loss of native prairie habitat, and conversion to cropland and urban development. Existing Conditions Chestnut-collared longspurs are common summer residents within the TBNG. Individuals of this were recorded infrequently on non-federal lands in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during annual monitoring in recent years. As described previously, sagebrush habitats dominate USFS and adjacent lands in the general analysis areas for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. Grassland areas are present in the form of prairie dog colonies, upland grasslands, and agricultural pasture grasslands, but they occur in isolated parcels scattered throughout the areas rather than in contiguous and/or sizeable blocks that would be attractive to nesting chestnut-collared longspurs. Consequently, only limited suitable habitat conditions exist for this species on USFS lands in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract general analysis area and adjacent lands. Direct and Indirect Effects Due to the similarity of potential impacts from future mining on chestnutcollared longspurs and other grassland species previously discussed (e.g., prairie dog and swift fox), detailed descriptions of those impacts are not repeated here. Chestnut-collared longspurs have not been documented as nesting in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Equipment operations associated with future mining operations could result in fatalities or injury to individuals, nests and eggs, and/or young. Increased human activity and noise could inhibit foraging or nesting within suitable habitats on USFS lands or displace individuals during periods of intense activities. Over the life of the mine, potential nesting and foraging habitats in the general analysis area Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-139

Appendix H could be disturbed, destroyed, altered, or fragmented, though the type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the general analysis area as mining operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as resources are extracted in a given portion of the mine. Within 1 to 2 years, newly reclaimed areas may create good quality, short-duration nesting habitat for chestnut-collared longspurs. However, as these sites mature, they would become less suitable as nesting habitat for this species. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. USFS lands in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area are dominated by sagebrush communities that are not as attractive to grassland species such as the longspur. Only limited observations of individuals have occurred in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Potential and documented alternative habitats for chestnut-collared longspurs are present elsewhere in the vicinity in areas not currently scheduled for mining disturbance. H-3.5.25 McCown’s Longspur (Calcarius mccownii) McCown’s longspurs breed from southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan, south through Montana, eastern and central Wyoming, and north-central Colorado, and east to western Nebraska, north-central South Dakota, and southwestern North Dakota (Dechant et al. 2003c). This species is a common summer resident of the eastern plains and great basin-foothills grasslands, basin-prairie shrublands, and agricultural areas throughout most of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Specifically, this species requires open habitats such as sparsely vegetated, low structured grasslands, and heavily grazed pastures containing a moderate bare ground component for nesting and foraging. Nest sites are typically a natural or shallow scraped depression on the ground placed in the open or beside vegetation such as bunch grasses, cacti, or shrubs. McCown’s longspurs feed on seeds of grasses and forbs, insects, and other arthropods. No strong data suggests breeding site fidelity although some individuals may return to the general nesting area in subsequent years. Individuals vary in response to human intrusion at nest sites, but appear to be relatively more tolerant than most grassland songbird species. High rates of predation on eggs and nestlings occur especially where nests are associated with vegetative structure. Nestlings may also be directly poisoned where insecticides are sprayed in nest areas (With 1994). Populations are declining, especially within the northern portion of the range. Factors directly affecting the McCown’s longspur include the reduction of breeding habitat due to overgrazing, control of prairie fires, plowing, development, and excessive use of pesticides. Conversion of short-grass prairie to agriculture and urban development is the most important factor (With 1994).

H-140

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Existing Conditions McCown’s longspurs are also common summer residents within the TBNG. Observations of the McCown’s longspur mirror those of the chestnut-collared longspur. Limited sightings of individual birds have been recorded in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area in recent years, although no confirmed observations of this species were made on USFS lands in that area. The nearest observation to the tract’s general analysis area occurred on nonfederal lands in NE¼SW¼ Section 13, T.43N., R.71W. in May 2000. The height and composition of vegetation (i.e., sagebrush) on most USFS lands in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area is generally too tall and dense, respectively, to provide suitable habitat for McCown’s longspurs. Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects to McCown’s longspurs would be the same as those described above for the chestnut-collared longspur. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. USFS lands in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area are dominated by sagebrush communities that are not as attractive to grassland species such as the longspur. Only limited observations of individuals have occurred in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Potential and documented alternative habitats for McCown’s longspurs are present nearby in more appropriate habitats not currently scheduled for mining disturbance. H-3.5.26 Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) The Greater sage-grouse occurs year-round throughout non-forested regions of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Sage-grouse rely on a variety of habitats within sagebrush dominated landscapes to reproduce and survive throughout the year. Early in the spring, grouse gather at breeding display sites called leks. Leks are usually in open areas (playas, ridge tops, sparse sagebrush, or burned areas) that are surrounded by dense sagebrush and escape cover. The surrounding area also typically represents nesting, loafing, and foraging habitat. After being bred, hens typically scratch out a nest under sagebrush (Connelly et al. 1991) within three kilometers of the lek (Schroeder et al. 1999). Nests in some portions of sage-grouse range are typically placed under sagebrush with average height of 36-79 centimeters (Schroeder et al. 1999). However, research conducted within the Southern PRB (Brown and Clayton 2004) indicated that, although shorter sagebrush was present at nest sites, grouse selected shrubs ranging from 55-61 centimeters in height under which to place nests. Renesting may occur if the nest is destroyed early during the laying or incubation period. Nest success is enhanced where both sagebrush and residual grass cover are taller and denser (Gregg et al. 1994). Sage-grouse exhibit high fidelity Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-141

Appendix H to seasonal ranges, and may return to the same area to nest in subsequent years. For the first month after hatching, the young depend on relatively open sagebrush stands with an abundance of forbs and insects, especially ants and beetles (Drut et al. 1994, Schroeder et al. 1999). Late-season brood rearing habitats, such as wet meadows and bottomlands, are more mesic and support greater forb cover (Drut et al. 1994). Sage-grouse use a variety of habitats during fall, and the incidence of sagebrush in their diet increases as forbs become less available. During winter, grouse feed upon sagebrush leaves almost exclusively. Winter range is characterized by large expanses of dense, exposed sagebrush. Where snow accumulations are significant, gentle southand west-facing slopes or windblown ridges are preferred. Breeding populations of this species have declined by at least 17 to 47 percent throughout much of its range (Connelly et al. 2004). Within Wyoming, sagegrouse populations have generally declined over the past 4 decades. However, sage-grouse population estimates specifically pertaining to the TBNG suggest an overall increase in individuals since 1995. This same general trend was observed both statewide and within the Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Local Working Group (NWSGWG) area. The NWSGWG identified habitat fragmentation and degradation, disturbance and direct mortality as major influences affecting sage-grouse (NWSGWG 2006). The group identified oil and gas development, vegetation management, invasive plants, and weather as those factors with the most influence on the northeast Wyoming sage-grouse populations and those that may most effectively be addressed to provide the greatest benefit for sage-grouse conservation in northeast Wyoming (NWSGWG 2006). Existing Conditions As described above, USFS lands on and adjacent to the general analysis areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts are dominated by a sagebrush-grassland community, primarily big sagebrush, with shrub cover ranging from 55 to 60 percent. Those areas provide potential year-round habitat for sage-grouse, though habitat quality varies. Sagebrush stands range from sparse to moderately dense throughout the areas, with only a marginal grassy understory in many areas. Despite the prevalence of sagebrush in the combined wildlife survey areas for the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, sage-grouse numbers were never especially high in the area. Five sage-grouse leks are located on and within 2 miles of the North, South, and West Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas: Stuart I, Stuart II, Black Thunder, Butch, and Hansen Lakes (Figures H-1, H-2 and H-3). No sage-grouse leks are present on USFS lands in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Two leks are present on non-federal surface in H-142 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H the tract’s general analysis area: Butch and Hansen Lakes. The Hansen Lakes lek is immediately south of USFS surface in that area (Figure H-1). The Hansen Lakes lek is classified as “occupied” by the WGFD (active in at least 1 of the last 10 years). The Butch lek was first recorded in 1990. The peak male count (15) occurred in 1991, after which numbers declined dramatically. No grouse were recorded at the Butch lek during annual checks conducted over the last 14 years (1994 through 2007). The Butch lek is classified as “unoccupied/abandoned” by the WGFD (no activity for 10 consecutive years). The Butch lek was discovered in 1990, and was active every year through 1993. The Hansen Lakes lek was discovered in 1993, coincidently at the same time peak male counts were dramatically declining at the Butch lek; the leks are approximately 1.5 miles apart. Peak male counts at the Hansen Lakes lek ranged from 14 to 24 birds from 1993 through 2000, but dropped markedly to only 3 birds in 2001. Grouse were present at the lek for the next 2 years, but no birds were observed there after 2003. No other grouse leks are present within 3 miles of the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. The next nearest lek is the Stuart II lek, approximately 4.1 miles southwest of the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-1). No sage-grouse leks are present on USFS lands in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract or within that tract’s 2-mile wildlife survey area (Figure H-2). Likewise, no lek sites have been documented on non-federal surface in South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. The former Black Thunder lek was located on non-federal surface approximately 1 mile east of the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. The Black Thunder lek was first documented in 1984, when a peak male count of 21 was recorded. Grouse numbers gradually declined over the next several years of annual monitoring, with only one bird observed at the lek in 1993. No grouse were recorded at the Black Thunder lek during annual checks conducted over the subsequent 12 years (1994 through 2005), prior to any mine-related disturbance occurring within several miles. Due to the consistently low counts, WGFD authorized the mine to reduce searches for grouse leks in the permit area and 1-mile perimeter to every third year beginning in 2004 (i.e., 2004, 2007, etc.). That lek was classified as “unoccupied/abandoned” after 10 consecutive years of inactivity, and it was then impacted by topsoil stripping in 2007 and is now officially classified as “unoccupied/destroyed” by WGFD. The Stuart II lek is located on USFS lands approximately 3 miles northwest of the tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-2). The Stuart II lek lies within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract (Figure H-3), and is the only lek on USFS lands in the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Two leks are present on non-federal surface in the vicinity of the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. The Stuart I lek is approximately 1.25 miles west of the tract’s general analysis area, and the next nearest lek is the former Black Thunder site, approximately 2.25 miles east of the tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-3). Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-143

Appendix H The Stuart I lek was first recorded in 1977. The peak male count (29) occurred in 1979, with reduced numbers in the subsequent 2 years. The lek was monitored by the WGFD at approximately 3-year intervals from 1982 through 2003; annual monitoring was conducted by private consultants for unrelated projects each year from 2004 through 2007. Grouse were observed at the lek during only 1 of the 11 survey years from 1982 through 2007. The last sighting occurred in 1991, when two males were recorded at the Stuart I lek. The Stuart II lek was discovered in 1979. Few grouse were seen at the lek over the next 28 years, with a maximum of seven males observed in any survey year. The Stuart II lek was also surveyed primarily at 3-year intervals since its discovery, with annual checks conducted from 2005 through 2007. No sagegrouse have been recorded at the Stuart I and II leks for over 10 years; however, not enough consistent data have been collected to classify either as abandoned. Both leks are now classified “undetermined” (insufficient information to designate as unoccupied). Because the two Stuart leks were not monitored annually, their management status is “undetermined”, despite consistently low counts when surveys did occur. Grouse counts at these five leks in the combined wildlife survey areas for the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts were consistently low since their respective discoveries, with few birds observed at any location in the last 7 to 20 years, depending on the lek site. Additionally, records from the WGFD (obtained from D. Thiele, Regional Biologist, WGFD, Buffalo, Wyoming), and USFS have not documented any new sage-grouse leks within the approximately 131 square mile area that encompasses the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Telemetry data collected on radio-collared grouse at the nearby North Antelope Rochelle Mine throughout the last 7 years (2001-2007) shows no sage-grouse locations within several miles of the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts during that period (Brown and Clayton 2004, North Antelope Rochelle Mine Annual Wildlife Report 2006, 2007). It is important to note that the reduction in grouse attendance at these five leks, and most others in the PRB, preceded physical mining disturbance and, thus, cannot be directly attributable to mine-related activities (Orpet 2007, McKee 2007). Annual counts for each lek are available in annual monitoring and baseline wildlife reports on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne. Annual surveys for sage-grouse broods were conducted in native and reclaimed stream channels at and around the Black Thunder Mine from 1994 through 1999; such surveys were no longer required by WGFD and WDEQ/LQD after that year due to the consistent lack of grouse broods at coal mines throughout the PRB. No new leks or broods were seen during recent baseline inventories conducted for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. All grouse broods that have been recorded over the years occurred as incidental sightings during other wildlife surveys. Areas of suitable habitat for nesting and strutting grounds are widely known as necessary to sustain sage-grouse populations. One recent study suggests that H-144 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H availability of winter habitat may also affect sage-grouse populations (Naugle et al. 2006). Nesting and winter surveys for sage-grouse are not required as part of the annual wildlife programs for the Black Thunder Mine or other applicant mines discussed in this EIS, though winter surveys have been conducted as part of baseline inventories for previous mine expansions. Additionally, periodic winter surveys for other species (i.e., big game, bald eagle roosts) have occurred at all three applicant mines in recent years. Due to their proximity to existing mine permit areas, most USFS lands in the North and South Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas, and those in the eastern half of the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, have been included in a minimum of seven consecutive years (big game surveys 1993-1999) of some level of winter surveys, with additional surveys conducted in some subsequent years. No sage-grouse were ever documented in or near those LBA tracts during those winter surveys. Direct and Indirect Effects Three of the five sage-grouse leks located in the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts occur in an area likely to be disturbed by future mining, if the three proposed leasing actions are approved. One lek (Stuart II in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area) is on USFS lands and the other two (Hansen Lakes and Butch) are on non-federal surface in the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. Due to the consistently low number of sage-grouse documented in these LBA tracts’ wildlife survey areas over the last 3 decades, despite the presence of apparently suitable habitat, leasing and mining USFS lands and adjacent lands within the general analysis areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts would have limited effects on individual birds. Some potential impacts of mineral development (including coal mining and oil and gas development) on sage-grouse that might inhabit the area, as well as on known and potential sage-grouse habitat include: alteration of plant and animal communities; loss or degradation of important seasonal habitats; increased human activity and noise which could cause animals to avoid the area and/or reduce their breeding efficiency; increased road traffic and related injuries or mortalities; increased risk of predation from raptors perched on existing or future power poles and/or grouse avoidance of areas with overhead power lines; potential illegal harvest; and reduced water tables resulting in the loss of herbaceous vegetation. Following reclamation, there may be a long term loss of nesting and winter habitat, depending on the amount of sagebrush that is restored relative to the amount of sagebrush that is present before mining. Sagebrush is a component of both the Sagebrush/Grassland and Big Sagebrush vegetation communities, which occupy approximately 55 to 60 percent of the combined vegetation analysis areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. WDEQ/LQD reclamation standards call for restoration of sagebrush on at least 20 percent of the reclaimed area. Estimates for the time it would take to restore shrubs, including sagebrush, to pre-mining density levels range from 20 to 100 years. Until sagebrush returns to its pre-mining Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-145

Appendix H density levels, a reduction in potential sage-grouse nesting habitat and winter habitat on the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts would persist. Due to the documented long-term lack of sage-grouse use on USFS lands and adjacent lands in the North, South, and West Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas and surrounding wildlife survey areas, USFS Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002, page 1-18; Appendix D) would have limited applications toward controlling the type, timing, and location of disturbance activities within the three Hilight Field LBA Tract areas. The use of existing roads, when possible, could minimize additional impacts related to traffic hazards and the use of new travel corridors by mammalian predators. Raptor predation does not seem to be a primary source of mortality for the local sagegrouse population (Brown and Clayton 2004). Nevertheless, new overhead power lines could be fitted with perch deterrents to limit opportunities for avian predators to target any grouse that might be in the area. The use of underground power lines to the extent possible would also reduce this risk, and would minimize new vertical structures that could affect grouse use or movements in the area. If precautions are taken to avoid direct mortalities and disturbances to nests and leks during the breeding season, grouse might have the opportunity to disperse away from mine activities. Mine operations and oil and gas development have requirements for reclamation of disturbed areas as recovery of energy resources is completed. Those reclamation efforts can work in concert with Standards and Guidelines toward mitigating impacts to wildlife species and habitats, though reclamation standards are widely variable among industries. New areas disturbed by mining in the general analysis areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts will be reclaimed incrementally, but they may not be attractive to sage-grouse for many years due to slow establishment and growth rates of important sagebrush species. Information gleaned from the multi-year telemetry study at a neighboring coal mine could also be helpful in reclamation efforts for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts. In the meantime, the presence of known and apparently suitable sage-grouse habitat elsewhere within the immediate area could provide alternate areas for dispersing grouse to use until reclaimed sagebrush stands have matured adequately to support a local population. In keeping with the Direction Objectives for the Hilight Bill Geographic Area (USFS 2002, page 1-25), impacts to sage-grouse habitat in the general analysis areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts could be further mitigated off-site by efforts to preserve and enhance habitat on adjoining and nearby private lands, such as those currently under way through the Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association. Management planning and processes that are developed through this combined effort among landowners and federal representatives will presumably provide suitable habitat for sagegrouse that disperse from the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts general analysis areas during the interim between habitat disturbance and completed reclamation. H-146 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Should sage-grouse move onto USFS lands analyzed in this EIS in the future, agency Standards and Guidelines would offer appropriate protections for the species and its important habitats. However, under the current conditions, and the documented absence or consistently low presence of this species in the area, mining USFS lands within the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts would not adversely impact sage-grouse populations in the region, nor would it conflict with the current TBNG Plan or any future objectives to manage the area for this species. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. The sage-grouse is a common year-round resident throughout much of the PRB and TBNG, but has declined on and within 2 miles of the general analysis areas for the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts over the last 30 years. Three decades of regular monitoring have documented that sage-grouse have not consistently inhabited the USFS lands analyzed for the North or South Hilight Field LBA Tracts, nor have they been confirmed as occupying USFS lands analyzed for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract since 1991. Currently, the nearest lek (Payne lek) with regular activity is more than 5.0 miles to the southeast of the USFS lands in the South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Consequently, if the North, South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts are leased, anticipated mining-related disturbances would not affect any identified and actively used seasonal sage-grouse habitats on or near USFS lands in the combined general analysis areas for these three tracts. Annual monitoring will continue for the life of the Black Thunder Mine, and would include new permit expansions and a one-mile perimeter. Should sagegrouse be observed on USFS lands in any of the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ wildlife survey areas, appropriate monitoring and mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize impacts to birds, habitats, and populations. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Bald eagles occur H-3.5.27 throughout North America, from Alaska and Canada south to Florida, the Gulf Coast, and northern Mexico. The northwest coast of North America serves as the stronghold for this species, with approximately one-half of the population inhabiting Alaska. The USFWS officially listed the bald eagle as an endangered species in 43 of the lower 48 states on July 4, 1976. The listing was due to a combination of several factors, including widespread habitat loss, negative effects of pesticide use on reproductive success, indiscriminant shooting, and others. The status of the bald eagle was downgraded to threatened throughout the lower 48 states in 1995. Bald eagle population trends began increasing throughout most of the species’ range in the early 1990’s, and it was proposed for de-listing in 1999. On July 9, 2007, USFWS published a Federal Register notice (72 FR 37346) announcing that the bald eagle would be removed from the list of threatened Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-147

Appendix H and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.) on August 8, 2007. However, the protections provided to the bald eagle under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 U.S.C. 668, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703, will remain in place. The bald eagle is now recognized as a BLM and USFS Sensitive Species. Bald eagles typically nest in large trees within a stand of mature, similarly sized trees either beside or in proximity (within 0.7 mile) to rivers, lakes, or reservoirs that harbor adequate fish populations. Those areas tend to be remote and experience little disturbance (Johnsgard 1990). Typically, the nest is placed in the crown of a large cottonwood or pine, but if the topography allows, eagles will nest on cliff edges or escarpments. Open-canopied trees and snags provide required perches in nesting and foraging areas. All verified bald eagle nests in northeastern Wyoming (BLM Buffalo Field Office GIS database) are situated in significant, mature cottonwood stands along larger streams or rivers (i.e., Tongue River, Powder River, Clear Creek, and Little Thunder Creek). Nesting attempts are rare on the TBNG (Beske 1994). Fish and waterfowl are the primary source of food for nesting bald eagles. Where available, large to mid-size carrion and large rodents (e.g., prairie dogs) can also be an important dietary component. Bald eagles nest and winter throughout Wyoming, though typically are not locally abundant in the northeastern portion of the state. The species regularly migrates through and winters in Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004), and has often been documented during winter and early spring at nearby coal mines (various coal mine annual reports are on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne). Most eagles that migrate through or winter in Campbell County roost communally in stands of large ponderosa pine, along wooded cottonwood-riparian corridors, or in isolated stands of large trees. As water is scarce in that region, especially during winter, those birds likely forage widely for lagomorphs or carrion. Existing Conditions The bald eagle is seasonally common and most frequently observed during the winter months. Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants in the PRB, but only rarely nest in that region. Potential bald eagle nesting and winter roosting habitat, being primarily scattered stands of mature cottonwood trees, are present on USFS and adjacent lands along Little Thunder Creek, which flows through the general analysis areas for the South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts; no streams flow through the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area. In general, the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts do not contain unique or sizeable concentrated prey sources (e.g., fisheries, waterfowl wintering areas) that would be expected to attract bald H-148 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H eagles. As described in the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ black-tailed prairie dog analyses that are included within this appendix and in Section 3.10 of this EIS, two prairie dog colonies encompassing a total of approximately 89.2 acres were present on USFS lands within the three Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas in 2007. A total of four prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 112.1 acres were present in the three combined general analysis areas, and a total of 12 prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 248.9 acres were present in the combined wildlife study areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts in 2007 (Figures H-1, H-2 and H-3). Sheep and their lambs are present in this area in the spring, when bald eagles have typically left the region, and flocks are pastured there infrequently in the winter. The area does not support a large big game herd, though some groups do winter in the area. Ground surveys for bald eagle winter roost sites were most recently conducted within the combined wildlife survey areas for the three Hilight Field tracts during baseline surveys beginning in 2006. Previous winter roost surveys also encompassed all or most potential habitat within that overall survey area. All winter roost surveys were conducted between ½ hour before and 1 hour after sunrise or between 1 hour before and ½ hour after sunset, per current BLM guidelines for survey timing and frequency. Biologists also watched for nesting bald eagles within the survey area while conducting surveys for other nesting raptors. No bald eagle nests or winter roosts have been documented within 1 mile of USFS lands located within the North Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during any baseline or annual monitoring studies since they began in the late 1970s and early 1980s, respectively. Similarly, no bald eagle nests or winter roosts have been documented within 1 mile of USFS lands located within the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area during any baseline or annual monitoring studies since they began during those same timeframes. The BLM and USFS wildlife databases indicate that the nearest potential bald eagle nest was identified in 2003 in T.43N., R.71W., NE¼NW¼ Section 29, which is in the southwestern corner of the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-3). Although the nest has been labeled as a bald eagle site for that year, the circumstances of the sighting were less than definitive. The lone observation of the nest was made from approximately 1 mile away late in the nesting season, when young golden eagles are fully feathered except for their heads. It is possible that an inexperienced observer could have mistaken a young golden eagle for an adult bald eagle under those circumstances. Additionally, golden eagles were confirmed nesters at the same site location in both 2002 and 2004. Nevertheless, the site could be treated as a potential bald eagle nest for management purposes.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-149

Appendix H Direct and Indirect Effects As no winter roost sites or large groups of bald eagles have been documented in the general analysis area for any of the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts, potential impacts would be limited to occasional foraging individuals rather than a large segment of the population. The increased human presence and noise associated with construction activities, if conducted while eagles are wintering within the area, could harass or displace individual eagles during that period. Nesting eagles could also be distressed to the point of abandoning eggs or young, or their hunting efforts and success impacted. If necessary, the majority of direct effects could be mitigated by controlling the timing and location of disturbance activities, and/or through approved nest relocation efforts. Indirect effects include additional disturbance and fragmentation of already limited foraging habitat within the geographic area. These impacts could result from a variety of large- and small-scale activities described previously for other species, including, but not limited to: topsoil stripping; overburden and coal removal; reclamation activities; and construction of roads, reservoirs, power lines (above ground and buried), fences, and pipelines. The locations of operations would shift throughout the expanded permit area as mining occurred, with habitats disturbed and reclaimed incrementally. Conversely, the addition of fences and raptor-safe power poles could possibly benefit foraging bald eagles by providing additional perch sites. Due to the limited presence of potential nesting or roosting sites, and lack of concentrated sources of prey, the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 to bald eagles are expected to be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. No bald eagle nests have been documented on or within 1 mile of the North or South Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ general analysis areas, and only one dubious nesting event was recorded in the West Hilight Field LBA Tract’s general analysis area over time. Bald eagle winter roost sites are absent from all three Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ wildlife survey areas, and little potential nesting or roosting habitat is present. Therefore, potential hazards for this species would be limited to foraging individuals during winter. Disturbance, fragmentation, and alteration of potential foraging habitat would occur. However, the Black Thunder Mine has avoided, where possible, and mitigated raptor impacts in the past through intensive raptor monitoring, implementation of USFWS approved mitigation measures, and adjusting operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests. H-3.5.28 Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) The mountain plover breeds from southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan through central Montana, south to south-central Wyoming, east-central Colorado and northeastern New Mexico, and east to northern Texas and western Kansas. In Wyoming, this species is a common summer resident (Cerovski et al. 2004). H-150 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Mountain plovers require flat grasslands with short and sparse vegetation, and a large bare ground component (Knopf 1996) for nesting, foraging, or staging. Within the PRB, heavily grazed prairie dog colonies generally provide the most suitable mountain plover habitat. Mountain plovers are monogamous and possibly polyandrous ground nesters, and typically produce at least two clutches. The nest is a shallow depression occasionally thinly lined with grass. Plovers may utilize the same nesting area in subsequent years (Dechant et al. 2003d). Adults and fledged chicks leave the breeding grounds by early August, and may stage within appropriate habitats before migrating. Plovers feed primarily upon insects. Beetles, grasshoppers, crickets, and ants are the most important prey items (Knopf 1996). This species is highly approachable and does not flee far. Mountain plover populations have historically declined and recent data suggests that this species is continuing to decline in numbers. Causes of population declines have been primarily attributed to regional changes in agricultural practices (Knopf 1996). Existing Conditions Mountain plovers are summer residents within portions of the TBNG. Most observations of mountain plovers in northeast Wyoming have been associated with prairie dog colonies. Approximately 86 percent of recently (since 1993) occupied mountain plover habitat in that region occurred within prairie dog colonies (Byer 2001). As described in the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts’ black-tailed prairie dog analyses that are included within this appendix and in Section 3.10 of this EIS, two prairie dog colonies encompassing a total of approximately 89.2 acres were present on USFS lands within the three Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas in 2007. A total of four prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 112.1 acres were present in the three combined general analysis areas, and a total of 12 prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 248.9 acres were present in the combined wildlife study areas for the three Hilight Field LBA Tracts in 2007 (Figures H-1, H-2 and H-3). As previously described for other short-grass species, the dominance of sagebrush in the North, South, and West Hilight Field LBA Tract’s general analysis and wildlife survey areas provides only poor to marginal or unsuitable habitat for mountain plovers. The height and composition of vegetation on most USFS lands in the three Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas is generally too tall and dense to provide suitable habitat for mountain plovers. The lack of occurrence of this species at the Black Thunder Mine and surrounding area, including all USFS lands in the analysis areas, is well documented. The nearest known population of nesting mountain plovers occurs at the Antelope Mine, approximately 9 miles south of the South Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, and even farther from the other two Hilight Field LBA Tracts.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-151

Appendix H Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects to mountain plovers in all three general analysis areas for the Hilight Field LBA Tracts would be the same as those described above for the McCown’s longspur. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. USFS lands in the North, South, and West Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas are dominated by sagebrush communities that are not attractive to short-grass species such as the mountain plover. No individuals of this species have been documented in any of the three Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas, though limited potential habitat is present there. Documented alternative habitats for mountain plovers are present in portions of the general area that are more appropriate for this species and are not currently scheduled for mining disturbance. H-3.5.29 Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Loggerhead shrikes breed from Washington, northern Alberta, central Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba, south to California and Florida, and east to southwestern Minnesota, southern Wisconsin, southern Michigan, and Maryland. This species is a common summer resident throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Shrikes prefer relatively open, heterogeneous habitats characterized by grasses and forbs of low stature interspersed with bare ground and shrubs or low trees with perches for hunting. This species will use a wide variety of trees and shrubs, particularly thick or thorny species, as nesting substrates and hunting perches (Prescott and Bjorge 1999). Although some shrike nests are used in subsequent years, fidelity to a nest site is limited. This species forages over relatively open habitats, feeding primarily upon arthropods, amphibians, small to medium-sized reptiles, small mammals, and birds (Yosef 1996). Shrikes may also feed upon road kill and carrion. This species is generally tolerant of human activity near a nest, although they will abandon if disturbed during egg-laying or early in incubation. The loggerhead shrike is declining in both number and overall range. Declines have been attributed to habitat loss and conversion, urbanization, pesticide contamination, and loss of insect prey as a result of pesticide use (Yosef 1996). Existing Conditions Loggerhead shrikes are common summer residents within the TBNG, though they are not often observed on or adjacent to USFS lands within the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. Shrikes have occasionally been seen in the 1-mile perimeter wildlife survey area for the adjacent Black Thunder Mine. No actual shrike nests or recently fledged young have been documented on or near USFS lands in the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, but this species could potentially nest in the general vicinity. Over time, most sightings have occurred in cottonwood-riparian corridors along primary streams in the general Wright analysis area, or in taller greasewood stands. Neither habitat H-152 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H type is common in the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. Shrikes have also been infrequently recorded perched on various fences or on overhead power lines at other nearby mines. Shrike foraging habitat is present throughout the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, including USFS lands. As indicated, existing utility and fence lines currently provide good quality hunting perches. Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives could result in direct and indirect impacts to loggerhead shrikes, though such impacts would likely be uncommon. No known nest sites have been documented on or adjacent to USFS lands in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area or elsewhere in the wildlife monitoring area for the adjacent Black Thunder Mine. The most probable direct impact would be the mortality of, or injury to, individuals foraging within or passing through the USFS lands due to collisions with future mine-related vehicles, or dispersal of foraging individuals due to active mining. The relatively slow movement of mining equipment and the noise associated with the activity would decrease direct impacts associated with vehicle collisions. As loggerhead shrikes are not especially common in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area, indirect impacts would be limited despite the fragmentation, degradation, or loss of habitat in the short and mid-term. Any birds that would be displaced would be forced to travel to other locations with acceptable habitat. This could result in stress to individual birds, as well as potential decreased nesting effort and success. Prey numbers reduced by mining would be expected to rebound following reclamation due to generally high reproductive potential and prey tendencies to re-establish and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas. The locations of mine-related habitat disturbances and reclamation efforts would proceed incrementally throughout the expanded mining area as operations progressed. Additionally, this mining activity would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives to manage the TBNG for this species. USFS Standards and Guidelines would offer additional protections for any active nest sites that may be present in the area. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Such impacts would be minimized by the lack of regular sightings and known nesting attempts, as well as the relative paucity of suitable nesting habitat on or adjacent to the USFS lands analyzed in this EIS and their surrounding region. Degradation, fragmentation, or loss of potential foraging habitat, reduction in prey populations, and potential collisions with vehicles may occur. Given the lack of birds recorded in the area, and the composition of the shrike’s prey base (insects, small mammals, etc.), impacts to shrikes would be minimal. USFS Standards and Guidelines would apply for active nests during the breeding season. Additionally, mining the USFS lands Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-153

Appendix H would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives to manage the TBNG for loggerhead shrikes. H-3.5.30 Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) The breeding range of the Brewer’s sparrow extends from southwestern Yukon, southern Alberta, and southwestern Saskatchewan, south (east of the Cascades and Sierras) to southern California, central Arizona, and northern New Mexico (Rotenberry et al. 1999). The Brewer’s sparrow is a common summer resident of the basinprairie and mountain-foothills throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate species (Rotenberry et al. 1999). This species is an uncommon cowbird (Molothrus ater) host and typically builds a small cup nest low in sagebrush shrubs. Brewer’s sparrows prefer to nest in medium-sized (48-90 centimeters, or 19-35 inches) live sagebrush within relatively dense (26-42 percent canopy cover) stands (Walker 2004). Grass height and density are important factors for nest concealment. Although tolerant of human visitation, this species may abandon a nest if disturbed during the construction process. Brewer’s sparrows feed primarily on small insects and, to a lesser extent, seeds from grasses and forbs. Throughout areas where they have been surveyed, the species appears to have undergone and continues to undergo statistically significant declines (Rotenberry et al. 1999). Major threats to Brewer's sparrow populations are similar to those faced by other declining sagebrush-obligate species and include habitat conversion and fragmentation, invasion by non native plants, altered fire regimes, livestock overgrazing, conifer encroachment, energy development, and conversion to urban or residential housing (Walker 2004). Existing Conditions Brewer’s sparrows are common summer residents within the TBNG and southern Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004). Breeding bird survey data from annual monitoring and baseline studies conducted for the Black Thunder Mine, and incidental observations over time, have shown that the Brewer’s sparrow is a common but limited breeder in the area. This species has been recorded in sagebrush habitats near the mine during many of the last 14 years (1994-2007). Although no nests have been encountered in the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, the presence and behavior (singing) of birds throughout spring and summer suggest that Brewer’s sparrows nest in the sagebrush stands common to that area. Direct and Indirect Effects As described for the ferruginous hawk, above, habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush communities in the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract would result from a variety of large- and smallscale mining operations such as topsoil stripping, drilling, and reservoir construction, among others. Potential nesting and foraging habitat would also be fragmented by linear disturbances such as the construction, maintenance, H-154 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H and removal of roads, fences, power lines, and pipelines. Those disturbances could also create new travel corridors for mammalian predators that reside in or pass through the area. However, many such disturbances would occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, typically over a period of days. Additionally, those structures are often constructed immediately prior to the removal of similar features elsewhere in the area, often resulting in minimal or no net gain of new linear disturbances. All mine-related habitat disturbances and reclamation efforts would shift throughout the expanded permit area as operations progress. The use of existing roads, when possible, could minimize impacts related to traffic hazards and predator travel corridors. Increased activity and noise, especially during the nest initiation period, could inhibit nesting proximate to mining activities. Foraging could also be hindered within these areas, especially where active mining occurs. Additional infrastructure and activity associated with the expansion of the mine, in combination with other ongoing disturbances (e.g., CBNG operations), could displace Brewer’s sparrows from any historical use areas that might occur in the area. Those birds could potentially move into other sagebrush stands in the general vicinity, assuming they are not already occupied. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed in a given portion of the mine and will eventually mitigate impacts to sagebrush habitats to some degree, though such efforts could take decades to benefit sagebrush obligates such as the Brewer’s sparrow. Impacts to sagebrush habitat on USFS lands could be further mitigated off-site by efforts to preserve and enhance such habitat on adjacent and nearby private lands, as described above. Standards and Guidelines for sagebrush habitats outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, pages 1-18; Appendix D) would be implemented as necessary, and could serve to sustain regional populations of this sparrow. Those management guidelines would apply only to activities beyond the West Hilight Field LBA Tract. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Some habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would occur on and near USFS lands in the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, along with potential impacts to individuals. However, the presence of large stands of sagebrush elsewhere in the general vicinity suggests that Brewer’s sparrows would remain viable within the TBNG for at least the shortterm. Additionally, the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan (USFS 2002) or future objectives to manage the area for this species. Application of appropriate USFS Standards and Guidelines, successful reclamation efforts, and proper land management on adjoining lands could mitigate potential impacts, to some degree.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-155

Appendix H H-3.6 North Porcupine LBA Tract

H-3.6.1 Prairie moonwort (Botrychium campestre) The prairie moonwort, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species was only recorded in Wyoming in a semi-shady mixed deciduous and ponderosa pine forest on sandy soils in the Black Hills. Prairie moonworts are known to exist in a variety of other habitats such as those underlain by Pierre shale, the Laramie Formation, calcareous sedimentary rocks, calcareous soils underlain by limestone, sandy soils and loess prairie. These habitats generally do not exist on the North Porcupine general analysis area, as the forest cover and soil substrate are not present. Existing Conditions Prime habitats for the prairie moonwort are not present on the USFS lands within the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract. Sites with sandy soils are present on USFS lands and other portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas are rather sparsely vegetated and do not provide habitat preferred by this plant species. Prairie moonworts have not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential for loss of individuals or preferred habitats is very low. The narrowleaf H-3.6.2 Narrowleaf moonwort (Botrychium lineare) moonwort, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species has an affinity for riparian areas and is associated with spruce/fir forests, lodgepole pine forests, and forest meadows. Existing Conditions Habitats for the narrowleaf moonwort are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian habitats or forest habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The narrowleaf H-156 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H moonwort has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is very low. H-3.6.3 Leathery grapefern (Botrychium multifidum var. coulteri) The leathery grapefern, a plant species of local concern, has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for meadows, wetlands, floodplains and other wet areas in open to forested habitats within forests. Existing Conditions Habitats for the leathery grapefern are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian habitats or forest habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on other portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The leathery grapefern has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the leathery grapefern. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.6.4 Foxtail sedge (Carex alopecoidea) The foxtail sedge, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-157

Appendix H is present. The foxtail sedge generally has an affinity for wet meadows and willow-sedge communities along wet, shady creek bottoms and springs. Existing Conditions Habitats for the foxtail sedge are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wet meadows or willow-sedge communities are not present on these USFS lands. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on other portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The foxtail sedge has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the foxtail sedge. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential for loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.6.5 Elliptic spikerush (Eleocharis elliptica) The elliptic spikerush, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for wetland areas created by seeps or springs but may also be found in temporarily flooded areas. Existing Conditions Habitats for the elliptic spikerush are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wetland habitats are not present on these USFS lands. Few wetland sites associated with various ephemeral drainages and playas are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. No seeps or springs are present. The elliptic spikerush has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to lack of abundant suitable habitat the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the H-158 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract does not provide abundant habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is low. H-3.6.6 Hall’s fescue (Festuca hallii) The Hall’s fescue, a sensitive plant species, is a tufted perennial grass and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for montane meadows, slopes and edges of open coniferous woods and meadows above 6,000 feet in Wyoming. Existing Conditions Habitats for the Hall’s fescue are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable montane habitats above 6,000 feet are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the Hall’s fescue has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the Hall’s fescue. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.6.7 Wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum) The wood lily, a plant species of local concern, is a perennial herb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for woodland meadows and woodland grasslands. Existing Conditions Habitats for the wood lily are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable woodland meadow or grassland habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the wood lily has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-159

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the wood lily. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.6.8 Largeflower triteleia (Triteleia grandiflora) The largeflower triteleia, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial herb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for grassy areas in sagebrush at the edge of aspen and lodgepole pine forests and in pinon-juniper woodlands to pine forests and hills. Existing Conditions Habitats for the largeflower triteleia are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable grassy areas in sagebrush at the edge of aspen and lodgepole pine forests and pinon-juniper woodlands or pine forests and hills are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the largeflower triteleia has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the largeflower triteleia. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.6.9 Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii) The Barr’s milkvetch, a sensitive plant species, is a matt-forming perennial forb that is known from numerous occurrences on the USFS lands within the TBNG. As more surveys are completed, new occurrences are reported. The Barr’s milkvetch is found primarily on dry, sparsely-vegetated rocky prairie breaks, knolls, hillsides and ridges. Parent material is calcareous soft shale, siltstone or silty sandstone. Most populations appear to be stable, although populations may decline under drought conditions. Existing Conditions Astragalus barrii is a regional endemic plant of the plains in southwestern South Dakota, eastern Wyoming, southeastern Montana, and northwestern Nebraska. According to USFS, this plant species is known to occur in six counties in Wyoming, and there are eleven known occurrences of A. barrii in the USFS TBNG. H-160 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Suitable habitat for the Barr’s milkvetch is present on the USFS lands within the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract as well as other lands within the general Wright analysis area. Surveys in 2005 identified Barr’s milkvetch populations within the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract, but no individuals were found on USFS lands. Barr’s milkvetch populations and individuals have been identified in surrounding areas. Barr’s milkvetch has been collected and positively identified approximately 11 miles south of the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract, in the Section 21 of T.40N., R.71W., based on specimens on file with the Rocky Mountain Herbarium in Laramie, Wyoming. Indirect and Direct Impacts If lands within the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract are leased and mined, potential habitat, individuals, and A. barrii populations would be lost due to surface disturbances caused by mining activities. These losses would most likely be permanent unless disturbed lands are reclaimed to habitats that would support this plant species. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing because there are Astragalus barrii occurrences outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. The Rocky Mountain Herbarium records reveal this plant species is widespread in northeastern Wyoming, so the loss of individuals or populations from mining activities related to the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would not result in the extirpation of this species. H-3.6.10 Smooth goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum) The smooth goosefoot, a plant species of local concern, is an annual forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for sand bars and sandy blowouts in riparian areas. Existing Conditions Habitats for the smooth goosefoot are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian areas are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few riparian areas associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas do not contain the required sand bar or sandy blowout habitats required for this plant species. The smooth goosefoot has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-161

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the smooth goosefoot. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.6.11 Flat-top goldentop (Euthamia graminifolia) The flat-top goldentop, a plant species of local concern, is a rhizomatous perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for stony sandbars and streambanks but may also be found on moist or drying sites along open streambanks or roadside ditches. Existing Conditions Habitats for the flat-top goldentop are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wetland or streambank areas are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Streambanks and a few wetland areas in association with various ephemeral drainages are present within portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas generally do not contain the typical habitats required for this plant species, but marginal habitats are present. The flat-top goldentop has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis areas or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is low. H-3.6.12 Rosy palafox (Palafoxia rosea var. macrolepis) The rosy palafox, a plant species of local concern, is an annual forb that has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area but has been recorded on other lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for sagebrush and mixedgrass prairie habitats on sandy soils. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by the rosy palafox are present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area and on other surrounding lands. Sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie plant communities are present on sandy soils in the H-162 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H general Wright analysis area. However, rosy palafox has not been recorded on these lands but is potentially present. This plant species has been documented southeast of the general Wright analysis area. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract, and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does contain some suitable habitat for this plant species but the rosy palafox has not been documented on the site. This species has been documented southeast of the general Wright analysis area and abundant habitat is present on other sites that would not be affected. H-3.6.13 Lemonscent (Pectis angustifolia) The lemonscent, a plant species of local concern, is an annual forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area but has been recorded on other lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for gravel hills and scoria slopes. Lemonscent is also known to occur in low areas in sandy ravines and on sandbars. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by lemonscent are present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area and on other surrounding lands. However, lemonscent has not been recorded in the general Wright analysis area but could potentially be present. This plant species has been documented south of the general Wright analysis area. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract, and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-163

Appendix H planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does contain some suitable habitat for this plant species but the lemonscent has not been documented. This species has been documented south of the general Wright analysis area and abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.6.14 Larchleaf beardtongue (Penstemon laricifolius spp. exifolius) The larchleaf beardtongue (penstemon), a plant species of local concern, is a perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for dry, rocky, gravelly or sandy slopes, ridgetops and upland flats with shallow soils. Most populations in Wyoming are found at elevations above 6,000 feet, but this species has been documented at lower elevations in the state. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by larchleaf beardtongue are marginally present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few rocky, gravelly hill slopes and rough breaks provide potential habitat, but the larchleaf beardtongue has not been recorded on these lands. This plant species has not been documented near the general Wright analysis area but is potentially present. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general Wright analysis area and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does contain marginal habitat for this plant species but the larchleaf beardtongue has not been documented. This species has been documented and is common in southern Wyoming and abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.6.15 Wooly twinpod (Physaria didymocarpa var. lanata) The wooly twinpod, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for dry redbed clay-shale slopes, limey-sandstone H-164 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H outcrops, roadcuts and other exposed rock-cliff substrates. Most populations in Wyoming have been documented in the foothills of the Big Horn Mountains. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by the wooly twinpod are marginally present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few sandstone outcrops and exposed rock-cliff substrates provide potential habitat, but the wooly twinpod has not been recorded on these lands. This plant species has not been documented near the general Wright analysis area but is potentially present. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general Wright analysis area and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does contain marginal habitat for this plant species but the wooly twinpod has not been documented. This species has been documented and is common in north-central Wyoming and abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.6.16 Visher’s buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri) The Visher’s buckwheat, a sensitive plant species, is an annual forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area but has been tentatively identified elsewhere within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for gullied ridges and eroded badland hills. These sites generally consist of barren shale and clay outcrops with at least 50 percent bare soil, high salt content and shrink/swell clay soils. Typical habitat includes badland islands in grasslands. Existing Conditions Habitats for the Visher’s buckwheat are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few areas of highly eroded gullies consisting of barren shale or clay outcrops may be found in portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these sites generally provided a greater vegetation cover than is needed to provide optimum habitat for this species. The Visher’s buckwheat has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-165

Appendix H Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the Visher’s buckwheat. As indicated, the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does not provide optimum suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.6.17 Highbush-cranberry (Viburnum opulus var. americanum) The highbush-cranberry, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. In Wyoming, this plant species is found within Crook County and is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for moist sites including wooded hillsides, thickets or low woodlands. The highbush-cranberry is found all across northern North America. Existing Conditions Habitats for the highbush-cranberry are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable moist, wooded habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. The highbush-cranberry has not been recorded within the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the highbush-cranberry. As indicated, this species has not been documented in the general Wright analysis area and the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.6.18 Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Northern leopard frogs range from the Great Slave Lake and Hudson Bay, south to Kentucky and New Mexico (NatureServe 2007). This species is considered relatively common within Wyoming (Baxter and Stone 1980, Cerovski et al. 2004). Northern leopard frogs require shallow, permanent, or semi-permanent standing water with at least some emergent vegetation for breeding (Wagner 1997). Conversely, they use deeper lakes or ponds with well-oxygenated water that does not freeze to the bottom as overwintering habitat (Wagner 1997). Leopard frogs must have good quality water to successfully reproduce, as degraded or H-166 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H turbid water has the potential to negatively affect development of eggs and tadpoles. Overcrowding and changes in water temperature and pH (5.5 or lower) can increase the incidence of disease and mortality (NatureServe 2007) in this species. Adult frogs feed upon a variety of insects and other invertebrates, tadpoles, snakes, and fish (Cerovski et al. 2004), while tadpoles feed primarily upon small invertebrates, plant tissue, and organic debris. Adults also forage within aquatic and upland habitats, whereas tadpoles are restricted to aquatic habitats. Although their overall range remains essentially undiminished in size, many populations are declining. Major factors affecting leopard frog populations are habitat loss in some portions of their range, habitat degradation, overexploitation, interactions with non-native species, climate change, disease, and other unknown causes (Wagner 1997). Existing Conditions The northern leopard frog has been observed in southern Campbell County, but has not officially been recognized as breeding there (Cerovski et al. 2004). No suitable habitat is present on USFS lands within the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract. Porcupine Creek crosses a narrow band (approximately 1,500 feet) of USFS lands in the western portion of the tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-4), but that small portion of the creek does not provide sufficient, persistent water quantities or quality to support northern leopard frogs; the same is true of the stream channel immediately upstream and downstream of USFS lands in that area. No other persistently flowing streams or persistent reservoirs are present on USFS lands within the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Habitat conditions for northern leopard frogs vary considerably between the overall general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract and the USFS lands within that larger area. The tract’s general analysis area includes portions of Porcupine Creek and some of its ephemeral tributaries that occasionally retain small pools of water during spring and early summer. Within the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract there are an estimated 19.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. (OWUS). Of those 25.8 acres, there are approximately 9.3 acres of riverine wetlands, approximately 0.9 acres of stockpond wetlands, approximately 0.9 acres of stockpond open water OWUS, and approximately 8.6 acres of ephemeral stream channel OWUS. There are also approximately 4.9 wetland acres and 1.2 open water acres of non-jurisdictional playa/depressional features. The vegetated wetland areas consist primarily of palustrine emergent herbaceous wet meadow or marsh and palustrine aquatic beds located along ephemeral stream channels and around in-channel stock reservoirs. Without surface discharge of groundwater associated with CBNG development in the area, no water would be present in these ephemeral streams except in response to precipitation events and snow melt. Flows to maintain open water are therefore inconsistent and these streams are often dry by mid- to late summer; without flow to maintain open water, any pools persisting until winter freeze solid, which limits overwintering habitat for this species. Therefore, none of the physical characteristics considered as optimum for the various life stages of Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-167

Appendix H this species are present on the USFS lands throughout this tract’s general analysis area, and no leopard frogs or anuran egg masses have been documented on those lands during more than 25 years of annual monitoring efforts. No northern leopard frogs were ever recorded in the general analysis area during overlapping annual monitoring efforts for other species conducted from 1984 through 2007. Results from annual wildlife monitoring and baseline studies for all adjacent mines are on file with, and available from, the WDEQ/LQD in Sheridan or Cheyenne, Wyoming and the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas, Wyoming. Those reports also include detailed descriptions of survey areas (including maps), methods, and dates for each year. Direct and Indirect Effects Wetland and aquatic habitats for northern leopard frogs are considered unsuitable to poor on USFS lands and elsewhere in the North Porcupine tract general analysis area, as described above. Furthermore, no frog sightings have been recorded on USFS lands during baseline surveys or annual monitoring completed between 1984 and 2007. Consequently, northern leopard frogs and their aquatic and terrestrial habitats are not expected to be impacted if the USFS lands in the North Porcupine LBA Tract are leased and mined. In the unlikely event that this species is present in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area in the future, direct loss of, or injury to, foraging and dispersing frogs could result from encounters with mine vehicles or heavy equipment near Porcupine Creek during topsoil stripping or other surface disturbance. It is possible that existing reservoirs and ponds (natural and those enhanced by CBNG discharge waters), and those created for flood control, sedimentation, water storage purposes, or wetland mitigation measures could provide suitable foraging or breeding habitat for northern leopard frogs in the future. However, most artificial water structures would still be limited to relatively shallow, seasonal waters with little emergent vegetation that would not provide for the year-round habitat needs of this frog species. Should those efforts result in improved aquatic habitats, adult frogs, tadpoles, and/or egg masses present in the area could be injured or killed during activities associated with additional construction of diversion dikes or associated channels, or the dewatering of potential habitats downstream of a dike. Under those limited circumstances, potential impacts could include loss of individuals and foraging habitat, increased predation, and changes in stream morphology and hydrology. Standard mining procedures, such as the use of silt barriers across affected stream channels and other similar efforts, would minimize any negative impacts that might result from mine-related operations. Likewise, adherence to the TBNG Plan Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002) pertaining to water and wetlands would ensure that leopard frogs and other aquatic organisms present on USFS lands would not be negatively affected by increased sedimentation, degraded water chemistry, or otherwise damaged aquatic habitats. H-168 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, USFS lands and adjacent non-federal lands within the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area do not currently contain suitable habitat for northern leopard frogs. Water sources in the drainages in that area are too temporary and shallow to support tadpoles until metamorphosis, or to allow frogs to successfully overwinter. If present, individual adult leopard frogs may be incidentally killed by vehicles or equipment. Habitat may be enhanced or created during certain mine operations, but water flow and depth associated with existing structures at the adjacent North Antelope Rochelle Mine has not resulted in adequate conditions to support the life cycle needs of this species, and they are not expected to create those conditions anywhere in this LBA tract. As no northern leopard frogs have ever been documented on USFS lands within the overall general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract, potential effects are expected to be negligible, if they occur at all. Furthermore, northern leopard frogs have been documented at other sites outside of the tract’s general analysis area that will not be affected by coal leasing actions. H-3.6.19 Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) The blacktailed prairie dog was removed from the USFWS federal listing process in 2004. The agency ruled that listing this species may be warranted, but was precluded by higher priority considerations. Consequently, the black-tailed prairie dog is no longer considered a candidate species under the ESA. Black-tailed prairie dogs historically ranged throughout the Great Plains in short-grass and mixed-grass prairies. This species is also a common resident in the short- and mid-grass habitats of eastern Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). The TBNG, which includes USFS lands in the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract, harbors one of the seven major colony complexes remaining in North America. Black-tailed prairie dogs are highly social, diurnal burrowing rodents that typically feed on grasses and forbs. Prairie dogs form colonies that are the main unit of a prairie dog population. This species has the ability to rapidly expand its distribution and population if not limited by pest control practices or disease, and will readily spread into recently disturbed areas. Many species such as the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), mountain plover, burrowing owl, and swift fox are dependent on prairie dogs during a portion of their life cycle. The black-tailed prairie dog’s occupied range and abundance has declined dramatically, and continues to exhibit a slow decline (NatureServe 2007). Major factors contributing to the decline include disease (sylvatic plague), urbanization, habitat conversion, and control efforts. Existing Conditions Surveys have been conducted to locate prairie dog colonies within the 2-mile wildlife survey area surrounding the general analysis area for North Porcupine LBA Tract (Figure H-4). No prairie dog colonies were present on USFS lands Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-169

Appendix H within the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area in 2007. Seventeen prairie dog colonies totaling approximately 1,211.4 non-contiguous acres were present within or overlapped the 2-mile wildlife survey area surrounding the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area in 2007 (Figure H-4). Only one colony (approximately 18.6 acres in size) was within the general analysis area itself. The remaining 16 colonies ranged from 1.5 to 345.3 acres in size. The entire coal mine region of the PRB of northeast Wyoming, including all USFS and surrounding lands within the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract, is beyond the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and in the general region (refer to Management Area 3.63-USFS 2002, Grenier 2003). Additionally, some prairie dog colonies in that region are currently experiencing development associated with conventional oil and gas, CBNG, and coal (including open pits) resources. Year-round human activity and disturbance are already present in a few locations. Direct and Indirect Effects This LBA tract and its general analysis area are almost entirely encompassed by the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit area; therefore, it is possible that surface disturbance associated with coal removal from the mine’s current leases could occur on the tract regardless of whether or not additional leasing occurs in that area. As stated above, one colony (approximately 18.6 acres in size) was within the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract in 2007; however, that colony is not located on USFS lands. That one colony would be affected by the proposed leasing action at some point in time. Mining disturbance associated with the adjacent North Antelope Rochelle Mine could impact those prairie dog colonies that exist elsewhere within the larger wildlife survey area surrounding this LBA tract (Figure H-4). Such impacts could have immediate results on prairie dogs if an occupied colony is abruptly subjected to a soil salvaging operation, or is otherwise impacted in a short timeframe that precludes dispersal prior to disturbance. However, as those activities typically occur incrementally across various portions of a mine permit area, some individuals could disperse to undisturbed portions of the affected colony, or create one or more new colonies within the general area. Smaller-scale disturbances associated with both the mining and CBNG industries can also impact prairie dog colonies and surrounding vegetation through fragmentation or loss of foraging and burrowing habitat. Linear disturbances associated with mining infrastructure, such as roads, power lines, fences, and pipelines will occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, and would be completed within shorter timeframes than the advancement of a surface mine pit. However, such disturbances would still pose some level of risks due to vehicular collisions or by enhancing habitat for mammalian and avian species that prey on prairie dogs. Some linear impacts could be minimized or mitigated through the consolidation of roads and electric utilities within common corridors, applying perch deterrents on overhead power poles, and reseeding pipeline disturbances H-170 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H quickly with appropriate seed mixes for the region. Minor surface disturbance near existing colonies would provide recently upturned soils that could facilitate the expansion of the existing colonies or the establishment of new ones, as prairie dogs will readily move into recently disturbed areas. Postmining reclamation could have similar potential benefits; prairie dogs have already demonstrated their ability to inhabit reclaimed lands at the nearby Antelope Mine (BLM 2008). As no prairie dog colonies are present on USFS lands within the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, no USFS Standards and Guidelines applicable to black-tailed prairie dogs would be implemented. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. No black-tailed prairie dog colonies would be physically disturbed by mining activities on USFS lands within the tract’s general analysis area, if the lease is issued. Only one colony (approximately 18.6 acres in size) is present on non-federal lands in the North Porcupine tract general analysis area. Prairie dog colonies located within the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit area could be impacted by mining operations regardless of whether the North Porcupine LBA Tract is leased. Given the limited additional impacts to prairie dog colonies within the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, the tendency of prairie dogs to disperse and expand their boundaries, and the incremental nature of surface coal mining relative to some other disturbance activities, the potential impacts to prairie dog colonies on and near USFS lands in the North Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey area would not have adverse consequences for the viability of the local or regional population. Disturbance and reclamation efforts will occur incrementally in varying locations throughout the permit area as mining progresses through the approved lease. H-3.6.20 Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) The swift fox was removed from the USFWS federal listing process in 1995, after extensive field surveys demonstrated that the population was greater than expected. This species is considered to be common within the eastern Great Plains grasslands of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004), though it typically occurs at very low densities. The exact status of the population is unknown but believed to be increasing, especially in the Northern Plains. Swift foxes are largely nocturnal and typically prefer flat to gently rolling, short- or mixed-grass prairies, generally lacking in shrubs or woody vegetation (Cotterill 1997). This species uses multiple den sites year-round for shelter, protection from predators, and rearing young. Burrows of other mammals such as badgers (Taxidea taxus), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and prairie dogs are often used or modified for those purposes. Small to mid-sized mammals constitute the bulk of their diet. Swift foxes have little fear of humans and may den in proximity to human disturbances (residences and busy roadways). This tolerance also makes them susceptible to trapping, vehicle collisions, and attacks by dogs. Major threats Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-171

Appendix H faced by the swift fox include habitat loss and degradation, interspecific competition with red fox and coyote (Canis latrans), and vehicle collisions. Existing Conditions
Swift fox have been observed in large grassland blocks in southern Campbell
County with more frequency in recent years, and are presumed to breed there.
This species has also been documented within the overall TBNG.
Sagebrush communities generally dominate the wildlife survey area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract, though grasslands are more prevalent in the southwestern portion of the tract’s general analysis area. Potential swift fox habitat in that area is largely restricted to the western extent, west of the Antelope Road (Figure H-4). The prevalence of sagebrush throughout the tract’s wildlife survey area largely explains the extremely limited sightings of this grassland fox over the last 25 years of monitoring efforts. Burrows within the existing black-tailed prairie dog colonies and scattered badger or red fox burrows could be used by swift foxes as den or shelter sites, and swift fox could forage in the area. No specific surveys for swift fox were conducted for this analysis. However, such efforts were completed in 2002 using USFS survey protocols for other unrelated projects. Those surveys included USFS lands within and immediately adjacent to the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, as well as additional lands in the surrounding area. Nocturnal spotlight surveys for rabbits and hares were conducted as part of annual wildlife monitoring at adjacent existing mines every year since at least 1994, with diurnal surveys for a variety of vertebrate species occurring across all seasons annually since the early 1980s. All of those survey efforts overlapped all or significant portions of the North Porcupine wildlife survey area. Despite those combined survey efforts, no swift fox have ever been recorded on USFS or other lands within the North Porcupine tract general analysis area. Few other swift fox sightings have been recorded elsewhere within the tract’s wildlife survey area or surrounding region during specific surveys or incidental to other searches at local mines over the last 25 years. Those efforts were conducted as part of annual wildlife monitoring by USFS and contract biologists on private and federal lands in the area. One swift fox was documented on USFS lands approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area in March 2002. The fox was observed in T.42N., R.70W., SE¼ Section 15 during spotlight trapping efforts for sagegrouse at the nearby North Antelope Rochelle Mine. Two separate individuals were observed during spotlight lagomorph surveys conducted for the adjacent Antelope Mine on private surface approximately 4 miles south of the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area in October 2005. A pair of swift foxes was observed in the same general area during similar spotlight surveys in both 2006 and 2007.

H-172

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Direct and Indirect Effects Due to absence of swift fox observations in the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract, the limited presence of suitable habitats on USFS and adjacent lands in that area and the surrounding wildlife survey area, and the lone sighting of a single swift fox in that area over the last 25 years of annual monitoring (including spotlight searches for other species), no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated for this species within the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Given these circumstances, species-specific Standards and Guidelines outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, page 1-20) would not apply. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Habitat for this species on USFS lands within the western portion of the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract is currently considered as suitable but unoccupied. No fox sightings have been documented on those USFS lands during specific and incidental surveys conducted over the last 25 years (1984-2007). Only four sightings have been recorded within or near the tract’s two-mile wildlife survey area during that period: one in 2002, and three since 2005. The three most recent sightings were at least 3 miles to the south, and on the far side of a railroad and county road between the sightings and the nearest USFS lands. H-3.6.21 Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Long-billed curlews breed from interior British Columbia and southern Alberta through southern Manitoba, south to central California and east to western North Dakota, central South Dakota, central Nebraska, western Kansas, northeastern New Mexico, and northern Texas (Dechant et al. 2003a). The long-billed curlew is a relatively uncommon summer resident of grasslands and sagebrush-grasslands in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Curlews are ground nesters, and require large open expanses of grassland, with relatively low vegetation and few shrubs in which to nest (Hill 1998). The nest is typically a shallow scrape or depression, thinly lined with grass, weeds or cow dung, typically near water or moist areas. Curlews use historically occupied sites each year, and some individual birds may reuse the same territories from year to year (Dechant et al. 2003a). Curlews primarily feed upon insects but also eat other invertebrates, small crustaceans, toads, and eggs and nestlings of other birds. This species forages in grasslands, wet meadows, prairie dog colonies, and occasionally along the margins of wetlands. Lakeshores and river valleys are often used during fall as migration staging areas (Hill 1998). Although some populations may be declining, overall population trends suggest long-billed curlew numbers are stable or increasing slightly. The major factor affecting curlew populations is habitat destruction and fragmentation.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-173

Appendix H Existing Conditions Long-billed curlews are uncommon summer residents within the TBNG. However, no nesting occurrences have been documented for long-billed curlews in southern Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004), including USFS lands in the North Porcupine tract general analysis area and adjacent lands. As described above for the previous species, that area is dominated by sagebrush habitats, and no significant wetlands (i.e., large lakes) or other persistent water conditions that might attract large numbers of curlews during migration exist within the North Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey area. Consequently, habitat conditions in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area and surrounding lands would be suitable for foraging migrants, but they do not provide large expanses of grassland areas for nesting activities. No long-billed curlews have ever been documented on USFS lands or adjacent lands in the general analysis area or larger wildlife survey area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract. Likewise, few curlews have been observed in the surrounding region during annual wildlife monitoring conducted in the area over the last 25 years. Those general surveys occurred repeatedly throughout the breeding season each year. All curlew sightings that have occurred in the general region over time were recorded during spring months and were beyond USFS lands; those individuals were likely migrants or non-breeding adults. Direct and Indirect Effects Given the lack of sightings of long-billed curlews in the North Porcupine LBA Tract general analysis area and surrounding wildlife survey area since 1984, and the fact that habitat conditions in those areas are only suitable for foraging migrants or non-breeding adults, the Proposed Action and Alternatives for this LBA tract are unlikely to cause any direct injury or mortality to this species. However, if present, future mining activities could result in injuries or mortalities to foraging individuals. Foraging individuals may also be displaced by human activities and noise associated with mining. Potential foraging habitats may be disturbed, removed, or fragmented by mining activities. The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the tract’s general analysis area as operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed in a given portion of the mine, and will eventually mitigate impacts to some degree. The reclamation plan for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine would incorporate the replacement of jurisdictional wetland acreages existing prior to mining with at least equal types and numbers of wetland acreages. The creation of wetland habitats, especially where adjacent to native or reclaimed grassland habitats, could provide additional (although limited) foraging areas for curlews. As no long-billed curlews have been documented within USFS lands or other lands in or near the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, and habitat conditions do not provide quality nesting areas, species-specific Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Grassland Plan (USFS 2002) would not apply.

H-174

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As this species appears to be an infrequent visitor to the general analysis area, and high quality foraging and nesting habitat is not present within the area, impacts to this species are likely to be minimal. Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of potential foraging habitat and potential collisions with vehicles may occur. Enhanced water features and grasslands associated with reclamation may create new foraging or nesting habitat in the area. H-3.6.22 Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Ferruginous hawks breed throughout much of the western United States and portions of three Canadian provinces (Johnsgard 1990). This species nests throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004) and occupies portions of the state during winter. Large expanses of grassland and shrubland, where livestock grazing (vs. cultivation) is the predominant land use, provide the most suitable habitat (Schmutz 1989, Johnsgard 1990). Most ferruginous hawks in the PRB nest on the ground (usually elevated sites, though some pairs nest in small trees). Typical nest sites include hilltops, rock outcrops, eroded creek banks, small trees, and even relatively level ground. The ferruginous hawk relies primarily on two mammalian families for the majority of its prey: Leporidae (rabbits and hares) and Sciuridae (ground squirrels and prairie dogs). Numerous nests can occur within the territory of a single pair, and ferruginous hawks often reuse nests for many years. This species may be sensitive to human disturbance, especially during the nesting period (White and Thurow 1985). This sensitivity can be heightened in years of low prey abundance. Accurate information regarding the trend for the ferruginous hawk is limited and mixed. Some populations may be declining (Bechard and Schmutz 1995); however, overall population trends suggest numbers are stable or increasing (NatureServe 2007). Major factors affecting ferruginous hawk populations include habitat destruction and fragmentation, and human disturbance. Existing Conditions Annual monitoring has documented that ferruginous hawks nested in the vicinity of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine every year since at least 1990, and fledged young in 17 of those 19 years. Similar long-term nesting has occurred at the neighboring Black Thunder and Antelope mines. Ferruginous hawks have nested on USFS lands in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Details describing the number of intact and active nests within the mine monitoring survey areas in a given year are available in annual monitoring and baseline wildlife reports on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne. The presence or absence of nest material does not determine whether the USFS considers a site as “active” (occupied during at least 1 of the last 7 years). In Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-175

Appendix H 2007, 73 individual ferruginous hawk nests (21 territories) were present within the North Porcupine tract wildlife survey area, plus 14 other nest sites that have been used by ferruginous hawks and at least one other raptor species over the years (Figure H-4). Four nest sites were on USFS surface within the general analysis area itself in 2007, three of which still had nest material present. Three additional individual ferruginous hawk nest sites and two multi-species nests were on non-federal lands within the general analysis area in 2007. Direct and Indirect Effects As indicated previously, only a few acres in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area are not already encompassed by the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s existing permit area. Surface disturbance is therefore likely to occur in those areas, regardless of the proposed leasing decision. However, the North Antelope Rochelle Mine has avoided, where possible, or mitigated mining impacts on raptor nests through a variety of means. The mine has also maintained and implemented current USFWS approved Raptor Mitigation Plans, adjusted operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests, and ensured that new power lines at the mine conform to current Avian Power Line Interaction Commission (APLIC) guidelines. Provided those practices are continued, direct impacts on ferruginous hawks and their active nest sites will be minimized, both on and near USFS lands. Due to restrictions on disturbance near active nest sites, the most probable source of potential impact to ferruginous hawks themselves would be an increase in injuries and fatalities of individuals foraging within the general analysis area due to vehicle collisions associated with ongoing or future mining and other activities. The use of existing roads in the area, when possible, would help to minimize this risk. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would result from a variety of large- and small-scale mining operations such as soil salvaging and reservoir/flood control construction, among others. Potential nesting and foraging habitat might also be fragmented by linear disturbances such as the construction, maintenance, and removal of roads, fences, power lines, and pipelines. Those disturbances could also create new travel corridors for mammalian predators that reside in or pass through the area. However, many such disturbances would occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, typically over a period of days. Additionally, those structures are often constructed immediately prior to the removal of similar features elsewhere in the area, often resulting in minimal or no net gain of new linear disturbances. All mine-related habitat disturbances would shift throughout the expanded permit area as operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas would occur incrementally as resource recovery is completed in a given portion of the mine, and would mitigate impacts to some degree. Surface disturbing activities could also result in a short-term, localized decrease in the prey base (lagomorphs and rodents) for ferruginous hawks. However, due to their high reproductive potential and tendencies to re-populate and adapt to H-176 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H disturbed and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase quickly after the disturbance. USFS Standards and Guidelines would be implemented and offer additional protections for active nests; they would apply only to activities outside of the current or future lease areas. These protocols should help ensure that the Proposed Action and Alternatives do not significantly degrade the quality of existing ferruginous hawk territories and nest sites. Standards and Guidelines specific to ferruginous hawks outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, page 1 20-21) are as follows: 73. To help prevent abandonment, reproductive failure or nest destruction, prohibit development of new facilities within 0.25 mile (or line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests. For the ferruginous hawk, a nest is no longer considered active if it is known to have been unoccupied for the last seven years. This does not apply to pipelines, fences and underground utilities. 74. To help reduce disturbances to nesting ferruginous hawks, prohibit the following activities within 0.5 mile (or line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests from 1 March through 31 July: construction (e.g., roads, water impoundments, oil and gas facilities), reclamation, gravel mining operations, drilling of water wells, and oil and gas drilling. 75. To help reduce disturbances to nesting ferruginous hawks, do not authorize the following activities within 0.5 mile (line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests from 1 March through 31 July: construction (e.g., pipelines, utilities, fencing), seismic exploration, and workover operations for maintenance of oil and gas wells. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Mine-related activities will likely disturb ferruginous hawk nest sites on USFS lands in the North Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey area. Many ferruginous hawk nests associated with that area are located on non-federal surface, including alternate sites within the same territories that are beyond the area likely to be impacted by future mining disturbance associated with previous or proposed leasing actions. Some individuals or pairs may experience disturbance, destruction, or fragmentation of nesting and foraging habitat. Increased disturbance to individuals due to human activity may also occur. However, several factors should minimize the potential mining-related impacts on this species, including the availability of alternate nest sites located further away from pending disturbance in each affected territory, implementation of USFWS and USFS approved mitigation measures, reclaiming habitats as soon as feasible, encouraging nesting within mine reclamation lands through artificial nest structures and habitat features such as rock piles Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-177

Appendix H and tree plantings that attract prey species, and continued monitoring of this species to ensure that mitigation methods are applied when necessary. H-3.6.23 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Burrowing owls breed from southern Alberta to southwestern Saskatchewan, south through east-central Washington, central Oregon, and southern California, and east to eastern North Dakota, west-central Kansas, and Texas (Klute et al. 2003, pg 7). The burrowing owl is a summer resident of open rangeland habitats throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species requires burrows of fossorial mammals, primarily badgers and prairie dogs, for nesting and roosting (Klute et al. 2003, pg 12). Most burrowing owl nests within the TBNG are located within prairie dog colonies (USFS 2003). Burrowing owls typically reuse traditional nesting areas. Burrow mounds, shrubs, fence posts or boulders may be used as observation perches. This species is usually tolerant of human activity but is vulnerable to predation by pets (cats, dogs). Burrowing owls forage within a variety of habitats, including cropland, pasture, prairie dog colonies, fallow fields, and sparsely vegetated areas. This species is often active during daylight hours. Insects and small mammals (mice and voles) are the owls’ primary prey items. Burrowing owl populations have been declining throughout its range, primarily due to habitat loss. Existing Conditions Burrowing owls are common summer residents within the TBNG (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species was observed nested in the North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s monitoring area in 1985 and 1989. Despite the presence of potential nesting habitat (prairie dog and badger burrows) in the monitoring area, nesting owls were not found again until 1997. Burrowing owls have nested in the mine’s monitoring area in most years since then, especially within a prairie dog colony located in T.41N., R.70W., Section 17, just east of the southeastern corner of the South Porcupine LBA Tract (Figure H-5). One burrowing owl nest site has been identified in a small (19 acres in size) prairie dog colony within the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. This colony and nest site are located immediately adjacent to USFS lands (Figure H-4). The USFS buffer for this species is 0.25 mile. No burrowing owl nest sites have been documented on USFS lands within the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. A total of seven nest sites have been recorded on USFS lands in the surrounding wildlife survey area through 2007; one of which is in a prairie dog colony located approximately 0.25 mile east of the general analysis area, in T.42N., R.70W., Section 25. Direct and Indirect Effects No known burrowing owl nest sites are present on USFS lands in the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract. However, leasing the North Porcupine LBA Tract could result in direct or indirect effects on two nest sites located within 0.25 mile of USFS lands in that tract; one of which is within the H-178 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H tract’s general analysis area itself, while the other is located immediately east of the tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-4). That distance represents the USFS buffer for this species. Most nesting has occurred in prairie dog colonies in or near the tract’s general analysis area, though badger burrows have also been used. Both USFS Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002) and the North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s mine permit (PRC 2004) stipulate that clearance surveys will be conducted and approved by the appropriate agencies before any colony is disturbed during the breeding season. That process will preclude most direct impacts to new nesting burrowing owls in that area. Due to the strong (but not exclusive) relationship between burrowing owls and prairie dog colonies, many of the indirect effects described above for the blacktailed prairie dog would also apply to burrowing owls and, thus, will not be repeated in full detail here. Because burrowing owls are active during daylight hours, the most probable source of direct impacts would be the death of, or injury to, individuals fleeing heavy equipment, or being killed or injured by equipment while feeding or moving through the mine area. Burrowing owls are generally tolerant of human activities, but increased presence and noise, especially during the nest initiation period, may displace individuals or inhibit nesting proximate to mine operations. Foraging could also be hindered within these areas, especially where mining activities occur near prairie dog colonies. As described previously, only one prairie dog colony (approximately 18.6 acres in size) is present on non-federal lands in the North Porcupine tract general analysis area. Prairie dog colonies located within the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit area could be impacted by mining operations regardless of whether the North Porcupine LBA Tract is leased. If the North Porcupine tract is leased, mining could eventually disturb or eliminate the prairie dog colony (potential nesting habitat) in the tract’s general analysis area. Mining could eventually disturb or eliminate prairie dog colonies on adjacent lands in or within 0.25 mile of the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. However, the generally limited presence of active burrowing owl nests, in combination with the presence of other non-disturbed colonies in the general vicinity and the ability for prairie dogs to recolonize reclamation, would mitigate those losses to a large extent. Surface disturbing activities could also result in a short-term, localized decrease in the prey base (rodents, non-flying insects) for burrowing owls. However, due to their high reproductive potential and tendencies to re-populate and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase quickly after the disturbance. Additionally, the tendency of prairie dogs to quickly colonize nearby areas when their colonies are disturbed would create new nesting habitat for burrowing owls. Overall, nesting and foraging habitats will be incrementally affected by a variety of large-and small-scale operations. The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the general analysis area as mining operations progress, thus providing opportunities for burrowing owls to relocate to other suitable habitat within the immediate area. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-179

Appendix H Reclamation will proceed incrementally as areas are mined and activities move to new locations within the mine area. Both activities will create loose soil that should be attractive to dispersing prairie dogs (potential habitat source), at least in the short term. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as resources are extracted in a given portion of the mine, and will eventually mitigate habitat impacts to some degree. However, to date, burrowing owls have rarely been documented nesting within reclaimed habitats at surface mines in the PRB of northeast Wyoming. If nesting burrowing owls are documented on or near USFS lands in the North Porcupine LBA Tract, USFS Standards and Guidelines applicable to this species would be implemented on applicable lands to offer additional protections beyond those outlined in the USFWS approved Raptor Mitigation Plan for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. Annual monitoring of known burrowing owl nest sites within the 2-mile wildlife survey area for the mine, including USFS and adjacent lands, and other nearby colonies will continue through the life of the mine to document their histories of occupancy and production. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. No burrowing owl nests have been documented on USFS lands in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area during many years of annual monitoring. A single nest site is located in the only prairie dog colony that is within the tract’s general analysis area, and that nest site is immediately adjacent to USFS lands. Disturbance, fragmentation, and alteration of foraging and nesting habitats would occur if this tract is leased and mined. However, most of the prairie dog colonies in the general vicinity are located outside of the tract’s general analysis area where future surface disturbance associated with this leasing action would occur. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine has avoided, where possible, and mitigated such impacts in the past through intensive monitoring of both populations and specific nest sites, implementation of USFWS approved mitigation measures, and adjusting operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests (including burrowing owl nests). Mining activities and noise may disturb individuals inhabiting the lease area, thus inhibiting potential nesting or foraging in proximity to lands with ongoing development. Potential collisions with vehicles might also occur, though none have been recorded in the area to date. H-3.6.24 Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus) The breeding range of the chestnut-collared longspur extends from southern Alberta to southern Manitoba, south to west-central Colorado, and east through North Dakota and South Dakota to western Minnesota (Dechant et al. 2003b). The chestnut-collared longspur is a common summer resident of the eastern plains of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species prefers native grasslands as H-180 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H breeding sites, inhabiting open prairie and avoiding excessively shrubby areas. Grasslands with dense litter accumulations are also avoided (Dechant et al. 2003b). Scattered shrubs are often used as singing perches. Nests are typically placed in areas of sparse vegetation (less than 20-30 centimeters), but usually with a taller grass component than sites preferred by McCown’s longspurs. Nests are on the ground in depressions and often placed beside cattle dung, small shrubs, or under a clump of grass (Hill and Gould 1997). Male fidelity to breeding areas has been observed. Chestnut-collared longspurs feed primarily on seeds (especially grasses), insects, and spiders. This species is generally tolerant of short-term intrusion at the nest site but may desert if disturbed during nest building or egg-laying (Hill and Gould 1997). High rates of predation on eggs and nestlings have been reported and pesticides have been shown to reduce hatching success. The chestnut-collared longspur breeding range has contracted and long-term data suggests population declines (Hill and Gould 1997). These declines have been attributed to loss of native prairie habitat, and conversion to cropland and urban development. Existing Conditions Chestnut-collared longspurs are common summer residents within the TBNG. This species has not been recorded on USFS or adjacent lands in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area during annual monitoring conducted in recent years. The North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area is dominated by sagebrush communities. Potential habitat in that area is largely restricted to the western extent, west of the Antelope Road (Figure H-4). Direct and Indirect Effects Due to the similarity of potential impacts from future mining on chestnutcollared longspurs and other grassland species previously discussed (e.g., prairie dog and swift fox), detailed descriptions of those impacts are not repeated here. Chestnut-collared longspurs have not been documented as nesting on USFS or adjacent lands in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Equipment operations associated with future mining operations could result in fatalities or injury to individuals, nests and eggs, and/or young that are present in the area. Increased human activity and noise could inhibit foraging or nesting within suitable habitats on USFS lands or displace individuals during periods of intense activities. Over the life of the mine, potential nesting and foraging habitats in the general analysis area could be disturbed, destroyed, altered, or fragmented, though the type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the general analysis area as mining operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as resources are extracted in a given portion of the mine. Within 1 to 2 years, newly reclaimed areas may create good quality nesting habitat for chestnut-collared longspurs.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-181

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Sagebrush dominated areas such as those on USFS and adjacent lands within the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area are not as attractive to grassland species such as longspurs. No individuals have been documented in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area or surrounding wildlife survey area. Potential and documented alternative habitats for chestnut-collared longspurs are present elsewhere in the vicinity in areas not currently scheduled for mining disturbance. H-3.6.25 McCown’s Longspur (Calcarius mccownii) McCown’s longspurs breed from southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan, south through Montana, eastern and central Wyoming, and north-central Colorado, and east to western Nebraska, north-central South Dakota, and southwestern North Dakota (Dechant et al. 2003c). This species is a common summer resident of the eastern plains and great basin-foothills grasslands, basin-prairie shrublands, and agricultural areas throughout most of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Specifically, this species requires open habitats such as sparsely vegetated, low structured grasslands, and heavily grazed pastures containing a moderate bare ground component for nesting and foraging. Nest sites are typically a natural or shallow scraped depression on the ground placed in the open or beside vegetation such as bunch grasses, cacti, or shrubs. McCown’s longspurs feed on seeds of grasses and forbs, insects, and other arthropods. No strong data suggests breeding site fidelity although some individuals may return to the general nesting area in subsequent years. Individuals vary in response to human intrusion at nest sites, but appear to be relatively more tolerant than most grassland songbird species. High rates of predation on eggs and nestlings occur especially where nests are associated with vegetative structure. Nestlings may also be directly poisoned where insecticides are sprayed in nest areas (With 1994). Populations are declining, especially within the northern portion of the range. Factors directly affecting the McCown’s longspur include the reduction of breeding habitat due to overgrazing, control of prairie fires, plowing, development, and excessive use of pesticides. Conversion of short-grass prairie to agriculture and urban development is the most important factor (With 1994). Existing Conditions McCown’s longspurs are also common summer residents within the TBNG. Observations of the McCown’s longspur were similar to those of the chestnutcollared longspur. This species has not been observed on USFS or adjacent lands in the sagebrush dominated North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area or its wildlife survey area. This species is regularly observed in prairie dog colonies at the neighboring Antelope Mine.

H-182

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects to McCown’s longspurs would be the same as those described above for the chestnut-collared longspur. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Potential impacts to McCown’s longspurs would be the same as those described above for the chestnut-collared longspur in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. However, as reclaimed grasslands mature, they would become less suitable as nesting habitat for this short-grass species. H-3.6.26 Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) The Greater sage-grouse occurs year-round throughout non-forested regions of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Sage-grouse rely on a variety of habitats within sagebrush dominated landscapes to reproduce and survive throughout the year. Early in the spring, grouse gather at breeding display sites called leks. Leks are usually in open areas (playas, ridge tops, sparse sagebrush, or burned areas) that are surrounded by dense sagebrush and escape cover. The surrounding area also typically represents nesting, loafing, and foraging habitat. After being bred, hens typically scratch out a nest under sagebrush (Connelly et al. 1991) within three kilometers of the lek (Schroeder et al. 1999). Nests in some portions of sage-grouse range are typically placed under sagebrush with average height of 36-79 centimeters (Schroeder et al. 1999). However, research conducted within the Southern PRB (Brown and Clayton 2004) indicated that, although shorter sagebrush was present at nest sites, grouse selected shrubs ranging from 55-61 centimeters in height under which to place nests. Renesting may occur if the nest is destroyed early during the laying or incubation period. Nest success is enhanced where both sagebrush and residual grass cover are taller and denser (Gregg et al. 1994). Sage-grouse exhibit high fidelity to seasonal ranges, and may return to the same area to nest in subsequent years. For the first month after hatching, the young depend on relatively open sagebrush stands with an abundance of forbs and insects, especially ants and beetles (Drut et al. 1994, Schroeder et al. 1999). Late-season brood rearing habitats, such as wet meadows and bottomlands, are more mesic and support greater forb cover (Drut et al. 1994). Sage-grouse use a variety of habitats during fall, and the incidence of sagebrush in their diet increases as forbs become less available. During winter, grouse feed upon sagebrush leaves almost exclusively. Winter range is characterized by large expanses of dense, exposed sagebrush. Where snow accumulations are significant, gentle southand west-facing slopes or windblown ridges are preferred.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-183

Appendix H Breeding populations of this species have declined by at least 17 to 47 percent throughout much of its range (Connelly et al. 2004). Within Wyoming, sagegrouse populations have generally declined over the past 4 decades. However, sage-grouse population estimates specifically pertaining to the TBNG suggest an overall increase in individuals since 1995. This same general trend was observed both statewide and within the Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Local Working Group (NWSGWG) area. The NWSGWG identified habitat fragmentation and degradation, disturbance and direct mortality as major influences affecting sage-grouse (NWSGWG 2006). The group identified oil and gas development, vegetation management, invasive plants, and weather as those factors with the most influence on the northeast Wyoming sage-grouse populations and those that may most effectively be addressed to provide the greatest benefit for sage-grouse conservation in northeast Wyoming (NWSGWG 2006). Existing Conditions As described above, USFS lands on and adjacent to the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract are dominated by a sagebrush-grassland community, primarily big sagebrush, with shrub cover averaging 54 percent in that area. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine, as part of its wildlife monitoring program from 1984 through 1992, conducted voluntary searches for and annual monitoring of sage-grouse leks throughout the mine’s original permit area and a 1-mile perimeter. Those surveys became mandatory with the implementation of Appendix B of the WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations in 1993, and continued each year through 2007. Radio-telemetry data gathered from grouse collared at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine during a voluntary, multi-year (2001 through 2007) study have demonstrated that most birds in the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts’ 2-mile wildlife survey areas (Figures H-4 and H-5) reside near the mine year-round. Additional details describing the survey and monitoring efforts for sage-grouse at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine are available in annual wildlife monitoring and baseline wildlife reports on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne. Five sage-grouse leks are located within 2 miles of the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area: Payne, Wilson, Rochelle, Kort I, and Kort II (Figure H-4). The Payne and Kort 1 leks are on USFS lands, but only the Payne lek is actually within the LBA tract’s general analysis area itself. These five leks are collectively referred to as the Rochelle Complex. The birds in that complex comprise approximately 4 percent of the grouse population in the entire TBNG, and approximately 17 percent of the population in the Hilight Bill Geographic Area. The Payne lek was first discovered in spring 2001. The peak male count (21) recorded that year was higher than that of any subsequent year. Grouse counts at the Payne lek have fluctuated over the last 7 years, with numbers increasing each year from 2005 through 2007. The average annual peak count H-184 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H for males at the Payne lek since its discovery was 10.5. currently classified as “occupied.” The Payne lek is

The Wilson lek has been unoccupied for the last 10 consecutive years, and is therefore considered “unoccupied/abandoned.” The Rochelle lek was discovered in 1990 but experienced reduced attendance after 1992, with birds present in only 3 of the subsequent 11 years. The site may have been a satellite to the Wilson lek, used only when the local grouse population was relatively high or increasing. The Rochelle lek was mined through in 2004, and is now classified as “unoccupied/destroyed.” The Kort I lek was first identified in spring 1998 when, for unknown reasons, grouse apparently shifted their breeding activities from the Wilson lek. Male attendance at the Kort I lek gradually declined through 2004 (low of three males), and the birds shifted their display location to the Kort II lek site in 2005. The average peak male count for the Kort leks since their discovery was 5.2 males per year. The Kort I and Kort II leks are currently classified as “occupied.” Although sage-grouse numbers have generally been low in the combined North and South Porcupine tracts’ wildlife survey areas over the years, known or potential grouse habitat is present in both areas. However, the most suitable sage-grouse habitat exists in the North Porcupine area, as suggested by the distribution of grouse leks between the two areas and confirmed through the information gleaned from the last 7 years of radio-telemetry data collected in the general vicinity. Results from that project have demonstrated that grouse are most commonly recorded in the eastern quarter of the 2-mile wildlife survey area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract, east of the Payne County Road. Detailed reports and long-term maps documenting grouse locations in the area have been submitted to WDEQ/LQD and other agencies in each study year. Annual surveys for sage-grouse broods were conducted in native and reclaimed stream channels at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine and adjacent mines from 1994 through 1999; such surveys were no longer required by WGFD and WDEQ/LQD after that year due to the consistent lack of grouse broods observed at coal mines throughout the PRB. Likewise, no sage-grouse broods were seen during recent baseline inventories conducted for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. All grouse broods that have been recorded over the years occurred as incidental sightings during other wildlife surveys. Nesting and winter surveys for sage-grouse are not required as part of the annual wildlife programs for the North Antelope Rochelle or the other applicant mines included in this EIS (Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch), though winter surveys have been conducted as part of baseline inventories for previous mine expansions. Additionally, winter surveys for other species (big game and bald eagle roosts) have occurred at all three of these mines in recent years. Due to their proximity to existing mine permit areas, nearly all of the combined North Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-185

Appendix H and South Porcupine tracts’ general analysis areas have been included in some level of regular (but not always annual) winter surveys since 1987. No sagegrouse were ever documented in or near these two LBA tracts during those surveys. However, grouse have been confirmed as year-round residents in the vicinity of the North Porcupine tract general analysis area during year-round telemetry studies conducted from 2001 through 2005, with less frequent monitoring during the subsequent two winters. Only isolated grouse sightings occurred within 3 miles of the South Porcupine tract general analysis area during that telemetry monitoring period, with each sighting limited to a single observation per bird. Direct and Indirect Effects Because of their location within the existing permit area for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, all five sage-grouse leks in the North Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey area occur in an area likely to be disturbed by future mining, regardless of whether the proposed leasing action is approved. Some potential impacts of mineral development (including coal mining and oil and gas development) on sage-grouse that might inhabit the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract, as well as on known and potential sagegrouse habitat include: alteration of plant and animal communities; loss or degradation of important seasonal habitats; increased human activity and noise, which could cause animals to avoid the area and/or reduce their breeding efficiency; increased road traffic and related injuries or mortalities; increased risk of predation from raptors perched on existing or future power poles and/or grouse avoidance of areas with overhead power lines; potential illegal harvest; and reduced water tables resulting in the loss of herbaceous vegetation. Following reclamation, there may be a long-term loss of nesting and winter habitat, depending on the amount of sagebrush that is restored relative to the amount of sagebrush that is present before mining. Sagebrush communities occupy approximately 54 percent of the vegetation analysis areas in the North Porcupine LBA Tract. Mine operations and oil and gas development have requirements for reclamation of disturbed areas as recovery of energy resources is completed. WDEQ/LQD reclamation standards for surface coal mines call for restoration of sagebrush on at least 20 percent of the reclaimed area. Those reclamation efforts can work in concert with USFS Standards and Guidelines toward mitigating impacts to wildlife species and habitats. New areas disturbed by mining in the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract would be reclaimed incrementally, but they may not be attractive to sage-grouse for many years due to slow establishment and growth rates of important sagebrush species. Information gleaned from the multi-year telemetry study at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine would be incorporated into reclamation efforts for the LBA tract to maximize successful reclamation of sage-grouse habitat. Estimates for the time it would take to restore shrubs, including sagebrush, to pre-mining density levels range from 20 to 100 years. Until sagebrush returns to its pre-mining density levels, a reduction in potential year-round sage-grouse habitat within the North H-186 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Porcupine tract’s general analysis area would persist. In the meantime, the presence of known and apparently suitable sage-grouse habitat elsewhere within the immediate area could provide alternate areas for dispersing grouse to use until reclaimed sagebrush stands have matured adequately to support a local population. In keeping with the Direction Objectives for the Hilight Bill Geographic Area (USFS 2002, page 1-25), impacts to sage-grouse habitat in the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract could be further mitigated off-site by efforts to preserve and enhance habitat on adjoining and nearby private lands, such as those currently under way through the Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association. Management planning and processes that are developed through this combined effort among landowners and federal representatives will presumably provide suitable habitat for sage-grouse that disperse from the North Porcupine tract and adjacent North Antelope Rochelle Mine areas during the interim between habitat disturbance and completed reclamation. Should sage-grouse move onto new USFS lands proposed for mining in the future, agency Standards and Guidelines would offer appropriate protections for the species and its important habitats. Despite the impacts to the Rochelle lek complex, the proposed leasing action would not contribute to significant reductions in the regional sage-grouse population overall, nor would it conflict with the current TBNG Plan or any future objectives to manage the area for this species. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. More than 20 years of regular monitoring have documented that sage-grouse do inhabit USFS lands analyzed for the North Porcupine LBA Tract general analysis area. Currently, the Payne and Kort leks are the only sites with regular activity in recent years, with most birds seen at the Payne lek. Those leks have been used by an average peak count of 10.5 and 5.2 males per year, respectively, since they were discovered. Although impacts to the leks within the Rochelle complex will be detrimental to individual birds, that group represents only a small (4 to 17 percent) proportion of the sagegrouse population in the TBNG and Hilight Bill Geographic Area, respectively. Annual monitoring will continue for the life of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, and will include new permit expansions and a 1-mile perimeter. Should additional sage-grouse leks or use areas be observed on USFS lands in the North Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey area, appropriate monitoring and mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize impacts to birds, habitats, and populations. H-3.6.27 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Bald eagles occur throughout North America, from Alaska and Canada south to Florida, the Gulf Coast, and northern Mexico. The northwest coast of North America serves as Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-187

Appendix H the stronghold for this species, with approximately one-half of the population inhabiting Alaska. The USFWS officially listed the bald eagle as an endangered species in 43 of the lower 48 states on July 4, 1976. The listing was due to a combination of several factors, including widespread habitat loss, negative effects of pesticide use on reproductive success, indiscriminant shooting, and others. The status of the bald eagle was downgraded to threatened throughout the lower 48 states in 1995. Bald eagle population trends began increasing throughout most of the species’ range in the early 1990’s, and it was proposed for de-listing in 1999. On July 9, 2007, USFWS published a Federal Register notice (72 FR 37346) announcing that the bald eagle would be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.) on August 8, 2007. However, the protections provided to the bald eagle under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 U.S.C. 668, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703, will remain in place. The bald eagle is now recognized as a BLM and USFS Sensitive Species. Bald eagles typically nest in large trees within a stand of mature, similarly sized trees either beside or in proximity (within 0.7 mile) to rivers, lakes, or reservoirs that harbor adequate fish populations. Those areas tend to be remote and experience little disturbance (Johnsgard 1990). Typically, the nest is placed in the crown of a large cottonwood or pine, but if the topography allows, eagles will nest on cliff edges or escarpments. Open-canopied trees and snags provide required perches in nesting and foraging areas. All verified bald eagle nests in northeastern Wyoming (BLM Buffalo Field Office GIS database) are situated in significant, mature cottonwood stands along larger streams or rivers (i.e., Tongue River, Powder River, Clear Creek, and Little Thunder Creek). Nesting attempts are rare on the TBNG (Beske 1994). Fish and waterfowl are the primary source of food for nesting bald eagles. Where available, large to mid-size carrion and large rodents (e.g., prairie dogs) can also be an important dietary component. Bald eagles nest and winter throughout Wyoming, though typically are not locally abundant in the northeastern portion of the state. The species regularly migrates through and winters in Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004), and has often been documented during winter and early spring at nearby coal mines (various coal mine annual reports are on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne). Most eagles that migrate through or winter in Campbell County roost communally in stands of large ponderosa pine, along wooded cottonwood-riparian corridors, or in isolated stands of large trees. As water is scarce in that region, especially during winter, those birds likely forage widely for lagomorphs or carrion. H-188 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Existing Conditions The bald eagle is seasonally common and most frequently observed during the winter months. Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants in the PRB, but only rarely nest in that region. No bald eagle nests or winter roosts have been documented within 1 mile of USFS lands located within the general analysis areas for the North or South Porcupine LBA Tracts during any baseline or annual monitoring studies since they began in the late 1970s and early 1980s, respectively. Scattered stands of potential bald eagle nesting and winter roosting habitat (mature cottonwood corridors) are present on USFS and adjacent lands along Porcupine Creek as it flows through the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract. No streams flow through the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area and few trees are present there. In general, the combined wildlife survey areas for the two Porcupine LBA Tracts do not contain unique or sizeable, concentrated prey sources (e.g., fisheries, waterfowl wintering areas) that would be expected to attract bald eagles. As described in the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts’ black-tailed prairie dog analyses that are included within this appendix and in Section 3.10 of this EIS, no prairie dog colonies were present on USFS lands within either tract’s general analysis area in 2007. Only one colony encompassing approximately 18.6 acres was present within the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, and no colonies were present within the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, in 2007. A total of 23 prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 1,317 acres were present in the combined wildlife study areas for the two Porcupine LBA Tracts in 2007 (Figures H-4 and H-5). Sheep and their lambs are present in this area in the spring, when bald eagles have typically left the region, and flocks are pastured there infrequently in the winter. The area does not support a large big game herd, though some groups do winter in the area. Ground surveys for bald eagle winter roost sites were most recently conducted within the combined wildlife survey areas for the two Porcupine tracts during baseline surveys beginning in 2006. Previous winter roost surveys also encompassed all or most potential habitat within that overall survey area. All winter roost surveys were conducted between ½ hour before and 1 hour after sunrise or between 1 hour before and ½ hour after sunset, per current BLM guidelines for survey timing and frequency. Biologists also watched for nesting bald eagles within the survey area while conducting surveys for other nesting raptors. Direct and Indirect Effects As no winter roost sites or large groups of bald eagles have been documented in the general analysis area for either of the two Porcupine LBA Tracts, potential impacts would be limited to occasional foraging individuals rather than a large segment of the population. The increased human presence and noise Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-189

Appendix H associated with construction activities, if conducted while eagles are wintering within the area, could harass or displace individual eagles during that period. Nesting eagles could also be distressed to the point of abandoning eggs or young, or their hunting efforts and success impacted. If necessary, the majority of direct effects could be mitigated by controlling the timing and location of disturbance activities, and/or through approved nest relocation efforts. Indirect effects include additional disturbance and fragmentation of already limited foraging habitat within the geographic area. These impacts could result from a variety of large- and small-scale activities described previously for other species, including, but not limited to: topsoil stripping; overburden and coal removal; reclamation activities; and construction of roads, reservoirs, power lines (above ground and buried), fences, and pipelines. The locations of operations would shift throughout the expanded permit area as mining occurred, with habitats disturbed and reclaimed incrementally. Conversely, the addition of fences and raptor-safe power poles could possibly benefit foraging bald eagles by providing additional perch sites. Due to the limited presence of potential nesting or roosting sites, and lack of concentrated sources of prey, the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 to bald eagles are expected to be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. No bald eagle nests have been documented on or within 1 mile of the North or South Porcupine LBA Tract’s general analysis area since annual monitoring began in the early 1980s. Potential bald eagle winter roost and nesting sites are limited in both LBA tract’s wildlife survey area, and no reliable prey sources are present to support nesting or roosting bald eagles. Therefore, potential hazards for this species would be limited to foraging individuals during winter. Disturbance, fragmentation, and alteration of potential foraging habitat would occur. However, the North Antelope Rochelle Mine has avoided, where possible, and mitigated raptor impacts in the past through intensive raptor monitoring, implementation of USFWS approved mitigation measures, and adjusting operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests. H-3.6.28 Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) The mountain plover breeds from southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan through central Montana, south to south-central Wyoming, east-central Colorado and northeastern New Mexico, and east to northern Texas and western Kansas. In Wyoming, this species is a common summer resident (Cerovski et al. 2004). Mountain plovers require flat grasslands with short and sparse vegetation, and a large bare ground component (Knopf 1996) for nesting, foraging, or staging. Within the PRB, heavily grazed prairie dog colonies generally provide the most suitable mountain plover habitat. H-190 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Mountain plovers are monogamous and possibly polyandrous ground nesters, and typically produce at least two clutches. The nest is a shallow depression occasionally thinly lined with grass. Plovers may utilize the same nesting area in subsequent years (Dechant et al. 2003d). Adults and fledged chicks leave the breeding grounds by early August, and may stage within appropriate habitats before migrating. Plovers feed primarily upon insects. Beetles, grasshoppers, crickets, and ants are the most important prey items (Knopf 1996). This species is highly approachable and does not flee far. Mountain plover populations have historically declined and recent data suggests that this species is continuing to decline in numbers. Causes of population declines have been primarily attributed to regional changes in agricultural practices (Knopf 1996). Existing Conditions Mountain plovers are summer residents within portions of the TBNG. Most observations of mountain plovers in northeast Wyoming have been associated with prairie dog colonies. Approximately 86 percent of recently (since 1993) occupied mountain plover habitat in that region occurred within prairie dog colonies (Byer 2001). Because of the similarity in habitat requirements between the mountain plover and McCown’s longspur, similar existing conditions and impacts would apply for both species. The nearest known breeding population of mountain plovers occurs in a large prairie dog colony located at the Antelope Mine, approximately 4 miles southwest of the South Porcupine LBA Tract’s general analysis area, and even farther from the North Porcupine LBA Tract. As described above, sagebrush communities dominate the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Only one small (approximately 18.6 acres) prairie dog colony is present in that area, and it is located on non-federal lands. Generally, the vegetation in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area and surrounding wildlife survey area is too tall and dense to attract mountain plovers. The best potential habitat for this species occurs in a large (about 345.3 acres) occupied prairie dog colony immediately south of the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-4). Despite the presence of suitable habitat and the occurrence of annual monitoring in that area, mountain plovers have never been documented on USFS or adjacent lands within the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Mountain plovers have been recorded in the combined North and South Porcupine tracts’ wildlife survey areas only three times over the last 2 decades of annual monitoring. In mid-June 2004, single individuals were seen in shortgrass areas on two separate days. One adult was observed on non-federal surface in the western portion of the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. The second individual was recorded in the southwestern portion of the South Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey area. Neither adult exhibited any defensive behavior, so both were presumed to be non-breeding birds. In early August 2005, a group of 15 to 20 mountain plovers was observed in the large (345.3 acres in size) prairie dog colony that overlaps both the North and South Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-191

Appendix H Porcupine tracts’ wildlife survey areas. That group was presumed to be staging briefly during the fall migration. No other plover sightings have ever been recorded in that colony, despite survey efforts targeting that location. Direct and Indirect Effects Due to the similarity in their habitat associations, the direct and indirect effects to mountain plovers in both North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts’ general analysis areas would be the same as those described above for the McCown’s longspur. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Suitable plover habitat on USFS lands is limited primarily to a large prairie dog colony that overlaps the wildlife survey areas for both the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts; no prairie dog colonies are present on USFS lands in either tract’s general analysis area. Only one mountain plover has been documented in the general analysis area for either Porcupine LBA tract in more than 20 years of annual monitoring. Documented alternative habitats for mountain plovers are present elsewhere in the region that is not currently scheduled for mining disturbance. H-3.6.29 Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Loggerhead shrikes breed from Washington, northern Alberta, central Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba, south to California and Florida, and east to southwestern Minnesota, southern Wisconsin, southern Michigan, and Maryland. This species is a common summer resident throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Shrikes prefer relatively open, heterogeneous habitats characterized by grasses and forbs of low stature interspersed with bare ground and shrubs or low trees with perches for hunting. This species will use a wide variety of trees and shrubs, particularly thick or thorny species, as nesting substrates and hunting perches (Prescott and Bjorge 1999). Although some shrike nests are used in subsequent years, fidelity to a nest site is limited. This species forages over relatively open habitats, feeding primarily upon arthropods, amphibians, small to medium-sized reptiles, small mammals, and birds (Yosef 1996). Shrikes may also feed upon road kill and carrion. This species is generally tolerant of human activity near a nest, although they will abandon if disturbed during egg-laying or early in incubation. The loggerhead shrike is declining in both number and overall range. Declines have been attributed to habitat loss and conversion, urbanization, pesticide contamination, and loss of insect prey as a result of pesticide use (Yosef 1996). Existing Conditions Loggerhead shrikes are common summer residents within the TBNG. This species has occasionally been observed in a small tree windbreak at an old homestead site located adjacent to the general analysis area for the North Porcupine tract on USFS lands in T.42N., R.71W., SW¼SE¼ Section 35 (Figure H-192 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H H-4). The presence of young indicates that shrikes have nested in that windbreak at least once. Few other trees or other nesting habitats are present elsewhere in the North Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey area, as described for the bald eagle, above. Shrikes have also been infrequently recorded perched on various fences or on overhead power lines elsewhere in the tract’s wildlife survey area. Shrike foraging habitat is present throughout the North Porcupine LBA Tract’s general analysis area, including USFS lands. As indicated, existing utility and fence lines currently provide good quality hunting perches. Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives could result in direct and indirect impacts to loggerhead shrikes, though such impacts would likely be uncommon. Only one presumed nest site has been documented on or adjacent to USFS lands or elsewhere in the wildlife survey area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract; that site is just outside of the tract’s general analysis area, but is within the existing mine permit area for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. The most probable direct impact would be the mortality of, or injury to, individuals foraging within or passing through the USFS lands due to collisions with future mine-related vehicles, or dispersal of foraging individuals due to active mining. The relatively slow movement of mining equipment and the noise associated with the activity would decrease direct impacts associated with vehicle collisions. As loggerhead shrikes are not especially common in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, indirect impacts would be limited despite the fragmentation, degradation, or loss of habitat in the short and mid term. Any birds that would be displaced would be forced to travel to other locations with acceptable habitat. This could result in stress to individual birds, as well as potential decreased nesting effort and success. Prey numbers reduced by mining would be expected to rebound following reclamation due to generally high reproductive potential and prey tendencies to re-establish and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas. The locations of mine-related habitat disturbances and reclamation efforts would proceed incrementally throughout the expanded mining area as operations progressed. Additionally, this mining activity would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives to manage the TBNG for this species. USFS Standards and Guidelines would offer additional protections for any active nest sites that may be present in the area. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Such impacts would be minimized by the limited number of regular sightings and known nesting attempts, as well as the relative paucity of suitable nesting habitat on or adjacent to the USFS lands analyzed in this EIS and their surrounding region. Degradation, fragmentation, or loss of potential foraging habitat, reduction in prey populations, and potential collisions with Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-193

Appendix H vehicles may occur. Given the limited presence of birds in the area, and the composition of the shrike’s prey base (insects, small mammals, etc.), impacts to shrikes would be minimal. USFS Standards and Guidelines would apply for active nests during the breeding season. Additionally, mining the USFS lands would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives to manage the TBNG for loggerhead shrikes. H-3.6.30 Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) The breeding range of the Brewer’s sparrow extends from southwestern Yukon, southern Alberta, and southwestern Saskatchewan, south (east of the Cascades and Sierras) to southern California, central Arizona, and northern New Mexico (Rotenberry et al. 1999). The Brewer’s sparrow is a common summer resident of the basinprairie and mountain-foothills throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate species (Rotenberry et al. 1999). This species is an uncommon cowbird (Molothrus ater) host and typically builds a small cup nest low in sagebrush shrubs. Brewer’s sparrows prefer to nest in medium-sized (48-90 centimeters, or 19-35 inches) live sagebrush within relatively dense (26-42 percent canopy cover) stands (Walker 2004). Grass height and density are important factors for nest concealment. Although tolerant of human visitation, this species may abandon a nest if disturbed during the construction process. Brewer’s sparrows feed primarily on small insects and, to a lesser extent, seeds from grasses and forbs. Throughout areas where they have been surveyed, the species appears to have undergone and continues to undergo statistically significant declines (Rotenberry et al. 1999). Major threats to Brewer's sparrow populations are similar to those faced by other declining sagebrush-obligate species and include habitat conversion and fragmentation, invasion by non native plants, altered fire regimes, livestock overgrazing, conifer encroachment, energy development, and conversion to urban or residential housing (Walker 2004). Existing Conditions Brewer’s sparrows are common summer residents within the TBNG and southern Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004). Breeding bird survey data from annual monitoring and baseline studies conducted for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, and incidental observations over time, have shown that the Brewer’s sparrow is a common but limited breeder in the area. This species has been recorded in sagebrush habitats near the North Porcupine LBA Tract during many survey years over time. Although no nests have been encountered in that general analysis area, the presence and behavior (singing) of birds throughout spring and summer suggest that Brewer’s sparrows nest in the sagebrush stands common to the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area.

H-194

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Direct and Indirect Effects As described for the sage-grouse, above, habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush communities in the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area would result from a variety of large- and small-scale mining operations such as topsoil stripping, drilling, and reservoir construction, among others. Potential nesting and foraging habitat would also be fragmented by linear disturbances such as the construction, maintenance, and removal of roads, fences, power lines, and pipelines. Those disturbances could also create new travel corridors for mammalian predators that reside in or pass through the area. However, many such disturbances would occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, typically over a period of days. Additionally, those structures are often constructed immediately prior to the removal of similar features elsewhere in the area, often resulting in minimal or no net gain of new linear disturbances. All mine-related habitat disturbances and reclamation efforts would shift throughout the expanded permit area as operations progress. The use of existing roads, when possible, could minimize impacts related to traffic hazards and predator travel corridors. Increased activity and noise, especially during the nest initiation period, could inhibit nesting proximate to mining activities. Foraging could also be hindered within these areas, especially where active mining occurs. Additional infrastructure and activity associated with the expansion of the mine, in combination with other ongoing disturbances (e.g., CBNG operations), could displace Brewer’s sparrows from any historical use areas that might occur in the area. Those birds could potentially move into other sagebrush stands in the general vicinity, assuming they are not already occupied. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed in a given portion of the mine and will eventually mitigate impacts to sagebrush habitats to some degree, though such efforts could take decades to benefit sagebrush obligates such as the Brewer’s sparrow. Impacts to sagebrush habitat on USFS lands could be further mitigated off-site by efforts to preserve and enhance such habitat on adjacent and nearby private lands, as described above. Standards and Guidelines for sagebrush habitats outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, pages 1-18; Appendix D) would be implemented as necessary, and could serve to sustain regional populations of this sparrow. Those management guidelines would apply only to activities beyond the North Porcupine LBA Tract. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Some habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would occur on and near USFS lands in the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract, along with potential impacts to individuals. However, the presence of large stands of sagebrush elsewhere in the general vicinity suggests that Brewer’s sparrows would remain viable within the TBNG for at least the shortDraft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-195

Appendix H term. Additionally, the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan (USFS 2002) or future objectives to manage the area for this species. Application of appropriate USFS Standards and Guidelines, successful reclamation efforts, and proper land management on adjoining lands could mitigate potential impacts, to some degree. H-3.7 South Porcupine LBA Tract

H-3.7.1 Prairie moonwort (Botrychium campestre) The prairie moonwort, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species was only recorded in Wyoming in a semi-shady mixed deciduous and ponderosa pine forest on sandy soils in the Black Hills. Prairie moonworts are known to exist in a variety of other habitats such as those underlain by Pierre shale, the Laramie Formation, calcareous sedimentary rocks, calcareous soils underlain by limestone, sandy soils and loess prairie. These habitats generally do not exist on the South Porcupine general analysis area, as the forest cover and soil substrate are not present. Existing Conditions Prime habitats for the prairie moonwort are not present on the USFS lands within the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract. Sites with sandy soils are present on USFS lands and other portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas are rather sparsely vegetated and do not provide habitat preferred by this plant species. Prairie moonworts have not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential for loss of individuals or preferred habitats is very low. The narrowleaf H-3.7.2 Narrowleaf moonwort (Botrychium lineare) moonwort, a sensitive plant species, has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species has an affinity for riparian areas and is associated with spruce/fir forests, lodgepole pine forests, and forest meadows.

H-196

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Existing Conditions Habitats for the narrowleaf moonwort are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian habitats or forest habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The narrowleaf moonwort has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is very low. H-3.7.3 Leathery grapefern (Botrychium multifidum var. coulteri) The leathery grapefern, a plant species of local concern, has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for meadows, wetlands, floodplains and other wet areas in open to forested habitats within forests. Existing Conditions Habitats for the leathery grapefern are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian habitats or forest habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on other portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The leathery grapefern has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the leathery grapefern. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-197

Appendix H Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.7.4 Foxtail sedge (Carex alopecoidea) The foxtail sedge, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. The foxtail sedge generally has an affinity for wet meadows and willow-sedge communities along wet, shady creek bottoms and springs. Existing Conditions Habitats for the foxtail sedge are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wet meadows or willow-sedge communities are not present on these USFS lands. Few riparian sites associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on other portions of the general Wright analysis area, and these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. The foxtail sedge has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the foxtail sedge. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential for loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.7.5 Elliptic spikerush (Eleocharis elliptica) The elliptic spikerush, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for wetland areas created by seeps or springs but may also be found in temporarily flooded areas. Existing Conditions Habitats for the elliptic spikerush are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wetland habitats are not present on these USFS lands. Few wetland sites associated with various ephemeral drainages and playas are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these sites do not appear to provide optimum habitat for this species. No seeps or springs are present. The elliptic spikerush has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas.

H-198

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to lack of abundant suitable habitat the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract does not provide abundant habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is low. H-3.7.6 Hall’s fescue (Festuca hallii) The Hall’s fescue, a sensitive plant species, is a tufted perennial grass and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for montane meadows, slopes and edges of open coniferous woods and meadows above 6,000 feet in Wyoming. Existing Conditions Habitats for the Hall’s fescue are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable montane habitats above 6,000 feet are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the Hall’s fescue has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the Hall’s fescue. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species. The potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.7.7 Wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum) The wood lily, a plant species of local concern, is a perennial herb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for woodland meadows and woodland grasslands.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-199

Appendix H Existing Conditions Habitats for the wood lily are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable woodland meadow or grassland habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the wood lily has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the wood lily. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.7.8 Largeflower triteleia (Triteleia grandiflora) The largeflower triteleia, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial herb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for grassy areas in sagebrush at the edge of aspen and lodgepole pine forests and in pinon-juniper woodlands to pine forests and hills. Existing Conditions Habitats for the largeflower triteleia are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable grassy areas in sagebrush at the edge of aspen and lodgepole pine forests and pinon-juniper woodlands or pine forests and hills are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area, and the largeflower triteleia has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the largeflower triteleia. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.7.9 Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii) The Barr’s milkvetch, a sensitive plant species, is a matt-forming perennial forb that is known from numerous occurrences on the USFS lands within the TBNG. As more surveys H-200 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H are completed, new occurrences are reported. The Barr’s milkvetch is found primarily on dry, sparsely-vegetated rocky prairie breaks, knolls, hillsides and ridges. Parent material is calcareous soft shale, siltstone or silty sandstone. Most populations appear to be stable, although populations may decline under drought conditions. Existing Conditions Astragalus barrii is a regional endemic plant of the plains in southwestern South Dakota, eastern Wyoming, southeastern Montana, and northwestern Nebraska. According to USFS, this plant species is known to occur in six counties in Wyoming, and there are eleven known occurrences of A. barrii in the USFS TBNG. Suitable habitat for the Barr’s milkvetch is present on the USFS lands within the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract as well as other lands within the general Wright analysis area. Surveys in 2005 identified Barr’s milkvetch populations within the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract, but no individuals were found on USFS lands. Barr’s milkvetch populations and individuals have been identified in surrounding areas. Barr’s milkvetch has been collected and positively identified approximately 7 miles south of the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract, in the Section 21 of T.40N., R.71W., based on specimens on file with the Rocky Mountain Herbarium in Laramie, Wyoming. Indirect and Direct Impacts If lands within the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract are leased and mined, potential habitat, individuals, and A. barrii populations would be lost due to surface disturbances caused by mining activities. These losses would most likely be permanent unless disturbed lands are reclaimed to habitats that would support this plant species. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing because there are Astragalus barrii occurrences outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. The Rocky Mountain Herbarium records reveal this plant species is widespread in northeastern Wyoming, so the loss of individuals or populations from mining activities related to the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would not result in the extirpation of this species. Smooth goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum) The smooth H-3.7.10 goosefoot, a plant species of local concern, is an annual forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for sand bars and sandy blowouts in riparian areas.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-201

Appendix H Existing Conditions Habitats for the smooth goosefoot are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable riparian areas are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few riparian areas associated with various ephemeral drainages are present on portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas do not contain the required sand bar or sandy blowout habitats required for this plant species. The smooth goosefoot has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 should have no impact on the smooth goosefoot. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.7.11 Flat-top goldentop (Euthamia graminifolia) The flat-top goldentop, a plant species of local concern, is a rhizomatous perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for stony sandbars and streambanks but may also be found on moist or drying sites along open streambanks or roadside ditches. Existing Conditions Habitats for the flat-top goldentop are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable wetland or streambank areas are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Streambanks and a few wetland areas in association with various ephemeral drainages are present within portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these areas generally do not contain the typical habitats required for this plant species, but marginal habitats are present. The flat-top goldentop has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis areas or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine H-202 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is low. H-3.7.12 Rosy palafox (Palafoxia rosea var. macrolepis) The rosy palafox, a plant species of local concern, is an annual forb that has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area but has been recorded on other lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for sagebrush and mixedgrass prairie habitats on sandy soils. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by the rosy palafox are present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area and on other surrounding lands. Sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie plant communities are present on sandy soils in the general Wright analysis area. However, rosy palafox has not been recorded on these lands but is potentially present. This plant species has been documented southeast of the general Wright analysis area. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract, and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract does contain some suitable habitat for this plant species but the rosy palafox has not been documented on the site. This species has been documented southeast of the general Wright analysis area and abundant habitat is present on other sites that would not be affected. The lemonscent, a plant H-3.7.13 Lemonscent (Pectis angustifolia) species of local concern, is an annual forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area but has been recorded on other lands within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for gravel hills and scoria slopes. Lemonscent is also known to occur in low areas in sandy ravines and on sandbars. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by lemonscent are present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area and on other surrounding lands. However, Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-203

Appendix H lemonscent has not been recorded in the general Wright analysis area but could potentially be present. This plant species has been documented south of the general Wright analysis area. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract, and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract does contain some suitable habitat for this plant species but the lemonscent has not been documented. This species has been documented south of the general Wright analysis area and abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.7.14 Larchleaf beardtongue (Penstemon laricifolius spp. exifolius) The larchleaf beardtongue (penstemon), a plant species of local concern, is a perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for dry, rocky, gravelly or sandy slopes, ridgetops and upland flats with shallow soils. Most populations in Wyoming are found at elevations above 6,000 feet, but this species has been documented at lower elevations in the state. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by larchleaf beardtongue are marginally present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few rocky, gravelly hill slopes and rough breaks provide potential habitat, but the larchleaf beardtongue has not been recorded on these lands. This plant species has not been documented near the general Wright analysis area but is potentially present. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general Wright analysis area and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal.

H-204

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract does contain marginal habitat for this plant species but the larchleaf beardtongue has not been documented. This species has been documented and is common in southern Wyoming and abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.7.15 Wooly twinpod (Physaria didymocarpa var. lanata) The wooly twinpod, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on other TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. In Wyoming, this species generally has an affinity for dry redbed clay-shale slopes, limey-sandstone outcrops, roadcuts and other exposed rock-cliff substrates. Most populations in Wyoming have been documented in the foothills of the Big Horn Mountains. Existing Conditions Habitats utilized by the wooly twinpod are marginally present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few sandstone outcrops and exposed rock-cliff substrates provide potential habitat, but the wooly twinpod has not been recorded on these lands. This plant species has not been documented near the general Wright analysis area but is potentially present. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. However, due to the presence of abundant habitat outside of the general Wright analysis area and the fact that this plant is abundant in other areas, the impacts to this species overall would be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract does contain marginal habitat for this plant species but the wooly twinpod has not been documented. This species has been documented and is common in north-central Wyoming and abundant habitat is present on other sites outside of the areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. H-3.7.16 Visher’s buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri) The Visher’s buckwheat, a sensitive plant species, is an annual forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area but has been tentatively identified elsewhere within the TBNG. This plant species is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-205

Appendix H present. This species generally has an affinity for gullied ridges and eroded badland hills. These sites generally consist of barren shale and clay outcrops with at least 50 percent bare soil, high salt content and shrink/swell clay soils. Typical habitat includes badland islands in grasslands. Existing Conditions Habitats for the Visher’s buckwheat are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. A few areas of highly eroded gullies consisting of barren shale or clay outcrops may be found in portions of the general Wright analysis area, but these sites generally provided a greater vegetation cover than is needed to provide optimum habitat for this species. The Visher’s buckwheat has not been recorded on the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the Visher’s buckwheat. As indicated, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract does not provide optimum suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.6.17 Highbush-cranberry (Viburnum opulus var. americanum) The highbush-cranberry, a sensitive plant species, is a perennial forb and has not been documented on USFS lands within the South Porcupine general analysis area or within the TBNG. In Wyoming, this plant species is found within Crook County and is suspected of occurring on TBNG lands where suitable habitat is present. This species generally has an affinity for moist sites including wooded hillsides, thickets or low woodlands. The highbush-cranberry is found all across northern North America. Existing Conditions Habitats for the highbush-cranberry are not present on the USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. Suitable moist, wooded habitats are not present on these USFS lands within the general Wright analysis area. The highbush-cranberry has not been recorded within the general Wright analysis area or adjacent areas. Indirect and Direct Impacts If present on areas to be disturbed by mining, individuals of this species would be lost when topsoil is removed or during disturbances caused by other mining activities.

H-206

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no impact on the highbush-cranberry. As indicated, this species has not been documented in the general Wright analysis area and the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract does not provide suitable habitat for this plant species so the potential loss of individuals or preferred habitats is not expected. H-3.7.18 Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Northern leopard frogs range from the Great Slave Lake and Hudson Bay, south to Kentucky and New Mexico (NatureServe 2007). This species is considered relatively common within Wyoming (Baxter and Stone 1980, Cerovski et al. 2004). Northern leopard frogs generally require shallow, permanent, or semi-permanent standing water with at least some emergent vegetation for breeding (Wagner 1997, Cerovski et al. 2004). Conversely, they use deeper lakes or ponds with well-oxygenated water that does not freeze to the bottom as overwintering habitat (Wagner 1997). Leopard frogs must have good quality water to successfully reproduce, as degraded or turbid water has the potential to negatively affect development of eggs and tadpoles. Overcrowding and changes in water temperature and pH (5.5 or lower) can increase the incidence of disease and mortality (NatureServe 2007) in this species. Adult frogs feed upon a variety of insects and other invertebrates, tadpoles, snakes, and fish (Cerovski et al. 2004), while tadpoles feed primarily upon small invertebrates, plant tissue, and organic debris. Adults also forage within aquatic and upland habitats, whereas tadpoles are restricted to aquatic habitats. Although their overall range remains essentially undiminished in size, many populations are declining. Major factors affecting leopard frog populations are habitat loss in some portions of their range, habitat degradation, overexploitation, interactions with non-native species, climate change, disease, and other unknown causes (Wagner 1997). Existing Conditions The northern leopard frog has been observed in southern Campbell County, but has not officially been recognized as breeding there (Cerovski et al. 2004). No suitable habitat is present on USFS lands within the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract. Prior to CBNG development in this area, no persistent standing water was present within the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, including all USFS surface lands in that area (Figure H 5). Water sources on those lands are limited to an ephemeral tributary of Porcupine Creek (Mike’s Draw), which flows in response to precipitation events such as rain storms and excessive snow melt. However, surface discharge of groundwater associated with CBNG development within the tract’s general analysis area, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, has resulted in generally wetter conditions within the stream’s channel throughout the year. Within the tract’s entire general analysis area, there are an estimated 12.3 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. (OWUS). Of those 12.3 acres, there are approximately 6.8 acres of riverine wetlands, approximately 0.4 acres of stockpond wetlands, approximately 0.2 acres of stockpond open water OWUS, and approximately 4.9 acres of ephemeral Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-207

Appendix H stream channel OWUS, all of which are present along Mike’s Draw.. The vegetated wetland areas consist primarily of palustrine emergent herbaceous wet meadow or marsh along the ephemeral stream channel. Without surface discharge of groundwater associated with CBNG development in the area, no water would be present in Mike’s Draw except in response to precipitation events and snow melt. Flows to maintain open water are therefore considered inconsistent, which limits overwintering habitat for this species. Therefore, none of the physical characteristics considered as optimum for the various life stages of this species are present on the USFS lands throughout this tract’s general analysis area, and no leopard frogs or anuran egg masses have been documented on those lands during more than 25 years of annual monitoring efforts. No northern leopard frogs were ever recorded in the general analysis area during overlapping annual monitoring efforts for other species conducted from 1984 through 2007. Results from annual wildlife monitoring and baseline studies for all adjacent mines are on file with, and available from, the WDEQ/LQD in Sheridan or Cheyenne, Wyoming and the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas, Wyoming. Those reports also include detailed descriptions of survey areas (including maps), methods, and dates for each year. Direct and Indirect Effects Wetland and aquatic habitats for northern leopard frogs are considered unsuitable to poor on USFS lands and elsewhere in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, as described above. Furthermore, no frog sightings have been recorded on USFS lands during baseline surveys or annual monitoring completed between 1984 and 2007. Consequently, northern leopard frogs and their aquatic and terrestrial habitats are not expected to be impacted if the USFS lands in the South Porcupine LBA Tract are leased and mined. In the unlikely event that this species is present in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area in the future, direct loss of, or injury to, foraging and dispersing frogs could result from encounters with mine vehicles or heavy equipment near Mike’s Draw during topsoil stripping or other surface disturbance. If the South Porcupine tract is leased and proposed for mining by PRC, the North Antelope Rochelle Mine does not presently intend to mine through Mike’s Draw and the potential habitat for this species would not be disturbed under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2. It is possible that existing reservoirs and ponds (natural and those enhanced by CBNG discharge waters), and those created for flood control, sedimentation, water storage purposes, or wetland mitigation measures could provide suitable foraging or breeding habitat for northern leopard frogs in the future. However, most artificial water structures would still be limited to relatively shallow, seasonal waters with little emergent vegetation that would not provide for the year-round habitat needs of this frog species. Should those efforts result in improved aquatic habitats, an adult frogs, tadpoles, and/or egg masses present in the area could be injured or killed during activities associated with additional construction of diversion dikes or associated channels, or the H-208 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H dewatering of potential habitats downstream of a dike. Under those limited circumstances, potential impacts could include loss of individuals and foraging habitat, increased predation, and changes in stream morphology and hydrology. Standard mining procedures such as the use of silt barriers across affected stream channels and other similar efforts would minimize any negative impacts that might result from mine-related operations. Likewise, adherence to the TBNG Plan Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002) pertaining to water and wetlands would ensure that leopard frogs and other aquatic organisms present on USFS lands would not be negatively affected by increased sedimentation, degraded water chemistry, or otherwise damaged aquatic habitats. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As indicated, USFS lands and adjacent non-federal lands within the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area do not currently contain suitable habitat for northern leopard frogs. Water sources in that area are too temporary and shallow to support tadpoles until metamorphosis, or to allow frogs to successfully overwinter. If present, individual adult leopard frogs may be incidentally killed by vehicles or equipment. Habitat may be enhanced or created during certain mine operations, but water flow and depth associated with existing structures at the adjacent North Antelope Rochelle Mine has not resulted in adequate conditions to support the life cycle needs of this species, and they are not expected to create those conditions anywhere in this LBA tract. As no northern leopard frogs have ever been documented on USFS lands within the overall general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract, potential effects are expected to be negligible, if they occur at all. Furthermore, northern leopard frogs have been documented at other sites outside of the tract’s general analysis area that will not be affected by coal leasing actions. Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) The blackH-3.7.19 tailed prairie dog was removed from the USFWS federal listing process in 2004. The agency ruled that listing this species may be warranted, but was precluded by higher priority considerations. Consequently, the black-tailed prairie dog is no longer considered a candidate species under the ESA. Black-tailed prairie dogs historically ranged throughout the Great Plains in short-grass and mixed-grass prairies. This species is also a common resident in the short- and mid-grass habitats of eastern Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). The TBNG, which includes USFS lands in the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract, harbors one of the seven major colony complexes remaining in North America. Black-tailed prairie dogs are highly social, diurnal burrowing rodents that typically feed on grasses and forbs. Prairie dogs form colonies that are the main unit of a prairie dog population. This species has the ability to rapidly expand its distribution and population if not limited by pest control practices or disease, and will readily spread into recently disturbed areas. Many species such as the black-footed ferret Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-209

Appendix H (Mustela nigripes), mountain plover, burrowing owl, and swift fox are dependent on prairie dogs during a portion of their life cycle. The black-tailed prairie dog’s occupied range and abundance has declined dramatically, and continues to exhibit a slow decline (NatureServe 2007). Major factors contributing to the decline include disease (sylvatic plague), urbanization, habitat conversion, and control efforts. Existing Conditions Surveys have been conducted to locate prairie dog colonies within the 2-mile wildlife survey area surrounding the general analysis area for South Porcupine LBA Tract (Figure H-5). No prairie dog colonies were present within the general analysis area for the tract in 2007. Ten prairie dog colonies totaling approximately 476.3 non-contiguous acres were present within or overlapped the 2-mile wildlife survey area surrounding the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area in 2007 (Figure H-5). The largest colony was approximately 345.3 acres in size; this colony is within both North and South Porcupine tracts’ wildlife survey areas. The remaining nine colonies were all less than 40 acres in size. The entire coal mine region of the PRB of northeast Wyoming, including all USFS and surrounding lands within the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract, is beyond the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts on the TBNG and in the general region (refer to Management Area 3.63-USFS 2002, Grenier 2003). Additionally, some prairie dog colonies in that region are currently experiencing development associated with conventional oil and gas, CBNG, and coal (including open pits) resources. Year-round human activity and disturbance are already present in a few locations. Direct and Indirect Effects This LBA tract and its general analysis area are almost entirely encompassed by the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit area; therefore, it is possible that surface disturbance associated with coal removal from the mine’s current leases could occur on the tract, regardless of whether or not additional leasing occurs in that area. As no colonies are present in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, leasing and mining this LBA tract under either the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would not disturb any existing prairie dog colonies. However, mining disturbance associated with the adjacent North Antelope Rochelle Mine could impact those prairie dog colonies that exist elsewhere within the larger wildlife survey area surrounding the tract (Figure H-5). Such impacts could have immediate results on prairie dogs if an occupied colony is abruptly subjected to a soil salvaging operation, or is otherwise impacted in a short timeframe that precludes dispersal prior to disturbance. However, as those activities typically occur incrementally across various portions of a mine permit area, some individuals could disperse to undisturbed portions of the affected colony, or create one or more new colonies within the general area.

H-210

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Smaller-scale disturbances associated with both the mining and CBNG industries can also impact prairie dog colonies and surrounding vegetation through fragmentation or loss of foraging and burrowing habitat. Linear disturbances associated with mining infrastructure, such as roads, power lines, fences, and pipelines will occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, and would be completed within shorter timeframes than the advancement of a surface mine pit. However, such disturbances would still pose some level of risks due to vehicular collisions or by enhancing habitat for mammalian and avian species that prey on prairie dogs. Some linear impacts could be minimized or mitigated through the consolidation of roads and electric utilities within common corridors, applying perch deterrents on overhead power poles, and reseeding pipeline disturbances quickly with appropriate seed mixes for the region. Minor surface disturbance near existing colonies would provide recently upturned soils that could facilitate the expansion of the existing colonies or the establishment of new ones, as prairie dogs will readily move into recently disturbed areas. Postmining reclamation could have similar potential benefits; prairie dogs have already demonstrated their ability to inhabit reclaimed lands at the nearby Antelope Mine (BLM 2008). As no prairie dog colonies are present on USFS lands within the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, no USFS Standards and Guidelines applicable to black-tailed prairie dogs would be implemented. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. No black-tailed prairie dog colonies would be physically disturbed by mining activities on USFS lands within the tract’s general analysis area, if the lease is issued. No colonies are present on either federal or nonfederal lands in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Prairie dog colonies located within the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine permit area could be impacted by mining operations regardless of whether the South Porcupine LBA Tract is leased. Given the tendency of prairie dogs to disperse and expand their boundaries, and the incremental nature of surface coal mining relative to some other disturbance activities, the potential impacts to prairie dog colonies on and near USFS lands in the South Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey area would not have adverse consequences for the viability of the local or regional population. Disturbance and reclamation efforts will occur incrementally in varying locations throughout the permit area as mining progresses through the approved lease. H-3.7.20 Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) The swift fox was removed from the USFWS federal listing process in 1995, after extensive field surveys demonstrated that the population was greater than expected. This species is considered to be common within the eastern Great Plains grasslands of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004), though it typically occurs at very low densities. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-211

Appendix H The exact status of the population is unknown but believed to be increasing, especially in the Northern Plains. Swift foxes are largely nocturnal and typically prefer flat to gently rolling, short- or mixed-grass prairies, generally lacking in shrubs or woody vegetation (Cotterill 1997). This species uses multiple den sites year-round for shelter, protection from predators, and rearing young. Burrows of other mammals such as badgers (Taxidea taxus), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and prairie dogs are often used or modified for those purposes. Small to mid-sized mammals constitute the bulk of their diet. Swift foxes have little fear of humans and may den in proximity to human disturbances (residences and busy roadways). This tolerance also makes them susceptible to trapping, vehicle collisions, and attacks by dogs. Major threats faced by the swift fox include habitat loss and degradation, interspecific competition with red fox and coyote (Canis latrans), and vehicle collisions. Existing Conditions
Swift fox have been observed in large grassland blocks in southern Campbell
County with more frequency in recent years, and are presumed to breed there.
This species has also been documented within the overall TBNG.
Sagebrush communities generally dominate the wildlife survey area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract, though the tract’s general analysis area is dominated by various native and introduced grassland species. Therefore, the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area is considered suitable habit for this species. The prevalence of sagebrush throughout the wildlife survey area largely explains the extremely limited sightings of this grassland fox over the last 25 years. Burrows within the existing black-tailed prairie dog colonies and scattered badger or red fox burrows could be used by swift foxes as den or shelter sites, and swift fox could forage in the area. No specific surveys for swift fox were conducted for this analysis. However, such efforts were completed in 2002 using USFS survey protocols for other unrelated projects. Those surveys included USFS lands within and immediately adjacent to the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, as well as additional lands in the surrounding area. Nocturnal spotlight surveys for rabbits and hares were conducted as part of annual wildlife monitoring at adjacent existing mines every year since at least 1994, with diurnal surveys for a variety of vertebrate species occurring across all seasons annually since the early 1980s. All of those survey efforts overlapped all or significant portions of the South Porcupine wildlife survey area. Despite those combined survey efforts, no swift fox have ever been recorded on USFS or other lands within the South Porcupine tract general analysis area. However, swift fox have been observed on private surface in the southwestern portion of the two-mile wildlife survey area in recent years. This species was first recorded in October 2005 during spotlight lagomorph surveys conducted for the adjacent Antelope Mine. That year, two separate individuals (an adult and juvenile) walking and hunting on a grassy hill in T.41N., R.71W., NW¼ SW¼ Section 22 and NE¼ SW¼ Section 22, respectively. A pair of swift foxes H-212 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H was observed in the adjacent sections to the west and south during similar spotlight surveys conducted in both 2006 and 2007. Direct and Indirect Effects Suitable but unoccupied swift fox habitat is present on and near USFS lands and adjacent lands within the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract, though individuals have been observed in recent years approximately 1.25 miles to the southwest, within the surrounding wildlife survey area for this LBA tract. Should this species be present on those lands in the future, direct loss of or injury to individuals foraging or denning within, or passing through that area could result from vehicle collisions or encounters with equipment associated with mine-related activities. Swift fox are relatively tolerant of human activities, but may avoid areas directly affected by mine operations as human presence and noise escalate with active mining. As the population size and residency status of the individuals in the area are largely unknown, some swift fox may remain within undisturbed habitats in the vicinity of mining encroachment. The Proposed Action or Alternatives could also disturb potential swift fox foraging, denning, or shelter habitat on USFS and adjacent lands within the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Those habitats could be removed, altered, or fragmented to varying degrees by one or more mine- or non-mine-related activities such as topsoil removal and a variety of linear disturbances (e.g., roads, fences, power lines, and pipelines). However, the latter disturbances will occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, and will typically be completed within a few days. Linear disturbances and habitat alterations could also provide convenient travel corridors and habitat for larger mammalian predators that could compete with swift foxes for prey species. The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the general analysis area and on USFS lands as mining operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed in a given portion of the area, and will eventually provide additional foraging and potential denning habitat for the swift fox. Surface disturbing activities may result in a short-term, localized decrease in prey base (small rodents and voles), but due to their high reproductive potential and tendencies to re-establish and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase quickly after the disturbance. Should swift fox be documented on or adjacent to USFS lands in the tract’s general analysis area, that agency would determine whether speciesspecific Standards and Guidelines outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, page 1-20) would apply. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Habitat for this species on USFS lands within the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract is currently considered as suitable but unoccupied. No fox sightings have been documented on those Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-213

Appendix H USFS lands during specific and incidental surveys conducted over the last 25 years (1984-2007). Only four sightings have been recorded within or near the South Porcupine tract’s two-mile wildlife survey area during that period: one in 2002, and three since 2005. The three most recent sightings were at least 1.75 miles to the southwest, and on the far side of a railroad and county road between the sightings and the nearest USFS lands. H-3.7.21 Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Long-billed curlews breed from interior British Columbia and southern Alberta through southern Manitoba, south to central California, and east to western North Dakota, central South Dakota, central Nebraska, western Kansas, northeastern New Mexico, and northern Texas (Dechant et al. 2003a). The long-billed curlew is a relatively uncommon summer resident of grasslands and sagebrush-grasslands in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Curlews are ground nesters, and require large open expanses of grassland, with relatively low vegetation and few shrubs in which to nest (Hill 1998). The nest is typically a shallow scrape or depression, thinly lined with grass, weeds or cow dung, typically near water or moist areas. Curlews use historically occupied sites each year, and some individual birds may reuse the same territories from year to year (Dechant et al. 2003a). Curlews primarily feed upon insects but also eat other invertebrates, small crustaceans, toads, and eggs and nestlings of other birds. This species forages in grasslands, wet meadows, prairie dog colonies, and occasionally along the margins of wetlands. Lakeshores and river valleys are often used during fall as migration staging areas (Hill 1998). Although some populations may be declining, overall population trends suggest long-billed curlew numbers are stable or increasing slightly. The major factor affecting curlew populations is habitat destruction and fragmentation. Existing Conditions Long-billed curlews are uncommon summer residents within the TBNG. However, no nesting occurrences have been documented for long-billed curlews in southern Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004), including USFS lands in the South Porcupine tract general analysis area and adjacent lands. As described above for the previous species, the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area is dominated by upland grassland habitats, although no significant wetlands (i.e., large lakes) or other persistent water conditions that might attract large numbers of curlews during migration exist within the South Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey area. Consequently, habitat conditions in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area and surrounding lands would be suitable for foraging migrants, but the water component typically associated with nesting areas is lacking in this area. No long-billed curlews have ever been documented on USFS lands or adjacent lands in the general analysis area or larger wildlife survey area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract. Likewise, few curlews have been observed in the surrounding region during annual wildlife monitoring conducted in the area H-214 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H over the last 25 years. Those general surveys occurred repeatedly throughout the breeding season each year. All curlew sightings that have occurred in the general region over time were recorded during spring months and were beyond USFS lands; those individuals were likely migrants or non-breeding adults. Direct and Indirect Effects Given the lack of sightings of long-billed curlews in the South Porcupine LBA Tract general analysis area and surrounding wildlife survey area since 1984, and the fact that habitat conditions in those areas are only suitable for foraging migrants or non-breeding adults, the Proposed Action and Alternatives for this LBA tract are unlikely to cause any direct injury or mortality to this species. However, if present, future mining activities could result in injuries or mortalities to foraging individuals. Foraging individuals may also be displaced by human activities and noise associated with mining. Potential foraging habitats may be disturbed, removed, or fragmented by mining activities. The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the tract’s general analysis area as operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed in a given portion of the mine, and will eventually mitigate impacts to some degree. The reclamation plan for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine would incorporate the replacement of jurisdictional wetland acreages existing prior to mining with at least equal types and numbers of wetland acreages. The creation of wetland habitats, especially where adjacent to native or reclaimed grassland habitats, could provide additional (although limited) foraging areas for curlews. As no long-billed curlews have been documented within USFS lands or other lands in or near the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, and habitat conditions do not provide quality nesting areas, species-specific Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Grassland Plan (USFS 2002) would not apply. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. As this species appears to be an infrequent visitor to the general analysis area, and high quality foraging and nesting habitat is not present within the area, impacts to this species are likely to be minimal. Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of potential foraging habitat and potential collisions with vehicles may occur. Enhanced water features and grasslands associated with reclamation may create new foraging or nesting habitat in the area. H-3.7.22 Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Ferruginous hawks breed throughout much of the western United States and portions of three Canadian provinces (Johnsgard 1990). This species nests throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004) and occupies portions of the state during winter. Large expanses of grassland and shrubland, where livestock grazing (vs. cultivation) is the predominant land use, provide the most suitable habitat (Schmutz 1989, Johnsgard 1990). Most ferruginous hawks in the PRB nest on the ground Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-215

Appendix H (usually elevated sites, though some pairs nest in small trees). Typical nest sites include hilltops, rock outcrops, eroded creek banks, small trees, and even relatively level ground. The ferruginous hawk relies primarily on two mammalian families for the majority of its prey: Leporidae (rabbits and hares) and Sciuridae (ground squirrels and prairie dogs). Numerous nests can occur within the territory of a single pair, and ferruginous hawks often reuse nests for many years. This species may be sensitive to human disturbance, especially during the nesting period (White and Thurow 1985). This sensitivity can be heightened in years of low prey abundance. Accurate information regarding the trend for the ferruginous hawk is limited and mixed. Some populations may be declining (Bechard and Schmutz 1995); however, overall population trends suggest numbers are stable or increasing (NatureServe 2007). Major factors affecting ferruginous hawk populations include habitat destruction and fragmentation, and human disturbance. Existing Conditions Annual monitoring has documented that ferruginous hawks nested in the vicinity of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine every year since at least 1990, and fledged young in 17 of those 19 years. Similar long-term nesting has occurred at the neighboring Black Thunder and Antelope mines. Ferruginous hawks have nested on USFS lands in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Details describing the number of intact and active nests within the mine monitoring survey areas in a given year are available in annual monitoring and baseline wildlife reports on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne. The presence or absence of nest material does not determine whether the USFS considers a site as “active” (occupied during at least 1 of the last 7 years). In 2007, 33 individual ferruginous hawk nests (11 territories) were present within the South Porcupine wildlife survey area, plus 5 other nest sites that have been used by ferruginous hawks and at least one other raptor species over the years (Figure H-5). Five individual ferruginous hawk nest sites were on USFS lands within the general analysis area itself in 2007, one of which still had nest material present. Five additional individual nest sites were on non-federal lands in that area in 2007. Direct and Indirect Effects As indicated previously, only a few acres in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area are not already encompassed by the existing North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s existing permit area. Surface disturbance is therefore likely to occur in those areas, regardless of the proposed leasing decision. However, the North Antelope Rochelle Mine has avoided, where possible, or mitigated mining impacts on raptor nests through a variety of means. The mine has also maintained and implemented current USFWS approved Raptor Mitigation H-216 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Plans, adjusted operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests, and ensured that new power lines at the mine conform to current Avian Power Line Interaction Commission (APLIC) guidelines. Provided those practices are continued, direct impacts on ferruginous hawks and their active nest sites will be minimized, both on and near USFS lands. Due to restrictions on disturbance near active nest sites, the most probable source of potential impact to ferruginous hawks themselves would be an increase in injuries and fatalities of individuals foraging within the general analysis area due to vehicle collisions associated with ongoing or future mining and other activities. The use of existing roads in the area, when possible, would help to minimize this risk. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would result from a variety of large- and small-scale mining operations such as soil salvaging and reservoir/flood control construction, among others. Potential nesting and foraging habitat might also be fragmented by linear disturbances such as the construction, maintenance, and removal of roads, fences, power lines, and pipelines. Those disturbances could also create new travel corridors for mammalian predators that reside in or pass through the area. However, many such disturbances would occur within narrow corridors over relatively short distances, typically over a period of days. Additionally, those structures are often constructed immediately prior to the removal of similar features elsewhere in the area, often resulting in minimal or no net gain of new linear disturbances. All mine-related habitat disturbances would shift throughout the expanded permit area as operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas would occur incrementally as resource recovery is completed in a given portion of the mine, and would mitigate impacts to some degree. Surface disturbing activities could also result in a short-term, localized decrease in the prey base (lagomorphs and rodents) for ferruginous hawks. However, due to their high reproductive potential and tendencies to re-populate and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase quickly after the disturbance. USFS Standards and Guidelines would be implemented and offer additional protections for active nests; they would apply only to activities outside of the current or future lease areas. These protocols should help ensure that the Proposed Action and Alternatives do not significantly degrade the quality of existing ferruginous hawk territories and nest sites. Standards and Guidelines specific to ferruginous hawks outlined in the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002, page 1 20-21) are as follows: 73. To help prevent abandonment, reproductive failure or nest destruction, prohibit development of new facilities within 0.25 mile (or line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests. For the ferruginous hawk, a nest is no longer considered active if it is known to have been unoccupied for the last seven years. This does not apply to pipelines, fences and underground utilities. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-217

Appendix H 74. To help reduce disturbances to nesting ferruginous hawks, prohibit the following activities within 0.5 mile (or line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests from 1 March through 31 July: construction (e.g., roads, water impoundments, oil and gas facilities), reclamation, gravel mining operations, drilling of water wells, and oil and gas drilling. 75. To help reduce disturbances to nesting ferruginous hawks, do not authorize the following activities within 0.5 mile (line of sight) of active ferruginous hawk nests from 1 March through 31 July: construction (e.g., pipelines, utilities, fencing), seismic exploration, and workover operations for maintenance of oil and gas wells. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Mine-related activities will likely disturb ferruginous hawk nest sites on USFS lands in the South Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey area. Many ferruginous hawk nests associated with that area are located on non-federal surface, including alternate sites within the same territories that are beyond the area likely to be impacted by future mining disturbance associated with previous or proposed leasing actions. Some individuals or pairs may experience disturbance, destruction, or fragmentation of nesting and foraging habitat. Increased disturbance to individuals due to human activity may also occur. However, several factors should minimize the potential mining-related impacts on this species, including the availability of alternate nest sites located further away from pending disturbance in each affected territory, implementation of USFWS and USFS approved mitigation measures, reclaiming habitats as soon as feasible, encouraging nesting within mine reclamation lands through artificial nest structures and habitat features such as rock piles and tree plantings that attract prey species, and continued monitoring of this species to ensure that mitigation methods are applied when necessary. H-3.7.23 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Burrowing owls breed from southern Alberta to southwestern Saskatchewan, south through east-central Washington, central Oregon, and southern California, and east to eastern North Dakota, west-central Kansas, and Texas (Klute, et al. 2003, pg 7). The burrowing owl is a summer resident of open rangeland habitats throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species requires burrows of fossorial mammals, primarily badgers and prairie dogs, for nesting and roosting (Klute, et al. 2003, pg 12). Most burrowing owl nests within the TBNG are located within prairie dog colonies (USFS 2003). Burrowing owls typically reuse traditional nesting areas. Burrow mounds, shrubs, fence posts or boulders may be used as observation perches. This species is usually tolerant of human activity but is vulnerable to predation by pets (cats, dogs). Burrowing owls forage within a variety of habitats, including cropland, pasture, prairie dog colonies, fallow fields, and H-218 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H sparsely vegetated areas. This species is often active during daylight hours. Insects and small mammals (mice and voles) are the owls’ primary prey items. Burrowing owl populations have been declining throughout its range, primarily due to habitat loss. Existing Conditions Burrowing owls are common summer residents within the TBNG (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species was observed nested in the North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s monitoring area in 1985 and 1989. Despite the presence of potential nesting habitat (prairie dog and badger burrows) in the monitoring area, nesting owls were not found again until 1997. Burrowing owls have nested in the mine’s monitoring area in most years since then, especially within a prairie dog colony located in T.41N., R.70W., Section 17, just east of the southeastern corner of the South Porcupine LBA Tract (Figure H-5). No burrowing owl nest sites had been documented within the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area through 2007, including USFS lands in that area. Eleven nest sites have been recorded in the surrounding 2-mile wildlife survey area: one on USFS lands and 10 on non-federal surface. Seven of those 11 nest sites were in a single prairie dog colony located approximately 0.4 mile east of the southeastern corner of this general analysis area in T.41N., R.70W., Section 17 (Figure H-5). Direct and Indirect Effects No known burrowing owl nest sites are present on USFS lands in the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract. Most nesting has occurred in prairie dog colonies near each general analysis area, though badger burrows have also been used. Both USFS Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002) and the North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s mine permit (PRC 2004) stipulate that clearance surveys will be conducted and approved by the appropriate agencies before any colony is disturbed during the breeding season. That process will preclude most direct impacts to new nesting burrowing owls in that area. Due to the strong (but not exclusive) relationship between burrowing owls and prairie dog colonies, many of the indirect effects described above for the blacktailed prairie dog would also apply to burrowing owls and, thus, will not be repeated in full detail here. Because burrowing owls are active during daylight hours, the most probable source of direct impacts would be the death of, or injury to, individuals fleeing heavy equipment, or being killed or injured by equipment while feeding or moving through the mine area. Burrowing owls are generally tolerant of human activities, but increased presence and noise, especially during the nest initiation period, may displace individuals or inhibit nesting proximate to mine operations. Foraging could also be hindered within these areas, especially where mining activities occur near prairie dog colonies. As described previously, no prairie dog colonies (potential burrowing owl nesting habitat) are present in the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract. Two colonies are however located within approximately Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-219

Appendix H 0.25 mile of the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, both of which are within North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s existing permit area, and mining could eventually disturb or eliminate those colonies regardless of whether the South Porcupine LBA Tract is leased. However, the generally limited presence of active nests, in combination with the presence of other non-disturbed colonies in the area and the ability for prairie dogs to recolonize reclamation, would mitigate those losses to a large extent. Surface disturbing activities could also result in a short-term, localized decrease in the prey base (rodents, non-flying insects) for burrowing owls. However, due to their high reproductive potential and tendencies to re-populate and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas, prey numbers should increase quickly after the disturbance. Additionally, the tendency of prairie dogs to quickly colonize nearby areas when their colonies are disturbed would create new nesting habitat for burrowing owls. Overall, nesting and foraging habitats will be incrementally affected by a variety of large-and small-scale operations. The type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the general analysis area as mining operations progress, thus providing opportunities for burrowing owls to relocate to other suitable habitat within the immediate area. Reclamation will proceed incrementally as areas are mined and activities move to new locations within the mine area. Both activities will create loose soil that should be attractive to dispersing prairie dogs (potential habitat source), at least in the short term. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as resources are extracted in a given portion of the mine, and will eventually mitigate habitat impacts to some degree. However, to date, burrowing owls have rarely been documented nesting within reclaimed habitats at surface mines in the PRB of northeast Wyoming. If nesting burrowing owls are documented on or near USFS lands in the South Porcupine LBA Tract, USFS Standards and Guidelines applicable to this species would be implemented on applicable lands to offer additional protections beyond those outlined in the USFWS approved Raptor Mitigation Plan for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. Annual monitoring of known burrowing owl nest sites within the 2-mile wildlife survey area for the mine, including USFS and adjacent lands, and other nearby colonies will continue through the life of the mine to document their histories of occupancy and production. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. No burrowing owl nests have been documented on or within 0.25 mile of USFS lands in the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract during many years of annual monitoring. Most prairie dog colonies in the general vicinity are located outside of the tract’s general analysis area where future surface disturbance associated with this leasing action would occur. H-220 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H The North Antelope Rochelle Mine has avoided, where possible, and mitigated impacts in the past through intensive monitoring of both populations and specific nest sites, implementation of USFWS approved mitigation measures, and adjusting operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests (including burrowing owl nests). Mining activities and noise may disturb individuals inhabiting the lease area, thus inhibiting potential nesting or foraging in proximity to lands with ongoing development. Potential collisions with vehicles might also occur, though none have been recorded in the area to date. H-3.7.24 Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus) The breeding range of the chestnut-collared longspur extends from southern Alberta to southern Manitoba, south to west-central Colorado, and east through North Dakota and South Dakota to western Minnesota (Dechant et al. 2003b). The chestnut-collared longspur is a common summer resident of the eastern plains of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). This species prefers native grasslands as breeding sites, inhabiting open prairie and avoiding excessively shrubby areas. Grasslands with dense litter accumulations are also avoided (Dechant et al. 2003b). Scattered shrubs are often used as singing perches. Nests are typically placed in areas of sparse vegetation (less than 20-30 centimeters), but usually with a taller grass component than sites preferred by McCown’s longspurs. Nests are on the ground in depressions and often placed beside cattle dung, small shrubs, or under a clump of grass (Hill and Gould 1997). Male fidelity to breeding areas has been observed. Chestnut-collared longspurs feed primarily on seeds (especially grasses), insects, and spiders. This species is generally tolerant of short-term intrusion at the nest site but may desert if disturbed during nest building or egg-laying (Hill and Gould 1997). High rates of predation on eggs and nestlings have been reported and pesticides have been shown to reduce hatching success. The chestnut-collared longspur breeding range has contracted and long-term data suggests population declines (Hill and Gould 1997). These declines have been attributed to loss of native prairie habitat, and conversion to cropland and urban development. Existing Conditions Chestnut-collared longspurs are common summer residents within the TBNG. This species has not been recorded on USFS or adjacent lands in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area during annual monitoring conducted in recent years. The South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area is dominated by various native and introduced grassland species. Therefore, the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract is considered suitable habitat for this species. Direct and Indirect Effects Due to the similarity of potential impacts from future mining on chestnutcollared longspurs and other grassland species previously discussed (e.g., prairie dog and swift fox), detailed descriptions of those impacts are not Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-221

Appendix H repeated here. Chestnut-collared longspurs have not been documented as nesting on USFS or adjacent lands in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Individuals of this species have been documented on nonfederal surface in the larger South Porcupine 2-mile wildlife survey area (Figure H-5); which was presumed due to observations of breeding displays. Equipment operations associated with future mining operations could result in fatalities or injury to individuals, nests and eggs, and/or young that are present in the area. Increased human activity and noise could inhibit foraging or nesting within suitable habitats on USFS lands or displace individuals during periods of intense activities. Over the life of the mine, potential nesting and foraging habitats in the general analysis area could be disturbed, destroyed, altered, or fragmented, though the type, timing, location, and extent of habitat disturbance will vary throughout the general analysis area as mining operations progress. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as resources are extracted in a given portion of the mine. Within 1 to 2 years, newly reclaimed areas may create good quality nesting habitat for chestnutcollared longspurs. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. The grasslands in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area are more likely to attract these birds than the sagebrush-dominated areas that typically occur in the general Wright analysis area. No individuals have been documented in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, although they have been documented on non-federal surface in the larger South Porcupine 2-mile wildlife survey area. Potential and documented alternative habitats for chestnut-collared longspurs are present elsewhere in the vicinity in areas not currently scheduled for mining disturbance. H-3.7.25 McCown’s Longspur (Calcarius mccownii) McCown’s longspurs breed from southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan, south through Montana, eastern and central Wyoming, and north-central Colorado, and east to western Nebraska, north-central South Dakota, and southwestern North Dakota (Dechant et al. 2003c). This species is a common summer resident of the eastern plains and great basin-foothills grasslands, basin-prairie shrublands, and agricultural areas throughout most of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Specifically, this species requires open habitats such as sparsely vegetated, low structured grasslands, and heavily grazed pastures containing a moderate bare ground component for nesting and foraging. Nest sites are typically a natural or shallow scraped depression on the ground placed in the open or beside vegetation such as bunch grasses, cacti, or shrubs. McCown’s longspurs feed on seeds of grasses and forbs, insects, and other arthropods. No strong data suggests breeding site fidelity although some individuals may return to the general nesting area in subsequent years. Individuals vary in response to human intrusion at nest sites, but appear to be relatively more tolerant than most grassland songbird species. High rates of H-222 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H predation on eggs and nestlings occur especially where nests are associated with vegetative structure. Nestlings may also be directly poisoned where insecticides are sprayed in nest areas (With 1994). Populations are declining, especially within the northern portion of the range. Factors directly affecting the McCown’s longspur include the reduction of breeding habitat due to overgrazing, control of prairie fires, plowing, development, and excessive use of pesticides. Conversion of short-grass prairie to agriculture and urban development is the most important factor (With 1994). Existing Conditions McCown’s longspurs are also common summer residents within the TBNG. Observations of the McCown’s longspur were similar to those of the chestnutcollared longspur. McCown’s longspurs were not recorded on USFS lands in the grassland dominated South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, but individuals have been seen occasionally on non-federal lands in and near that area. This species is regularly observed in prairie dog colonies at the neighboring Antelope Mine. Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects to McCown’s longspurs would be the same as those described above for the chestnut-collared longspur. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Potential impacts to McCown’s longspurs would be the same as those described above for the chestnut-collared longspur in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. However, as reclaimed grasslands mature, they would become less suitable as nesting habitat for this short-grass species. H-3.7.26 Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) The Greater sage-grouse occurs year-round throughout non-forested regions of Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Sage-grouse rely on a variety of habitats within sagebrush dominated landscapes to reproduce and survive throughout the year. Early in the spring, grouse gather at breeding display sites called leks. Leks are usually in open areas (playas, ridge tops, sparse sagebrush, or burned areas) that are surrounded by dense sagebrush and escape cover. The surrounding area also typically represents nesting, loafing, and foraging habitat. After being bred, hens typically scratch out a nest under sagebrush (Connelly et al. 1991) within three kilometers of the lek (Schroeder et al. 1999). Nests in some portions of sage-grouse range are typically placed under sagebrush with average height of 36-79 centimeters (Schroeder et al. 1999). However, research conducted within the Southern PRB (Brown and Clayton 2004) indicated that, although shorter sagebrush was present at nest sites, grouse selected shrubs ranging from 55-61 centimeters in height under which to place nests. ReDraft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-223

Appendix H nesting may occur if the nest is destroyed early during the laying or incubation period. Nest success is enhanced where both sagebrush and residual grass cover are taller and denser (Gregg et al. 1994). Sage-grouse exhibit high fidelity to seasonal ranges, and may return to the same area to nest in subsequent years. For the first month after hatching, the young depend on relatively open sagebrush stands with an abundance of forbs and insects, especially ants and beetles (Drut et al. 1994, Schroeder et al. 1999). Late-season brood rearing habitats, such as wet meadows and bottomlands, are more mesic and support greater forb cover (Drut et al. 1994). Sage-grouse use a variety of habitats during fall, and the incidence of sagebrush in their diet increases as forbs become less available. During winter, grouse feed upon sagebrush leaves almost exclusively. Winter range is characterized by large expanses of dense, exposed sagebrush. Where snow accumulations are significant, gentle southand west-facing slopes or windblown ridges are preferred. Breeding populations of this species have declined by at least 17 to 47 percent throughout much of its range (Connelly et al. 2004). Within Wyoming, sagegrouse populations have generally declined over the past 4 decades. However, sage-grouse population estimates specifically pertaining to the TBNG suggest an overall increase in individuals since 1995. This same general trend was observed both statewide and within the Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Local Working Group (NWSGWG) area. The NWSGWG identified habitat fragmentation and degradation, disturbance and direct mortality as major influences affecting sage-grouse (NWSGWG 2006). The group identified oil and gas development, vegetation management, invasive plants, and weather as those factors with the most influence on the northeast Wyoming sage-grouse populations and those that may most effectively be addressed to provide the greatest benefit for sage-grouse conservation in northeast Wyoming (NWSGWG 2006). Existing Conditions As described above, USFS lands on the general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract are dominated by various native and introduced grassland species. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine, as part of its wildlife monitoring program from 1984 through 1992, conducted voluntary searches for and annual monitoring of sage-grouse leks throughout the mine’s original permit area and a 1-mile perimeter. Those surveys became mandatory with the implementation of Appendix B of the WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations in 1993, and continued each year through 2007. Radio-telemetry data gathered from grouse collared at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine during a voluntary, multi-year (2001 through 2007) study have demonstrated that most birds in the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts’ 2-mile wildlife survey areas (Figures H-4 and H-5) reside near the mine year-round. Additional details describing the survey and monitoring efforts for sage-grouse at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine are available in annual wildlife monitoring and H-224 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H baseline wildlife reports on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne. No sage-grouse leks have been documented on or within 3 miles of the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area (Figure H-5). The Payne lek, which is nearly 5 miles to the northeast, is the closest sage-grouse lek to the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Although sage-grouse numbers have generally been low in the combined North and South Porcupine tracts’ wildlife survey areas over the years, known or potential grouse habitat is present in both areas. However, the most suitable sage-grouse habitat exists in the North Porcupine area, as suggested by the distribution of grouse leks between the two areas and confirmed through the information gleaned from the last 7 years of radio-telemetry data collected in the general vicinity. Results from that project have demonstrated that grouse are most commonly recorded in the eastern quarter of the 2-mile wildlife survey area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract, east of the Payne County Road. Detailed reports and long-term maps documenting grouse locations in the area have been submitted to WDEQ/LQD and other agencies in each study year. Annual surveys for sage-grouse broods were conducted in native and reclaimed stream channels at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine and adjacent mines from 1994 through 1999; such surveys were no longer required by WGFD and WDEQ/LQD after that year due to the consistent lack of grouse broods observed at coal mines throughout the PRB. Likewise, no sage-grouse broods were seen during recent baseline inventories conducted for the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts. All grouse broods that have been recorded over the years occurred as incidental sightings during other wildlife surveys. Nesting and winter surveys for sage-grouse are not required as part of the annual wildlife programs for the North Antelope Rochelle or the other applicant mines included in this EIS (Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch), though winter surveys have been conducted as part of baseline inventories for previous mine expansions. Additionally, winter surveys for other species (big game and bald eagle roosts) have occurred at all three of these mines in recent years. Due to their proximity to existing mine permit areas, nearly all of the combined North and South Porcupine tracts’ general analysis areas have been included in some level of regular (but not always annual) winter surveys since 1987. No sagegrouse were ever documented in or near these two LBA tracts during those surveys. However, grouse have been confirmed as year-round residents in the vicinity of the North Porcupine general analysis area during year-round telemetry studies conducted from 2001 through 2005, with less frequent monitoring during the subsequent two winters. Only isolated grouse sightings occurred within 3 miles of the South Porcupine general analysis area during that telemetry monitoring period, with each sighting limited to a single observation per bird.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-225

Appendix H Direct and Indirect Effects No impacts to sage-grouse are expected for the South Porcupine area due to the documented lack of sage-grouse and suitable sage-grouse habitat in that area. Some potential impacts of mineral development (including coal mining and oil and gas development) on sage-grouse that might inhabit the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract, as well as on known and potential sagegrouse habitat include: alteration of plant and animal communities; loss or degradation of important seasonal habitats; increased human activity and noise which could cause animals to avoid the area and/or reduce their breeding efficiency; increased road traffic and related injuries or mortalities; increased risk of predation from raptors perched on existing or future power poles and/or grouse avoidance of areas with overhead power lines; potential illegal harvest; and reduced water tables resulting in the loss of herbaceous vegetation. Following reclamation, there may be a long-term loss of nesting and winter habitat, depending on the amount of sagebrush that is restored relative to the amount of sagebrush that is present before mining. Mine operations and oil and gas development have requirements for reclamation of disturbed areas as recovery of energy resources is completed. WDEQ/LQD reclamation standards for surface coal mines call for restoration of sagebrush on at least 20 percent of the reclaimed area. Those reclamation efforts can work in concert with USFS Standards and Guidelines toward mitigating impacts to wildlife species and habitats. New areas disturbed by mining in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area would be reclaimed incrementally, but they may not be attractive to sage-grouse for many years due to slow establishment and growth rates of important sagebrush species. Information gleaned from the multi-year telemetry study at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine will be incorporated into reclamation efforts for the LBA tract to maximize successful reclamation of sage-grouse habitat. Estimates for the time it would take to restore shrubs, including sagebrush, to pre-mining density levels range from 20 to 100 years. Until sagebrush returns to its premining density levels, a reduction in potential year-round sage-grouse habitat within the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area would persist. In the meantime, the presence of known and apparently suitable sage-grouse habitat elsewhere within the immediate area could provide alternate areas for dispersing grouse to use until reclaimed sagebrush stands have matured adequately to support a local population. In keeping with the Direction Objectives for the Hilight Bill Geographic Area (USFS 2002, page 1-25), impacts to sage-grouse habitat in the North Antelope Rochelle Mine’s permit area could be further mitigated off-site by efforts to preserve and enhance habitat on adjoining and nearby private lands, such as those currently under way through the Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association. Management planning and processes that are developed through this combined effort among landowners and federal representatives will presumably provide suitable habitat for sage-grouse that H-226 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H disperse from the North Antelope Rochelle Mine area during the interim between habitat disturbance and completed reclamation. Should sage-grouse move onto new USFS lands proposed for mining in the future, agency Standards and Guidelines would offer appropriate protections for the species and its important habitats. Despite the impacts to the Rochelle lek complex, the proposed leasing action would not contribute to significant reductions in the regional sage-grouse population overall, nor would it conflict with the current TBNG Plan or any future objectives to manage the area for this species. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. More than 20 years of regular monitoring have documented that sage-grouse do not inhabit the grassland dominated South Porcupine LBA Tract general analysis area. Annual monitoring will continue for the life of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, and will include new permit expansions and a one-mile perimeter. Should additional sage-grouse leks or use areas be observed on USFS lands in the South Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey area, appropriate monitoring and mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize impacts to birds, habitats, and populations. H-3.7.27 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Bald eagles occur throughout North America, from Alaska and Canada south to Florida, the Gulf Coast, and northern Mexico. The northwest coast of North America serves as the stronghold for this species, with approximately one-half of the population inhabiting Alaska. The USFWS officially listed the bald eagle as an endangered species in 43 of the lower 48 states on July 4, 1976. The listing was due to a combination of several factors, including widespread habitat loss, negative effects of pesticide use on reproductive success, indiscriminant shooting, and others. The status of the bald eagle was downgraded to threatened throughout the lower 48 states in 1995. Bald eagle population trends began increasing throughout most of the species’ range in the early 1990’s, and it was proposed for de-listing in 1999. On July 9, 2007, USFWS published a Federal Register notice (72 FR 37346) announcing that the bald eagle would be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.) on August 8, 2007. However, the protections provided to the bald eagle under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 U.S.C. 668, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703, will remain in place. The bald eagle is now recognized as a BLM and USFS Sensitive Species.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-227

Appendix H Bald eagles typically nest in large trees within a stand of mature, similarly sized trees either beside or in proximity (within 0.7 mile) to rivers, lakes, or reservoirs that harbor adequate fish populations. Those areas tend to be remote and experience little disturbance (Johnsgard 1990). Typically, the nest is placed in the crown of a large cottonwood or pine, but if the topography allows, eagles will nest on cliff edges or escarpments. Open-canopied trees and snags provide required perches in nesting and foraging areas. All verified bald eagle nests in northeastern Wyoming (BLM Buffalo Field Office GIS database) are situated in significant, mature cottonwood stands along larger streams or rivers (i.e., Tongue River, Powder River, Clear Creek, and Little Thunder Creek). Nesting attempts are rare on the TBNG (Beske 1994). Fish and waterfowl are the primary source of food for nesting bald eagles. Where available, large to mid-size carrion and large rodents (e.g., prairie dogs) can also be an important dietary component. Bald eagles nest and winter throughout Wyoming, though typically are not locally abundant in the northeastern portion of the state. The species regularly migrates through and winters in Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004), and has often been documented during winter and early spring at nearby coal mines (various coal mine annual reports are on file at the USFS Douglas Ranger District Office in Douglas and/or with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne). Most eagles that migrate through or winter in Campbell County roost communally in stands of large ponderosa pine, along wooded cottonwood-riparian corridors, or in isolated stands of large trees. As water is scarce in that region, especially during winter, those birds likely forage widely for lagomorphs or carrion. Existing Conditions The bald eagle is seasonally common and most frequently observed during the winter months. Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants in the PRB, but only rarely nest in that region. No bald eagle nests or winter roosts have been documented within 1 mile of USFS lands located within the general analysis areas for the North or South Porcupine LBA Tracts during any baseline or annual monitoring studies since they began in the late 1970s and early 1980s, respectively. Scattered stands of potential bald eagle nesting and winter roosting habitat (mature cottonwood corridors) are present on USFS and adjacent lands along Porcupine Creek as it flows through the general analysis area for the North Porcupine LBA Tract. No streams flow through the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area and few trees are present there. In general, the combined wildlife survey areas for the two Porcupine LBA Tracts do not contain unique or sizeable, concentrated prey sources (e.g., fisheries, waterfowl wintering areas) that would be expected to attract bald eagles. As described in the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts’ black-tailed prairie dog analyses that are included within this appendix and in Section 3.10 of this H-228 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H EIS, no prairie dog colonies were present on USFS lands within either tract’s general analysis area in 2007. Only one colony encompassing approximately 18.6 acres was present within the North Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, and no colonies were present within the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, in 2007. A total of 23 prairie dog colonies encompassing approximately 1,317 acres were present in the combined wildlife study areas for the two Porcupine LBA Tracts in 2007 (Figures H-4 and H-5). Sheep and their lambs are present in this area in the spring, when bald eagles have typically left the region, and flocks are pastured there infrequently in the winter. The area does not support a large big game herd, though some groups do winter in the area. Ground surveys for bald eagle winter roost sites were most recently conducted within the combined wildlife survey areas for the two Porcupine tracts during baseline surveys beginning in 2006. Previous winter roost surveys also encompassed all or most potential habitat within that overall survey area. All winter roost surveys were conducted between ½ hour before and 1 hour after sunrise or between 1 hour before and ½ hour after sunset, per current BLM guidelines for survey timing and frequency. Biologists also watched for nesting bald eagles within the survey area while conducting surveys for other nesting raptors. Direct and Indirect Effects As no winter roost sites or large groups of bald eagles have been documented in the general analysis area for either of the two Porcupine LBA Tracts, potential impacts would be limited to occasional foraging individuals rather than a large segment of the population. The increased human presence and noise associated with construction activities, if conducted while eagles are wintering within the area, could harass or displace individual eagles during that period. Nesting eagles could also be distressed to the point of abandoning eggs or young, or their hunting efforts and success impacted. If necessary, the majority of direct effects could be mitigated by controlling the timing and location of disturbance activities, and/or through approved nest relocation efforts. Indirect effects include additional disturbance and fragmentation of already limited foraging habitat within the geographic area. These impacts could result from a variety of large- and small-scale activities described previously for other species, including, but not limited to: topsoil stripping; overburden and coal removal; reclamation activities; and construction of roads, reservoirs, power lines (above ground and buried), fences, and pipelines. The locations of operations would shift throughout the expanded permit area as mining occurred, with habitats disturbed and reclaimed incrementally. Conversely, the addition of fences and raptor-safe power poles could possibly benefit foraging bald eagles by providing additional perch sites. Due to the limited presence of potential nesting or roosting sites, and lack of concentrated sources

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-229

Appendix H of prey, the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 to bald eagles are expected to be minimal. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. No bald eagle nests have been documented on or within 1 mile of the North or South Porcupine LBA Tract’s general analysis area since annual monitoring began in the early 1980s. Potential bald eagle winter roost and nesting sites are limited in both LBA tract’s wildlife survey area, and no reliable prey sources are present to support nesting or roosting bald eagles. Therefore, potential hazards for this species would be limited to foraging individuals during winter. Disturbance, fragmentation, and alteration of potential foraging habitat would occur. However, the North Antelope Rochelle Mine has avoided, where possible, and mitigated raptor impacts in the past through intensive raptor monitoring, implementation of USFWS approved mitigation measures, and adjusting operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers around raptor nests. H-3.7.28 Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) The mountain plover breeds from southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan through central Montana, south to south-central Wyoming, east-central Colorado and northeastern New Mexico, and east to northern Texas and western Kansas. In Wyoming, this species is a common summer resident (Cerovski et al. 2004). Mountain plovers require flat grasslands with short and sparse vegetation, and a large bare ground component (Knopf 1996) for nesting, foraging, or staging. Within the PRB, heavily grazed prairie dog colonies generally provide the most suitable mountain plover habitat. Mountain plovers are monogamous and possibly polyandrous ground nesters, and typically produce at least two clutches. The nest is a shallow depression occasionally thinly lined with grass. Plovers may utilize the same nesting area in subsequent years (Dechant et al. 2003d). Adults and fledged chicks leave the breeding grounds by early August, and may stage within appropriate habitats before migrating. Plovers feed primarily upon insects. Beetles, grasshoppers, crickets, and ants are the most important prey items (Knopf 1996). This species is highly approachable and does not flee far. Mountain plover populations have historically declined and recent data suggests that this species is continuing to decline in numbers. Causes of population declines have been primarily attributed to regional changes in agricultural practices (Knopf 1996). Existing Conditions Mountain plovers are summer residents within portions of the TBNG. Most observations of mountain plovers in northeast Wyoming have been associated with prairie dog colonies. Approximately 86 percent of recently (since 1993) occupied mountain plover habitat in that region occurred within prairie dog colonies (Byer 2001). Because of the similarity in habitat requirements H-230 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H between the mountain plover and McCown’s longspur, similar existing conditions and impacts would apply for both species. The nearest known breeding population of mountain plovers occurs in a large prairie dog colony located at the Antelope Mine, approximately 4 miles southwest of the South Porcupine LBA Tract’s general analysis area, and even farther from the North Porcupine area. Some portions of the grassland-dominated South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area and surrounding area would be considered suitable mountain plover habitat, including both USFS and non-federal surface. The best potential habitat for this species occurs in the large (about 345.3 acres) occupied prairie dog colony that overlaps the wildlife monitoring area for both the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts (Figures H-4 and H-5). Despite the presence of suitable habitat and the occurrence of annual monitoring in that area, mountain plovers have never been documented on USFS or adjacent lands within the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. Mountain plovers have been recorded in the combined North and South Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey areas only three times over the last 2 decades of annual monitoring. In mid-June 2004, single individuals were seen in shortgrass areas on two separate days. One adult was observed on non-federal surface in the western portion of the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area. The second individual was recorded in the southwestern portion of the South Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey area. Neither adult exhibited any defensive behavior, so both were presumed to be non-breeding birds. In early August 2005, a group of 15 to 20 mountain plovers was observed in the large (345.3 acres in size) prairie dog colony that overlaps both the North and South Porcupine tracts’ wildlife surveys areas. That group was presumed to be staging briefly during the fall migration. No other plover sightings have ever been recorded in that colony, despite survey efforts targeting that location. Direct and Indirect Effects Due to the similarity in their habitat associations, the direct and indirect effects to mountain plovers in both North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts’ general analysis areas would be the same as those described above for the McCown’s longspur. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Suitable plover habitat on USFS lands is limited primarily to a large prairie dog colony that overlaps the wildlife survey areas for both the North and South Porcupine LBA Tracts; no prairie dog colonies are present on USFS lands in either tract’s general analysis area. Only one mountain plover has been documented in the general analysis area for either Porcupine LBA tract in more than 20 years of annual monitoring. Documented alternative habitats for mountain plovers are present elsewhere in the region that is not currently scheduled for mining disturbance. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-231

Appendix H H-3.7.29 Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Loggerhead shrikes breed from Washington, northern Alberta, central Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba, south to California and Florida, and east to southwestern Minnesota, southern Wisconsin, southern Michigan, and Maryland. This species is a common summer resident throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Shrikes prefer relatively open, heterogeneous habitats characterized by grasses and forbs of low stature interspersed with bare ground and shrubs or low trees with perches for hunting. This species will use a wide variety of trees and shrubs, particularly thick or thorny species, as nesting substrates and hunting perches (Prescott and Bjorge 1999). Although some shrike nests are used in subsequent years, fidelity to a nest site is limited. This species forages over relatively open habitats, feeding primarily upon arthropods, amphibians, small to medium-sized reptiles, small mammals, and birds (Yosef 1996). Shrikes may also feed upon road kill and carrion. This species is generally tolerant of human activity near a nest, although they will abandon if disturbed during egg-laying or early in incubation. The loggerhead shrike is declining in both number and overall range. Declines have been attributed to habitat loss and conversion, urbanization, pesticide contamination, and loss of insect prey as a result of pesticide use (Yosef 1996). Existing Conditions Loggerhead shrikes are common summer residents within the TBNG. This species has occasionally been observed in a small tree windbreak at an old homestead site located near the general analysis area for the South Porcupine tract on USFS lands in T.42N., R.71W., SW¼SE¼ Section 35 (Figure H-5). The presence of young indicates that shrikes have nested in that windbreak at least once. Few other trees or other nesting habitats are present elsewhere in the South Porcupine tract’s wildlife survey area, as described for the bald eagle, above. Shrikes have also been infrequently recorded perched on various fences or on overhead power lines elsewhere in the tract’s wildlife survey area. Shrike foraging habitat is present throughout the South Porcupine LBA Tract’s general analysis area, including USFS lands. As indicated, existing utility and fence lines currently provide good quality hunting perches. Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternatives could result in direct and indirect impacts to loggerhead shrikes, though such impacts would likely be uncommon. Only one presumed nest site has been documented on or adjacent to USFS lands or elsewhere in the wildlife survey area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract; that site is just outside of the tract’s general analysis area, but is within the existing mine permit area for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. The most probable direct impact would be the mortality of, or injury to, individuals foraging within or passing through the USFS lands due to collisions with future mine-related vehicles, or dispersal of foraging individuals due to active mining.

H-232

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H The relatively slow movement of mining equipment and the noise associated with the activity would decrease direct impacts associated with vehicle collisions. As loggerhead shrikes are not especially common in the South Porcupine tract’s general analysis area, indirect impacts would be limited despite the fragmentation, degradation, or loss of habitat in the short and mid term. Any birds that would be displaced would be forced to travel to other locations with acceptable habitat. This could result in stress to individual birds, as well as potential decreased nesting effort and success. Prey numbers reduced by mining would be expected to rebound following reclamation due to generally high reproductive potential and prey tendencies to re-establish and adapt to disturbed and reclaimed areas. The locations of mine-related habitat disturbances and reclamation efforts would proceed incrementally throughout the expanded mining area as operations progressed. Additionally, this mining activity would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives to manage the TBNG for this species. USFS Standards and Guidelines would offer additional protections for any active nest sites that may be present in the area. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. Such impacts would be minimized by the limited number of regular sightings and known nesting attempts, as well as the relative paucity of suitable nesting habitat on or adjacent to the USFS lands analyzed in this EIS and their surrounding region. Degradation, fragmentation, or loss of potential foraging habitat, reduction in prey populations, and potential collisions with vehicles may occur. Given the limited presence of birds in the area, and the composition of the shrike’s prey base (insects, small mammals, etc.), impacts to shrikes would be minimal. USFS Standards and Guidelines would apply for active nests during the breeding season. Additionally, mining the USFS lands would not conflict with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives to manage the TBNG for loggerhead shrikes. H-3.7.30 Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) The breeding range of the Brewer’s sparrow extends from southwestern Yukon, southern Alberta, and southwestern Saskatchewan, south (east of the Cascades and Sierras) to southern California, central Arizona, and northern New Mexico (Rotenberry et al. 1999). The Brewer’s sparrow is a common summer resident of the basinprairie and mountain-foothills throughout Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). Brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate species (Rotenberry et al. 1999). This species is an uncommon cowbird (Molothrus ater) host and typically builds a small cup nest low in sagebrush shrubs. Brewer’s sparrows prefer to nest in medium-sized (48-90 centimeters, or 19-35 inches) live sagebrush within relatively dense (26-42 percent canopy cover) stands (Walker 2004). Grass height and density are important factors for nest concealment. Although tolerant of human visitation, this species may abandon a nest if disturbed during the construction process. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-233

Appendix H Brewer’s sparrows feed primarily on small insects and, to a lesser extent, seeds from grasses and forbs. Throughout areas where they have been surveyed, the species appears to have undergone and continues to undergo statistically significant declines (Rotenberry et al. 1999). Major threats to Brewer's sparrow populations are similar to those faced by other declining sagebrush-obligate species and include habitat conversion and fragmentation, invasion by non native plants, altered fire regimes, livestock overgrazing, conifer encroachment, energy development, and conversion to urban or residential housing (Walker 2004). Existing Conditions Brewer’s sparrows are common summer residents within the TBNG and southern Campbell County (Cerovski et al. 2004). Breeding bird survey data from annual monitoring and baseline studies conducted for the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, and incidental observations over time, have shown that the Brewer’s sparrow is a common but limited breeder in the area. As expected, no Brewer’s sparrows have been recorded in the grassland dominated general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract or surrounding lands. Direct and Indirect Effects No impacts Brewer’s sparrows are expected for the South Porcupine area due to the documented lack of sparrows and suitable sparrow habitat in that area. Determination of Effect and Rationale Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area. More than 20 years of regular monitoring have documented that sage-grouse do not inhabit the grassland dominated general analysis area for the South Porcupine LBA Tract. The use of existing roads, when possible, could minimize impacts related to traffic hazards and predator travel corridors. Increased activity and noise, especially during the nest initiation period, could inhibit nesting proximate to mining activities. Foraging could also be hindered within these areas, especially where active mining occurs. Additional infrastructure and activity associated with the expansion of the mine, in combination with other ongoing disturbances (e.g., CBNG operations), could displace Brewer’s sparrows from any historical use areas that might occur in nearby sagebrush-dominated areas. Those birds could potentially move into other sagebrush stands in the general vicinity, assuming they are not already occupied. Reclamation of disturbed areas will occur incrementally as mining is completed in a given portion of the mine and will eventually mitigate impacts to sagebrush habitats to some degree, though such efforts could take decades to benefit sagebrush obligates such as the Brewer’s sparrow. Impacts to sagebrush habitat on USFS lands could be further mitigated off-site by efforts to preserve and enhance such habitat on adjacent and nearby private lands, as described above. Standards and Guidelines for sagebrush habitats outlined in the TBNG H-234 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Plan (USFS 2002, pages 1-18; Appendix D) would be implemented as necessary, and could serve to sustain regional populations of this sparrow. Those management guidelines would apply only to activities beyond the South Porcupine LBA Tract. H-4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS REGARDING SENSITIVE SPECIES

Cumulative effects are defined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process as the incremental impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions conducted by any entity (federal, state, private, and others). Cumulative short- and long-term disturbances to the species considered in this analysis arise from multiple sources that occur on federal and non-federal lands within the general Wright analysis area, including USFS lands within that area and neighboring lands. Those sources include direct and indirect impacts of mining (with an anticipated life of at least 20 more years), extraction of conventional oil and gas and CBNG reserves, road development and relocation, construction and removal of power lines and pipelines, grazing (livestock and wildlife), drought, occupied residences, and hunting and trapping. Those activities have occurred in the vicinity of the general Wright analysis area in the past and most are expected to continue at similar levels, at least for the near future. Coal mining and CBNG development are expected to occur at an increased rate in the future. Other reasonable and foreseeable developments within the area could potentially include the construction of a coal-fired power plant and new rail lines for transporting coal. Both mining and oil and gas development activities have requirements for reclamation of disturbed areas as resources are depleted. However, those standards are dramatically different in both implementation and monitoring. As new areas of disturbance related to energy extraction activities are added, areas that have been mined out will be restored and reclaimed. Similarly, oil and gas well sites will be reclaimed once they are depleted and abandoned. No critical habitat for any USFS Sensitive Species has been delineated in the general Wright analysis area (including the USFS lands). Any habitat losses that do occur will eventually be mitigated for most species by reclamation with native seed mixes, which may improve habitat quality by reducing the presence of non-native plants (e.g., crested wheatgrass) within the area. Leasing lands within the general Wright analysis area will not conflict with the current TBNG Plan, or any future objectives to manage USFS lands and provide habitat for sensitive species. Because effects of disturbance on sensitive species inhabiting the same habitat types would be the same, cumulative impacts are analyzed according to species’ main habitat associations.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-235

Appendix H H-4.1 Species Associated Primarily With Short Grasses or Prairie Dog Colonies Five evaluated species are strongly associated with prairie dog colonies or other areas with short, sparse vegetation: the black-tailed prairie dog, mountain plover, burrowing owl, chestnut-collared longspur, and McCown’s longspur. Cumulative impacts to these habitats and associated species will largely result from activities that would decrease occupied black-tailed prairie dog colonies within the area. As the prairie dog is the most common sensitive species in the area, it has the most potential to be affected by cumulative impacts from the Proposed Actions and Alternatives. Specifically, individuals could be killed or injured by activities in or near prairie dog colonies, and habitat would be lost until reclamation takes place. Incremental habitat disturbance and freshly turned soil in stripped and reclaimed areas would allow escaping or dispersing animals to create new burrows, and thus maintain a presence in the area. Burrowing owls and mountain plovers rely heavily on prairie dogs to provide and maintain suitable nesting habitat. Longspurs are also often found in prairie dog colonies in the overall general Wright analysis area. Therefore, any activities that jeopardize prairie dogs will also affect those species to some degree. Although impacts would occur on approximately 148.6 acres of prairie dog colonies that are currently located within the combined general analysis areas for the North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts (108.1 acres of which occur on or within one-quarter-mile of USFS lands), the presence of approximately 1,490.6 total acres of colonies that currently exist on and within 2 miles of the six combined general analysis areas would minimize negative impacts to those three species. Despite their strong association with prairie dogs, species such as burrowing owls, mountain plovers, and longspurs can all utilize short-grass habitats other than prairie dog colonies. However, all of those avian species would benefit from the presence of undisturbed prairie dog colonies surrounding the six combined general analysis areas, including USFS lands, as well as other short-form vegetative communities. Despite the presence of additional habitat outside the six combined general analysis areas, cumulative effects expected for these five species would include habitat destruction, alteration, and fragmentation. As indicated, some individuals may be killed or injured by vehicles or equipment, collisions with fences, and poisoning or shooting. Predation rates on some species may increase due to the creation of favorable habitats, perches, or travel corridors for avian or mammalian predators. Nests of avian species will likely be destroyed or compromised by human disturbances or activities, and individuals (especially avian species) will likely be displaced from existing territories. Such occurrences would increase competition for available adjacent territories. If those areas have already reached carrying capacity, the result would be intra-specific competition followed by nutritional stress, decreased fecundity, and/or mortality. H-236 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H H-4.2 Mixed Sagebrush and/or Mid-grass Species

Mid-grass parcels interspersed with sagebrush commonly occur in the general Wright analysis area, including USFS lands. Mining in the area would impact the sagebrush shrubland/mixed prairie grassland habitats that are present. Evaluated species for mixed grassland habitats included the swift fox, longbilled curlew, and ferruginous hawk. Cumulative impacts to those species would be the similar to those described above. However, as all of these species have the capacity of utilizing a variety of habitats, including prairie dog colonies and short-grass areas, beyond the overall general Wright analysis area, the cumulative effects would be somewhat lessened. Regarding the swift fox and ferruginous hawk, the fragmentation, alteration, or destruction of suitable habitats would also destroy denning and shelter sites or nest sites, respectively, and would potentially facilitate inter-specific competition for available prey bases. Both the swift fox and hawks using these habitats would also be negatively affected by activities that reduce prey availability. The impacts would be partially mitigated by the existing presence of alternate denning and nesting sites in the area that would not be disturbed by the Proposed Actions or Alternatives. The greatest threat to mixed sagebrush and/or mid-grass species would arise from the creation of habitat patches that are too small to attract individuals or sustain viable breeding pairs or populations. H-4.3 Sagebrush Obligates

Species associated with sagebrush habitats that could occur in or near the general Wright analysis area and associated USFS lands include the Greater sage-grouse and Brewer’s sparrow. However, more than 25 consecutive years of monitoring have demonstrated that the sagebrush stands within most of this area are insufficient in size and structure to provide optimum sage-grouse habitat. However, due to the total combined acreage of big sagebrush shrubland that would be disturbed by mining the six combined general analysis areas (approximately 18,330 total acres), sage-grouse would likely experience cumulative impacts by the Proposed Actions or Alternatives. Similarly, the relatively small and somewhat sparse shrub stands within the general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts provide limited, marginal habitat for Brewer’s sparrows, and observations have been sparse in the area over time. No Brewer’s sparrows have been recorded on or near the USFS lands during more than two decades of frequent spring and summer surveys. Given the widespread occurrence of sagebrush habitat within the overall general Wright analysis area (including USFS lands), cumulative impacts to sagebrush habitats and their associated species would occur as a result of leasing and mining these six LBA tracts under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives. Direct impacts would likely be limited to the injury or mortality of individual sage-grouse and Brewer’s sparrows, or their nests or young. Indirect impacts to the sagebrush-dependant species could entail changes in Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-237

Appendix H their presence or distribution as the quantity and quality of existing sagebrush stands in the area are diminished due to habitat fragmentation, alteration, degradation, and conversion of shrubland communities during ongoing and new mining operations. Any displaced individuals would have to compete for the limited availability of adjacent territories, and if those areas have reached carrying capacity, intra specific competition may result in nutritional stress, decrease in fecundity, or mortality to affected individuals. Sagebrush habitats lost to mining would be mitigated, as required. However, those efforts would not likely be able to keep pace with, or compensate for, the on-going loss or alteration of sagebrush habitat within the area, as sagebrush stands can take two or three decades to re-establish. H-4.4 Tree or Wetland/Aquatic Species

Within the general Wright analysis area, trees are found primarily in a few shelterbelts/windbreaks planted adjacent to widely scattered ranching facilities. Very few other trees are present due to the lack of water and suitable habitats. Approximately 602 acres of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. have been identified within the combined general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts, which provide wetland/aquatic habitats on and near USFS lands. Species associated with treed or aquatic habitats that could occur in or near those areas include the loggerhead shrike and northern leopard frog, though the latter is less likely to be present. Cumulative effects to shrikes would be similar, but slightly greater than, those for non-raptor avian species within mixed mid-grass and shrub habitats. The increased intensity of effects would be due to the overall lack of trees (potential nest sites), and thus the limited alternate habitats as trees are lost to mining. Mitigating that impact is the fact that detailed tree inventories would be conducted prior to all mining disturbances, as required by state and federal agencies, so that every tree that is lost to mining would be replaced during final reclamation. High intensity activity and noise when mining is most proximate along stream corridors where native trees occur could deter shrikes from nesting in the area, at least until they acclimated to the disturbance. All trees destroyed by mining will be replaced during reclamation, but it will take decades for them to mature to their current stature. Northern leopard frogs are not prevalent within either the general Wright analysis area or associated USFS lands, and therefore have little potential to be affected by cumulative impacts from the Proposed Actions and Alternatives. Wetland and aquatic habitats for northern leopard frogs are considered very poor to unsuitable on USFS lands within the combined general analysis areas for these six LBA tracts, and no frog sightings have been recorded on USFS lands within these areas. If this species is present in the future, individuals could be killed or injured by activities in proximity to aquatic habitats. Dewatering or degradation of breeding habitats could kill eggs, tadpoles, or over-wintering adults, as well as increase predation rates on adults and eggs. H-238 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Conversely, the creation and augmentation of aquatic habitats for sedimentation ponds and other purposes could maintain and possibly increase local northern leopard frog populations. There would be no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands, as they would be restored under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Corps of Engineers (refer to Section 3.7 of this EIS). Non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands would be restored in accordance with the requirements of the surface landowner or as required by WDEQ/LQD. Overall, despite the death, injury, and displacement of some animals, the cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Actions or Alternatives are not expected to significantly reduce the size or viability of populations of any of the USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species. Many of these species have not been documented within the general Wright analysis area or associated USFS lands over the last 25 years, have already been displaced from those areas, or have remained present despite the ongoing mine and non-mine activities in and near those areas. H-5.0 TBNG PLAN COMPLIANCE

The Proposed Actions and Alternatives are considered to be in compliance with Grassland-wide, Geographic Area, and Management Area Standards and Guidelines for wildlife (including regionally sensitive species, and Management Indicator Species) detailed in the Grassland Plan (USFS 2002). H-6.0 REQUIRED MITIGATION AND RECOMMENDED MONITORING

To help protect USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species, the mine operator will notify the USFS District Ranger, Douglas, Wyoming, if sensitive species nests or dens, in addition to those identified in the Biological Assessment (Appendix G of this EIS), are located during mining. Future surveys for any USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species could be conducted in response to requests from the USFS Douglas District Ranger. This would allow assessments of how, and if, implementation of the TBNG Plan is benefiting these species. Mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts to wildlife that are required by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and state law include:
      

Using raptor-safe power lines; Designing fences to permit wildlife passage; Creating artificial raptor nest sites; Relocating raptor nests and taking other action to maintain active nesting pairs; Restoring pre-mining topography to the maximum extent possible; Planting a diverse mixture of grasses, forbs, and shrubs in configurations beneficial to wildlife; and Building and maintaining sediment control ponds or other sediment control devices during mining. H-239

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H To further minimize negative impacts to faunal species of concern, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requires additional species-specific protective measures, as well as targeted monitoring and mitigation plans for certain Region 2 Sensitive Species. H-7.0 H-7.1 USFS MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES EVALUATION Introduction

Species that have been identified by the Regional Forester as Management Indicator Species (MIS) must be considered for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications because the general analysis areas for North Hilight Field, South Hilight Field, West Hilight Field, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine LBA Tracts include federal lands administered by the USFS. There is no USFS administered surface within the general analysis area for the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. The purpose of this section of this Appendix is to provide information about the potential environmental effects that leasing the USFS administered lands would have on USFS TBNG Forest Plan MIS. H-7.2 Species Evaluated and Rationale

A Management Indicator Species is defined as a “plant or animal species or habitat components selected in a planning process used to monitor the effects of planned management activities on populations of wildlife and fish, including those that are socially or economically important” (USFS 2002). MIS are selected to serve as barometers for species diversity and viability. These species are monitored over time to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and habitat, and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs. MIS for the TBNG are identified by Geographic Area. In accordance with the TBNG Plan (USFS 2002), the Greater sage-grouse was selected as the MIS to be evaluated for this project (as defined for the Hilight Bill Geographic area). For detailed sage-grouse habitat and population information, please see Section 3.10.5 in this EIS. This MIS evaluation and the Biological Assessment (Appendix G) of this EIS analyzes and discloses potential effects to wildlife if lands within the general Wright analysis area are leased and mined. The USFS Douglas Ranger District biologists have reviewed Section 3.10 and the BA in this EIS. In addition to the information provided in this analysis, a full Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation (BABE) document is being prepared for review by USFS Douglas Ranger District biologists as part of future permitting actions. Among other things, that document will provide supplemental information regarding local and regional population trends for the MIS (greater sage-grouse). The approved BABE will be available for public view at the Douglas Ranger District office. H-240 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H H-8.0 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED

Baxter, G.T. and M.D. Stone, 1980, Amphibians and reptiles of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. Bechard, M.J. and J.K. Schmutz, 1995, Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis). In The Birds of North America, No. 172 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.), The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Beske, A.E., 1994, 1994 raptor nest survey on the Thunder Basin National Grassland. USFS, Douglas Ranger District, Medicine Bow National Forest. Unpublished report. Brown, K.G. and K.M. Clayton, 2004, Ecology of the Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the coal mining landscape of Wyoming’s Powder River Basin. Final Technical Report prepared by Thunderbird Wildlife Consulting, Gillette, Wyoming. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2002, BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List September 20, 2002, available on the Internet as of July 2008: . , 2008, West Antelope II Coal Lease Application Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, December 2008. Byer, T., 2001, Biological assessment and biological evaluation report for Devon Energy Production Company. USFS, Douglas Ranger District. Cerovski, A.O., M. Grenier, B. Oakleaf, L. Van Fleet, and S. Patla, 2004, Atlas of Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Nongame Program, Lander. Connelly, J.W., W.L. Wakkinen, A.D. Apa, and K.P. Reese, 1991, Sage grouse use of nest sites in southeastern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:521-524. Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver, 2004, Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Cotterill, S.E., 1997, Status of the swift fox (Vulpes velox) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Status Report No. 7, Edmonton, AB., Canada. Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications H-241

Appendix H Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, P.A. Rabie, and B.R. Euliss, 2003a, Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Long-billed Curlew (Version 12 Dec 2003). Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Available from website on the Internet: . ______, 2003b, Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Chestnutcollared Longspur (Version 28 May 2004). Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Available from website on the Internet: . ______, 2003c, Effects of management practices on grassland birds: McCown’s Longspur (Version 12 Aug 2004). Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Available from website on the Internet: . ______, 2003d, Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Mountain Plover (Version 12 Dec 2003). Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Available from website on the Internet: . Drut, M.S., J.A. Crawford, and M.A. Gregg, 1994, Brood habitat use by sage grouse in Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 54:170-176. Gregg, M.A., J.A. Crawford, M.S. Drut, and A.K. DeLong, 1994, Vegetational cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 58:162-166. Grenier, Martin, 2003, An Evaluation of Black-footed Ferret Block Clearances in Wyoming: Completion Report. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Lander, Wyoming. 16pp. Hill, D.P., 1998, Status of the long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Status Report No. 16, Edmonton, AB. Hill, D.P. and L.K. Gould, 1997, Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus). In The Birds of North America, No. 288 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.), The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Johnsgard, P.A., 1990, Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. H-242 Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Klute, D.S., L.W. Ayers, M.T. Green, W.H. Howe, S.L. Jones, J.A. Schaffer, S.R. Sheffield, and T.S. Zimmerman, 2003, Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington, D.C. Knopf, F.L., 1996, Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus). In The Birds of North America, No. 211 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.), The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. McKee, Gwyn, 2006, Nest Success and Survival of the Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) at the North Antelope Rochelle Surface Coal Mine in 2006. 2006 Summary Report. ______, 2007, Personal communication with Gwyn McKee, wildlife biologist with Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes. NatureServe, 2007, NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2007: . Naugle, D.E., K.E. Doherty, and B.L. Walker, 2006, Sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development in the Powder River Basin: Completion Report. Available from website on the Internet as of March 2009: . North Antelope Rochelle Mine, 2007, 2006 Annual Wildlife Monitoring Report, submitted to WDEQ/LQD. Prepared by Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes. On file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Northeast Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group (NWSGWC), 2006, Northeast Wyoming Sage-grouse Conservation Plan. August 15. Available from website on the Internet as of December 2007: . Orpet, J., 2007, Personal communication with Jim Orpet, wildlife biologist with Intermountain Resources. Powder River Coal, LLC (PRC), 2004, North Antelope Rochelle Mine Permit Application, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 569-T6, approved August 20, 2004. On file at WDEQ/LQD office in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-243

Appendix H Prescott, D.R.C, and R.R. Bjorge, 1999, Status of the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Wildlife Status Report No. 24, Edmonton, AB, Canada. Roche, Kathy, 2009, Personal communication between K. Roche, Forest Ecologist and North Zone Botanist, Medicine Bow Routt National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland, Laramie Ranger District, Laramie, Wyoming, with S. Bucklin, BLM Environmental Specialist, BLM Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, January 28. Rotenberry, J.T., M.A. Patten, and K.L. Preston, 1999, Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri). In The Birds of North America, No. 390 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.), The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Schmutz, J.K., 1989, Hawk occupancy of disturbed grasslands in relation to models of habitat selection. Condor 91:362-371. Schroeder, M.A, J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun, 1999, Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 425 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.) The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Thunder Basin Coal Company (TBCC), 2005, Black Thunder Mine Permit Application, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 233-T7, approved November 1, 2005. On file at WDEQ/LQD offices in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (USFS), 2002, Updated Land and Resource Management Plan for the Thunder Basin National Grassland, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, Rocky Mountain Region. USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Denver, Colorado. ______, 2003, Thunder Basin National Grassland Wildlife GIS Data and Map. Unpubl. ______, 2007, Species Conservation Project: Region 2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Rocky Mountain Region. Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: . U.S. Department of Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1989, Blackfooted ferret survey guidelines for compliance with the endangered species act. USFWS, Denver, Colorado, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. April 1989.

H-244

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Wagner, G., 1997, Status of the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Status Report No. 9, Edmonton, AB, Canada. Walker, B., 2004, Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Brewer's Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Available from website on the Internet: . White, C.M. and T.L. Thurow, 1985, Reproduction of ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled disturbance. The Condor 87:14-22. With, K.A., 1994, McCown’s longspur (Calcarius mccownii). In The Birds of North America, No. 96 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.), The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Yosef, R., 1996, Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.), The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Draft EIS, Wright Area Coal Lease Applications

H-245