FINAL Environmental Assessment for the Thunder Basin Coal Company

United States Department of FINAL Environmental Agriculture Assessment for the Thunder

Basin Coal Company, LLC. Forest Service

August2012 Black Thunder Coal Mine

Dewatering & Overstripping

Project

Douglas Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Campbell County, Wyoming, 6th Principal Meridian

Township 43 North, Range 71 West, Section 23, 26, and 35; Township 43 North, Range 71 West, Section 10; and Township 42 North, Range 71 West, Sections 1 and 2

Responsible Official – Phil Cruz, Forest Supervisor For Further Information Contact: Amy Ormseth, P.E. Minerals & Lands Program Manager Douglas Ranger District Medicine Bow/Routt NFs & Thunder Basin NG 2250 E. Richards St. Douglas, WY 82633 (307) 358-4690 (phone) (307) 358-7107 (FAX) [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary ...... 1 Acronyms ...... 4 Document Structure...... 6 Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 7 Geographic Area Direction ...... 7 Hilight Bill Geographic Area ...... 7 Desired Conditions ...... 7 Management Area Direction ...... 7 Management Area 8.4 – Mineral Production and Development ...... 8 Desired Conditions ...... 8 Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 8 Proposed Action ...... 11 Decision Framework ...... 12 Authorities and Regulations ...... 12 Public Involvement ...... 13 Issues ...... 15 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ...... 17 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 17 Monitoring ...... 19 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 20 Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 21 Affected Environment ...... 21 3.1 Heritage - Cultural Resources ...... 27 Existing Conditions ...... 27 Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis) ...... 29 3.2 Paleontological Resources ...... 30 Existing Conditions ...... 30 Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis) ...... 32 3.3 Air Quality ...... 33 3.4 Wildlife Resources ...... 49 3.4.1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Vertebrate Species ...... 51 Existing Conditions ...... 51 Black-footed Ferret ...... 52 Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis) ...... 53 3.4.2 USFS Region 2 - Sensitive Species ...... 54 Existing Conditions ...... 54 Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis) ...... 58 3.4.3 Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 62 Existing Conditions ...... 62 Habitat ...... 64 Populations ...... 65 Alternative 1: No Action ...... 71 Grassland Plan Compliance ...... 72 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ...... 72 Cumulative Effects ...... 74 Grassland Plan Compliance ...... 76 3.5 Vegetation Resources ...... 77 Field Reconnaissance ...... 80 3.5.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Plant Species Considered and Evaluated...... 81

TBCC Dewatering & Overstripping Environmental Assessment i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis) ...... 81 Existing Conditions ...... 84 Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis) ...... 85 3.6 Soils ...... 87 Methods ...... 87 Existing Conditions ...... 88 Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis) ...... 88 3.7 Hydrology ...... 91 Environmental Consequences ...... 95 3.7 Land Use ...... 97 Existing Conditions ...... 97 Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis) ...... 102 3.8 Economic and Social Conditions...... 103 Environmental Consequences ...... 105 Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination...... 108 Consultation and Coordination ...... 108 List of Preparers ...... 109 Chapter 5 References cited ...... 111 Appendix A : Maps ...... A-1 Appendix B Public Comments and Forest Service Responses ...... B-1

TBCC Dewatering & Overstripping Environmental Assessment ii SUMMARY

SUMMARY

The USDA Forest Service (USFS) proposes to authorize Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC (TBCC) to install dewatering wells and associated facilities and construct areas of overstripping on National Forest System (NFS) lands as ancillary facilities to fully develop the existing coal leases (WYW-118907, WYW-150318, WYW-172692, and State Lease 0-06932) held by TBCC – Black Thunder Mine (BTM). Proposed activities lie within the current Black Thunder Mine Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WY-DEQ) Mine Permit (233-T7) boundary; therefore those activities will be subject to the final reclamation plan in the mine permit. For activities occurring outside of the Mine Permit boundary, they will be subject to the same reclamation standards and requirement that are attached to all authorizations given by the USFS.

The proposed activities are located on NFS lands within the Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) and consist of two fields of dewatering wells and one area of overstripping. The first dewatering field is proposed to have 72 wells while the second field consists of 236 wells. The first field is estimated to be approximately 327.4 acres and the second field is 1,234 acres of NFS lands, for a total of 1,561.4 acres.

Each well drilled will have a disturbance area of approximately 20 feet by 20 feet during the drilling process. Power lines will be built with a power pole spacing of 250 feet with an offset of approximately 50 feet to the west of the drilled dewatering holes to supply power to each of the pumps for each well. A main water line will also be constructed roughly 50 feet to the east of the holes. Each well will connect to the main water line. The total disturbance for the main water line will be approximately 5 square feet per linear foot of pipe. All topsoil will be removed during the construction of the water lines and be replaced during reclamation. The primary purpose of dewatering is to improve highwall and spoil stability for the safety of the miners.

The overstripping activities are proposed to overlay a portion of the dewatering areas. The overstripping activities account for a total of 1,080 acres (See Appendix A: Location Map). The overstripping would allow Black Thunder Mine to completely and effectively recover all of the coal within the existing lease. The mine seeks to remove topsoil and overburden in Section 23. The overstripping would allow Black Thunder Mine to completely and effectively recover all of the coal within their existing lease immediately adjacent to the proposed project area as well as provide room for overburden stockpiles that are necessary to fill in the final pit during post- mining reclamation. All topsoil is salvaged and stored in stockpiles designated for future reclamation.

The project is located on the Thunder Basin National Grassland and all within Campbell County, Wyoming, 6th P.M. T43N, R71W, Sections 10 = 327.4 acres T43N, R71W, Sections 23, 26 and 35 = 1,234 acres T42N, R71W, Sections 1- Lots 7, 8 and Section 2 – Lot 5 = 117.02 acres TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECT AREA 1678.42 ACRES

TBCC Dewatering & Overstripping Environmental Assessment 1

SUMMARY

The USFS has identified a need for authorizing TBCC to conduct the specified activities so that they may satisfy their obligations to fully develop their existing Federal coal leases WYW- 118907, WYW-150318, WYW-172692, and State Lease 0-06932 subject to the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976. The existing condition is that the historical progression of mining has moved the active mining faces to locations where the highwall and all activities are near the edge of the existing coal leases. The desired condition is to provide adequate dewatering of the overburden soils to improve highwall soil stability for the safety of miners and the overstripping is required to effectively bench the soil to recover the coal in the active coal lease and provide room for overburdern stockpiles necessary to fill in the final pit. The purpose of this action is to allow full right of entry to help ensure that adequate safety is provided at the active mining faces while fully allowing development of the existing coal leases.

Affected Environment The project is in the administrative boundary of the Thunder Basin National Grassland, Douglas Ranger District, approximately 16.5 miles southeast of Wright, Campbell County, Wyoming.

The terrain in the project area contains gently rolling open grasslands with defined ephemeral (temporary flow) drainages. The terrain is generally flat, with low-lying hills and knolls that are dissected by shallow creeks and drainages.

The project is located in the Highlight Bill Geographic Area. Minerals exploration and development and livestock grazing will be significant management activities in this geographic area. In some areas, there may be restrictions on public use to ensure public safety and to avoid unreasonable interference with mineral operations. In those areas where mining is emphasized, reclamation activities will restore the area to a reasonable level of its pre-mining condition.

Scenery Management System objectives are to design and implement management activities to blend with the natural landscape. The scenic resources objective for the area is modification, a classification that allows management activities to visually dominate the original characteristic landscape. There will be more development and a moderate number of facilities in this geographic area. Facilities and landscape modifications will be visible but reasonably mitigated to blend with natural features. Higher fence densities and intensive mineral development may occur.

Livestock grazing is the dominant land use. Mineral development and facilities such as coal mines, railroads, oil and gas wells, and pipelines will be present and will often dominate the landscape. Minimal recreational use also occurs in the project area. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class for the project area is semi-primitive motorized.

Sagebrush, grassland community wildlife species such as prairie dogs, mule deer, antelope, mountain plover, sage grouse and raptors inhabit the area. Species identified by USFS as management indicator species (MIS) have been addressed in the Biological Analysis.

A cultural resource survey of the area has been completed. Sites identified during the survey must and would be protected in accordance with State Historic Preservation Office direction.

TBCC Dewatering & Overstripping Environmental Assessment 2

SUMMARY

The analysis for this project tiers to other Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) from the original leases along with a recent EIS that was completed for the project areas for the South Hilight and West Hilight Lease By Application (LBA) tracts. The Federal coal lease WYW- 118907 (West Black Thunder LBA) was analyzed in an Environmental Assessment completed in March, 1992 and Deputy Regional Forester Tom Thompson issued a Consent decision on May 3, 1992. Federal lease WYW-150318 was analyzed as part of the Southern Powder River Basin EIS (April, 2004). The BLM was the lead agency in preparing the South Powder River Basin Coal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the impact of leasing five tracts of Federal coal, including the Little Thunder LBA Tract (WYW150318), in the Wyoming Powder River Basin. Mary Peterson, Forest Supervisor issued a consent decision for the Little Thunder LBA tract (WYW150318) on May 27, 2004.

Supplemental analysis was completed as needed for the specific project. The project portion located in Section 10, T 43N, R 71W was included as part of the West Hilight LBA tract. The project portion located in Sections 23, 26, and 35 of T 43N R 71W and Sections 1 and 2 of T 42N, R 71W were included in the South Hilight LBA tract. It is noted that the USFS gave BLM full consent approval for the South Hilight LBA tract on August 18th, 2011. In turn the BLM sold the lease track to Arch Coal Company (for TBCC-BTM) on December 14th, 2011 and is currently in the process of being incorporated into the state mine permit currently held by TBCC- BTM. The West Hilight LBA is currently under evaluation for lease consent by the USFS.

This Environmental Assessment documents and discloses the effects analyses for the proposed dewatering and overstripping project. Through this assessment process, the Forest Service will determine whether and how and under what term(s) and condition(s) TBCC may complete the proposal on NFS lands, while providing for protection of natural resources, as well as public access and safety.

TBCC Dewatering & Overstripping Environmental Assessment 3

ACRONYMS

APE Area of Potential Effect AQD Air Quality Division AVF Alluvial Valley Floors BLM Bureau of Land Management BTM Black Thunder Mine CBNG Coal Bed Natural Gas CCEDC Campbell County Economic Development Council CEQ Council for Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPC Center for Plant Conservation CR County Road EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FS Forest Service FSH Forest Service Handbook FYPC Fossil Yield Potential Classification ID Interdisciplinary LBA Lease By Application LQD Land Quality Division (of WY-DEQ) MBRNF Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests MIS Management Indicator Species NARM North Antelope Rochelle Mine NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NFS National Forest System NRHP National Record of Historic Places PRB Powder River Basin PRC Peabody Powder River Coal, LLC PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 4

ACRONYMS

SIP State Implementation Plans SLC Species of Local Concern SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions TBCC Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC TBNG Thunder Basin National Grassland T&E Threatened and Endangered Species TEP Threatened and/or Endangered Plant Species USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wright FEIS Wright Area Coal Lease Applications Final Environmental Impact Statement WY-DEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality WY-GFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 5

DOCUMENT STRUCTURE

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) has provided this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into five main chapters: Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and a summary of the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes impact mitigation measures based on Forest Service requirements and the Grassland Plan Standards and Guidelines. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the Proposed Action and other alternatives. Cumulative effects of the Proposed Action, which are reasonably foreseeable future actions conducted by any entity, are also discussed. Chapter 3 is organized into sections based on the following environmental resources: Heritage-Cultural Resources, Paleontological Resources, Wildlife Resources, Vegetation Resources, Soils, Hydrology, Land Use, and Economic and Social Conditions. Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the Environmental Assessment. Chapter 5. Literature Cited: This chapter lists literature referenced in the Environmental Assessment. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information (including maps) to support the analyses presented in the Environmental Assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Douglas Ranger District Office at 2250 East Richards Street, Douglas, Wyoming, 82633.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 6

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

Geographic Area Direction

The Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) encompasses about 572,000 acres of NFS land in the eastern region of Wyoming, and is divided into six Geographic Areas. Geographic Areas include management direction that is too specific to apply across the entire grassland or several grasslands. The Proposed Action is entirely within the Hilight Bill Geographic Area. The Hilight Bill Geographic Area encompasses about 100,780 acres of NFS land in east- central Wyoming. This Geographic Area is located roughly parallel to Wyoming State Highway 450 from Wright, Wyoming to Newcastle, Wyoming.

Hilight Bill Geographic Area Desired Conditions

Minerals exploration and development and livestock grazing will be significant management activities in this geographic area. In some areas, there may be restrictions on public use to ensure public safety and to avoid unreasonable interference with mineral operations. In those areas where mining is emphasized, reclamation activities will restore the area to a reasonable level of its pre-mining condition. In areas with other management emphases, existing vegetative diversity and structural conditions will be maintained and enhanced. This area will have a healthy and diverse mix of grasses, including the following species: western wheatgrass, needle and thread grass, green needlegrass, little bluestem, blue grama, and prairie junegrass.

The streams and riparian areas will be in proper functioning condition or moving towards proper functioning condition. Riparian areas and woody draws will be managed to maintain or enhance different age classes of herbaceous plants, shrubs, and trees. Desired riparian species include sedges, rushes, snowberry, rose, willow, cottonwood, as well as other woody plants. Soils in this geographic area will have high infiltration rates and low soil compaction, resulting in minimal overland flow events.

There will be more development and a moderate number of facilities in this geographical area. Facilities and landscape modifications will be visible, but reasonably mitigated to blend with natural features. Higher fence densities and intensive mineral development may occur.

Mineral developments and facilities such as coal mines, railroads, oil and gas wells, and pipelines will be present and will often dominate the landscape. When mineral activities are concluded, the disturbed lands will be reclaimed to blend in with adjacent undisturbed areas.

Management Area Direction

Management areas are defined as parts of the grassland that are managed for a particular emphasis or theme. Each management area has a prescription that outlines the Theme, the Desired Conditions, and the Standards and Guidelines that apply to it (in addition to the

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 7

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

Grassland-wide Standards and Guidelines). Prescriptions have been broken into eight major categories that range from least evidence of disturbance to most evidence of disturbance. The proposed project falls within the Mineral Production and Development (8.4) Management Area, which is managed for solid mineral operations.

Management Area 8.4 – Mineral Production and Development

Desired Conditions

Mineral operations of all types are emphasized to effectively and efficiently remove available commercial mineral resources, concurrent with other ongoing resource uses and activities. Operations include development and production of solid minerals, such as coal, bentonite, uranium and hard rock, open-pit mines, stock-piled overburden and top soil, and various ancillary facilities. Facilities and landscape modifications are visible but are reasonably mitigated to blend and harmonize with natural features. Reclamation activities restore the area to a reasonable level of its pre-mining condition. Grazing will occur, except on areas actively being mined and areas under reclamation for bond release.

Restrictions on public use occur to ensure public safety and to avoid unreasonable interference with mineral operations. Visitors can experience frequent encounters with people, heavy equipment, and noise.

Background

The Life of a Mine in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming

Lease by Application Process

In the Powder River Basin (PRB), maintenance tracts are nominated for leasing by companies operating adjacent existing mines. To process an LBA, the BLM must evaluate the quantity, quality, maximum economic recovery (MER), and fair market value (FMV) of the federal coal. The BLM must also evaluate the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of leasing and mining the federal coal in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). BLM is the lead in preparing the EIS to evaluate and disclose potential impacts of leasing the federal coal tract. The EIS evaluates the potential impacts of mining the tract because mining is a logical consequence of issuing a lease for a maintenance tract of coal.

The USFS is a cooperating agency during the entire process of the EIS when the tract involves lands administered by the USFS. The USFS’s responsibility is to offer a consent decision to the BLM for the lands on National Grassland that lie within the proposed tracts. For lands on the TBNG the consent decision authority has been delegated to the Forest Supervisor level on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland. Once the analysis is complete the USFS must first consent to the tract with a Record of Decision. Since the USFS was a cooperating agency the ROD is based upon the

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 8

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

EIS prepared in corporation with the BLM for the particular tract. The consent is for the lease tract only.

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is also a cooperating agency to the EIS. OSM is the Federal agency with the primary responsibility to administer programs that regulate surface coal mining in accordance with Section 503 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). OSM also recommends approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the MLA mining plan to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Lands and Minerals Management.

The WY-DEQ (LQD & AQD) is also a cooperating agency on this EIS. WY-DEQ/LQD has a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior (OSM) to regulate surface coal mining operations on Federal and non-Federal lands within the State of Wyoming. WY- DEQ/AQD regulates air borne emissions in Wyoming and administers the air quality standards developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

After consent is completed by USFS, the BLM writes their ROD for the lease.

Upon completion of both agencies appeal periods, the lease tract may be sold. By law and regulation, the LBA process is an open, public, competitive sealed-bid process. Bidding at any potential sale is not restricted to the applicant. In order for BLM to award and issue a coal lease, the highest bid received must meet or exceed fair market value of the coal as determined by BLM’s economic evaluation. Once the tract is sold, since it is a maintenance lease, the company must then submit an application package to WY-DEQ (as delegated by OSM) for a permit revision.

Mine Permit Process

Newly acquired leases require an amendment to the mines existing permit. These modification/revisions are submitted to the WY-DEQ who has been delegated this authority from OSM. All other permit revisions for activities outside the current lease and not currently authorized in the existing permit must be processed thru the WY-DEQ revision process. The permit package submitted to the WY-DEQ is reviewed and analyzed. WY-DEQ requires that, as part of the application for modification/revision, the applicant must show “right of entry” on to the surface that is outside of lease and not already covered in permit.

According to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) and the USFS, the USFS will continue to administer mining operations on NFS lands pursuant to applicable laws, regulations, agreements, and restrictions. Under the National Forest Management Act and other laws pertaining to the National Forest System, the Forest Service has the authority to ensure that mining operations on lands it administers are consistent with State and Federal property laws and applicable regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, and use environmentally sound procedures. For operations involving Federal coal leased by the Bureau of Land Management under the MLA, Forest Service consent is required prior to authorization of mining operations on NFS lands within a lease area.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 9

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

If the revision affects Federal Surface (with no Federal Coal recovered) then WY-DEQ notifies the USFS of the revision. The revision, at this point is assigned a tracking number called a TFN. For activities on lease, the USFS response is a simple letter of concurrence or recommendations back to the WY-DEQ with a copy of the ROD that approved those activities on the lease. For activities off lease but approved in a previous authorization, the USFS response will submit a letter of concurrence with a copy of the authorization. This authorization could be a special use permit or a copy of the ROD if it was an activity covered during the leasing decision. For activities off lease but not previously approved, the USFS will evaluate if current NEPA exists for the specific activity and conduct additional NEPA if needed or required and make issue a decision in regards to the specific activity. This is needed for the company to prove “right of entry”. In order for the approval of “right of entry”, it requires a federal action, thus requiring a decision and NEPA analysis. After the permit/application has all the complete information and evaluation the WY-DEQ determines whether or not to approve the revision to the permit. If approved, the permit is amended.

The Federal coal lease WYW-118907 (West Black Thunder LBA) was analyzed in an Environmental Assessment completed in March, 1992 and Deputy Regional Forester Tom Thompson issued a Consent decision on May 3, 1992. Federal lease WYW-150318 was analyzed as part of the Southern Powder River Basin EIS (April, 2004). The BLM was the lead agency in preparing the South Powder River Basin Coal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the impact of leasing five tracts of Federal coal, including the Little Thunder LBA Tract (WYW150318), in the Wyoming Powder River Basin. Mary Peterson, Forest Supervisor issued a consent decision for the Little Thunder LBA tract (WYW150318) on May 27, 2004.

These environmental documents analyzed and disclosed the potential impacts of leasing and the subsequent mining of the lease parcels, including the impacts on adjacent lands needed to completely the develop the leases. However, the Forest Service consent decisions for the three federal leases only provided consent for leasing and development of the lease parcel, they did not authorize right of entry for activities needed to support mining and full development of the leases including the proposed dewatering and overstripping. Further, the Forest Service did not have any authority under the state lease to authorize activities on NFS lands adjacent to the state land. Therefore an authorization for these uses is needed and a Special Use Permit is generally the method used to authorize and provide for right of entry for these types of activities.

Based on the need to consider authorization of these activities, the Forest Service needs to complete analysis of the impacts of the proposed activities. Because the potential impacts have been analyzed and disclosed as part of the leasing analysis, those documents have been tiered to and referenced in this document.

All of these activities fall within the boundaries of the currently proposed LBA tracts known as South Hilight and West Hilight. The impacts of leasing these parcels were analyzed in BLM’s Wright Area Coal LBA EIS. The USFS was a cooperating agency during the entire process of the EIS, as portions of the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS proposed

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 10

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need lands for leasing lie within the TBNG. The dewatering and overstripping activities are analyzed in the EIS and are within the same scope and intensity of the analysis.

Purpose of and Need for Action

The USFS has identified a need for authorizing TBCC to conduct the specified activities so that they may satisfy their obligations to fully develop their existing Federal coal leases WYW-118907, WYW-150318, WYW-172692, and State Lease 0-06932 subject to the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976. The existing condition is that the historical progression of mining has moved the active mining faces to locations where the highwall and all activities are near the edge of the existing coal leases. The desired condition is to provide adequate dewatering of the overburden soils to improve highwall soil stability for the safety of miners and the overstripping is required to effectively bench the soil to recover the coal in the active coal lease and provide room for overburdern stockpiles necessary to fill in the final pit. The purpose of this action is to allow full right of entry to help ensure that adequate safety is provided at the active mining faces while fully allowing development of the existing coal leases.

Proposed Action

The USDA Forest Service (USFS) proposes to authorize Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC (TBCC) to install dewatering wells and associated facilities and construct areas of overstripping on National Forest System (NFS) lands as ancillary facilities to fully develop the existing coal leases (WYW-118907, WYW-150318, WYW-172692, and State Lease 0- 6932) held by TBCC – Black Thunder Mine (BTM). Proposed activities lie partially within the current Black Thunder Mine Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WY-DEQ) Mine Permit (233-T7) boundary; therefore those activities will be subject to the final reclamation plan in the mine permit. For activities occurring outside of the Mine Permit boundary, they will be subject to the same reclamation standards and requirement that are attached to all authorizations given by the USFS.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 11

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

The overstripping activities are proposed on top the same area as the dewatering, however, not as much of a surface disturbance. The overstripping activities account for a total of 1,080 acres (See Appendix A: Location Map). The overstripping would allow Black Thunder Mine to completely and effectively recover all of the coal within the existing lease. The mine seeks to remove topsoil and overburden in Section 23. The overstripping would allow Black Thunder Mine to completely and effectively recover all of the coal within their existing lease immediately adjacent to the proposed project area as well as provide room for overburden stockpiles that are necessary to fill in the final pit during post-mining reclamation. All topsoil is salvaged and stored in stockpiles designated for future reclamation.

Decision Framework

Through the environmental analysis process, the Deputy Forest Supervisor will review the alternatives analyzed in this Environmental Assessment and then determine whether or not and, if so, where and under what conditions, the proposed activities would be authorized.

Authorities and Regulations

The following statutory authorities and regulations govern the issuance and administration of special-use authorizations on National Forest System lands that apply directly to the lands on proposed authorization.

Title V, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976, (43 U.S.C. 1761- 1771). Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits, leases, or easements to occupy, use, or traverse National Forest System lands. FLPMA directs the United States to receive fair market value unless otherwise provided for by statute and provides for reimbursement of administrative costs in addition to the collection of land use fees (43 U.S.C. 1764(g)).

Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 251, Subpart B. This subpart provides direction for special uses management on National Forest System lands, including guidance pertaining to the special-use application process; terms and conditions of use; rental fees; fee waivers; termination, revocation, suspension, and modification of existing authorizations; and permit administration.

Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 251, Subpart C. This subpart provides a process for appeals of decision related to administration of special use authorizations on National Forest System lands. TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 12

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of July 22, 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1010-1012). Title III of this act directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to develop programs of land conservation and use to protect, improve, develop, and administer the land acquired and to construct structures thereon needed to adapt the land to beneficial use. Under the act, the Department of Agriculture may issue leases, licenses, permits, term permits, or easements for most uses, except rights-of-ways.

Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970. This Act declared it would be the continuing policy of the federal government and in the national interest to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining industries, and the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources.

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as Amended by the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1975. This Act, as amended, authorizes the federal agencies to lease coal reserves and prescribe conditions for protection of non-coal resources. It requires the BLM to secure consent from the surface management agency prior to leasing federal coal lands.

National Historic Preservation Act: This decision complies with the provisions of this Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Native American interests were consulted during this project.

Endangered Species Act: Compliance with this Act is addressed in this document. A Biological Assessment for the South and West Hilight LBA Tracts was included in Appendix G in the Final Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS. USFWS has reviewed the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications DEIS, including the Biological Assessment, and provided comment to the BLM on its content in a memorandum letter dated December 15, 2010.

National Environmental Policy Act: The documentation for this project fully complies with this Act.

Public Involvement

The project was identified in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the MBRNF since the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 (January-March 2010). The legal notice for public scoping and notice of comment was posted on May 1, 2011. The legal notice asked for public comment on the proposal within 30 days after publication in the Laramie Boomerang newspaper. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency sent a scoping letter to specific interested publics on April 27, 2011 (permittees, Federal, State, County, and Local government agencies, and other persons who have expressed an interest in natural resource management on the Thunder Basin National Grassland). Three (3) public comment letters were received. A summary of the comments received and the disposition of these comments is listed in Appendix B. A description of the project has also been published on the MBRNF internet web site. A Legal Notice of Proposed Action (36 CFR 215.5) was published in the Laramie Boomerang on May 23rd, 2012. The comment period ended on June 22nd, 2012. One comment letter was

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 13

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need received on the Draft EA. A summary of comments received is included in Appendix C of the EA.

In addition, the public involvement in the Wright FEIS was also considered in this analysis since the similar types of activities on the same piece of TBNG lands were publicly scoped and commented upon during that analysis. The following was the public involvement for the Wright FEIS, which the Forest Service was actively involved with.

BLM received the Hilight Field tracts coal lease application on October 7, 2005. BLM announced the receipt of the LBA and published a Notice of Public Meeting in the Federal Register on February 9, 2006. At the public meeting held in Casper, Wyoming on April 19, 2006, the Powder River Regional Coal Team (PRRCT) reviewed the Hilight Field coal lease application and ALC presented information about their existing mine and the pending lease application. The PRRCT recommended that BLM process the application. On April 27, 2006, BLM notified the Governor of Wyoming of that ALC had made application for the Hilight Field Federal coal lands.

BLM published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS and Notice of Public Scoping 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 Wright Area coal lease applications had been received, announced the time and location of a public scoping meeting, and requested public comment on the applications.

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 time three oral comments were made. The scoping period extended from July 3 through September 3, 2007, during which time BLM received nine comment letters.

A notice announcing the availability of the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register by the EPA on June 26, 2009. Parties on the distribution list were sent copies of the Draft EIS at that time. A 60-day comment period on the Draft EIS commenced with publication of the EPA’s Notice of Availability and ended on August 25, 2009. The BLM published a Notice of Availability/Notice of Public Hearing for the Draft EIS in the Federal Register on July 8, 2009. The BLM’s Federal Register notice announced the date and time of the formal public hearing, which was held on July 29, 2009, in Gillette, Wyoming. The purpose of the public hearing was to solicit public comment on the Draft EIS, fair market value, maximum economic recovery, and the proposed competitive sale of Federal coal from the Wright Area LBAs. BLM also published a Notice of Public Hearing in both the Douglas Budget and Gillette News- Record newspapers on July 8, 2009. Two individuals presented statements on the Draft EIS during the hearing. BLM received written comments from 17 individuals, agencies, businesses, and organizations as well as over 500 comment e-mails from other interested parties. Comments that BLM received on the Draft EIS and how BLM and USFS considered these comments during the preparation of the Final EIS were included in

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 14

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

Appendix I of the Final EIS. Written comments and the transcript of the formal public hearing are also available for review at the BLM Wyoming High Plains District Office in Casper.

A notice announcing the availability of the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications Final EIS was published in the Federal Register by the EPA on July 30, 2010. Parties on the distribution list were sent copies of the Final EIS at that time. The comment period for the Final EIS ended on August 30, 2010. As explained on the first page of the Final EIS, the public review period was open for 30 days after EPA’s Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register.

As directed by an appeal decision, a notice announcing the opportunity to comment on the proposed FS consent decision for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications pursuant to 36 CFR 215 was published in the Laramie Boomerang on March 31, 2011. Parties on the distribution list were sent the notice of the opportunity to comment at that time. The comment period for the notice ended on May 16, 2011.

Issues

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: key and non-key issues. Key issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non- key issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Grassland Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not key or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of non-key issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-key may be found at the Douglas Ranger District in the project record. The key issues that were identified during scoping are listed below:

• Potential effects to big game habitat and hunting; • Potential effects to sage grouse and other sage-dependent non-game birds and small mammals; • Impacts to grazing allotments; • Impacts to air quality and climate change;

See Appendix B for a complete list of key public comments and Forest Service responses.

Other Documents Referenced This environmental analysis formally incorporates and adopts the prior analyses listed below for the specific project area which includes the same activities described in the Proposed Action, as listed below:

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 15

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

1. Wright Lease By Applications Final Environmental Impact Statement 2. South Powder River Basin Final Environmental Impact Statement 3. West Black Thunder Lease By Application Final Environmental Impact Statement

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 16

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the TBCC dewatering and overstripping proposal in the Hilight Bill Geographic Area on NFS land of the TBNG in Wyoming. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form (Table 2-1), sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

NEPA requires the agency to “Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources as provided by section 102(2)(E) of the Act.” (40 CFR 1501.2(c)). It is required to develop reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that should still fulfill the purpose and need and address unresolved conflicts related to the proposed action.

Alternative 1: No Action

Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative was considered and evaluated. The No Action Alternative enables the decision-maker to compare the magnitude of environmental effects among Alternatives to a baseline of the existing management conditions.

The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas until the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

Coal mining associated with the TBCC- BTM would continue on existing leased areas within portions of, and/or surrounding, the project area. When advancement of the mine continues to approaches the lease boundary the mine will not be able to fully extract any additional coal in a safe and effective operating condition until the incorporation of the new leases can be incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The USDA Forest Service (USFS) proposes to authorize Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC (TBCC) to install dewatering wells and associated facilities and construct areas of overstripping on National Forest System (NFS) lands as ancillary facilities to fully develop the existing coal leases (WYW-118907, WYW-150318, WYW-172692, and State Lease 0- 06932) held by TBCC – Black Thunder Mine (BTM). Proposed activities lie partially within the current Black Thunder Mine Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WY-DEQ) Mine Permit (233-T7) boundary; therefore those activities will be subject to the final reclamation plan in the mine permit. For activities occurring outside of the Mine Permit

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 17

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives boundary, they will be subject to the same reclamation standards and requirement that are attached to all authorizations given by the USFS.

Each well drilled will have a disturbance area of approximately 20 feet by 20 feet during the drilling process. Power lines will be built with a power pole spacing of 250 feet with an offset of approximately 50 feet to the west of the drilled dewatering holes. A main water line will also be constructed roughly 50 feet to the east of the holes. Each well will connect to the main water line. The total disturbance for the main water line will be approximately 5 square feet per linear foot of pipe. All topsoil will be removed during the construction of the water lines and be replaced during reclamation. The primary purpose of dewatering is to improve highwall and spoil stability for the safety of the miners.

The overstripping activities are proposed within the same general area for a total of 1,080 acres (see legal description below and attached map). The overstripping would allow Black Thunder Mine to completely and effectively recover all of the coal within the existing lease. The mine seeks to remove topsoil and overburden in Section 23. The overstripping would allow Black Thunder Mine to completely and effectively recover all of the coal within their existing lease immediately adjacent to the proposed project area as well as provide room for overburden stockpiles that are necessary to fill in the final pit during post-mining reclamation. All topsoil is salvaged and stored in stockpiles designated for future reclamation.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives to meet the stated purpose and need for the action and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Two alternatives to the proposed action was developed during early discussion of the project, but were eliminated from detailed study. Those alternatives are as follows:

1) Approve a smaller amount of wells and smaller total acres of overstripping. This alternative was considered by eliminated from further detailed study as the analysis was based primarily on the Wright Area FEIS for full mine development and that if we

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 18

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

were to decrease the number of wells or area of overstripping it would not change the overall analysis and may impact the safety factor of the active mine by not fully meeting the purpose and need.

2) Require bond release of other acres within the permit area to offset other uses such as hunting and grazing. This alternative was considered but eliminated from further detailed study. This requirement of bond release does not directly meet the purpose and need and it is noteworthy that the bond release program is managed by the WY- DEQ and OSM not directly by the USFS. While the USFS has an opportunity to comment during the bond release it is much more complex in such that we cannot legally tie an authorization to a separate action on a separate piece of ground and hold a company to do such. Negotiations are occurring with the WY-DEQ, mining operators, along with other agencies and the public to figure out more appropriate manners to release more mined lands from bond.

Monitoring

This section explains monitoring as it relates to implementation of the action alternatives. Although monitoring is usually included in the Decision Notice, it is worthwhile for the reader to have an understanding that once the Final EA is completed, the on-the-ground job really begins. Monitoring can determine whether the project-level decision is being implemented as planned (implementation monitoring) and, if so, whether the objectives identified are being achieved in a timely manner (effectiveness monitoring). If monitoring indicates that desired conditions are not being met, other pre-determined management options included in the project decision may be selected for implementation. If monitoring indicates that management is meeting standards, or is making measurable progress toward the desired conditions in an acceptable timeframe, the initial management options may continue (FSH 2209.13, Section 95).

Monitoring for this project will include implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring for the Grassland Plan Goals, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines, as outlined in Chapter 1, and for the mitigation measures that are determined in the Decision Notice. The following additional resource-specific monitoring requirements have also been identified for the proposed project:

• Annual monitoring will continue for the life of the BTM, and would include new permit expansions and a one-mile perimeter. Should sage grouse be observed on USFS lands in the wildlife survey areas, appropriate monitoring and mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize impacts to birds, habitats, and populations.

• Monitoring of storm water runoff, erosion control and water quality as required by the applicable WQD permits.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 19

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 2-1 is focused on activities and effects documented in Chapter 3, where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 2-1. Disturbance summary for TBCC dewatering and overstripping project alternatives.

Features Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action Acres of new mining related 0.0 2641 disturbance on NFS lands Cultural Resources No Effect No Effect Paleo Resources No Effect No Effect Terrestrial Wildlife - T& E No Effect No Effect Terrestrial Wildlife - Sensitive No Effect No Effect Terrestrial Wildlife - MIS No Effect Sage grouse populations will remain viable across the planning unit. Terrestrial Wildlife - Other No Effect May adversely impact Individuals but not likely to cause trend* Aquatic Wildlife – Sensitive May adversely impact May adversely impact Individuals but not likely to cause Individuals but not likely to cause trend* trend* Aquatic Wildlife – MIS No Effect No Effect Plant Species - T & E No Effect No Effect Plant Species - Sensitive No Effect No Effect Social and Economics Short-term loss in work time and/or No work time and/or jobs lost related to jobs if mine not allowed to full decreased coal production resulting develop existing lease due decreased from the ability to fully mine lease coal production related to site safety according to site safety issues issues

* May adversely impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 20

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Chapter 3 summarizes the existing physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in the alternatives chapter.

Affected Environment

The project is within the administrative boundary of the TBNG. The terrain within the project area consists of relatively open, mixed sagebrush and grasslands interspersed with scattered, shallow, ephemeral or intermittent drainages.

The project is located in the Hilight Bill Geographic Area. Minerals exploration and development and livestock grazing are, and will be, significant management activities in this geographic area. Mineral developments and facilities such as coal mines, railroads, oil and gas wells, and pipelines, are and will be, present and will often dominate the landscape. In areas where mining is emphasized, reclamation activities will restore the area to a reasonable level of its pre-mining condition. In some areas, there may be restrictions on public use to ensure public safety and to avoid unreasonable interference with mineral operations.

There will be more development and a moderate number of facilities in this geographic area. Facilities and landscape modifications are visible but reasonably mitigated to blend with natural features to the extent possible. Higher fence densities and extensive mineral development may occur.

Visual Resource Management objectives are to design and implement management activities to blend with the natural landscape. The Visual Quality Objective for the area is modification, a classification that allows management activities to visually dominate the original characteristic landscape.

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class for the project area is semi-primitive motorized. Minimal recreational use occurs in the immediate area. The use primarily is big game hunting. A limited amount of camping, hiking, or mountain biking have also been observed to occur within the immediate area and occur elsewhere on the National Grassland. Livestock grazing is the dominant land use

The project area and immediately adjacent lands are primarily dominated by mixed sagebrush shrublands with the inclusion of upland grassland communities. Shrubs are present in a patchy mosaic of sparse to moderately dense cover throughout the general project area. Even areas classified as sagebrush shrublands have a strong grassland component, including both common native and introduced species. Few shrubs other than big sagebrush exist within the project area.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 21

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The upland habitats within the project and surrounding areas support a wide variety of common vertebrate species including the pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), various lagomorph (rabbits and hares), and rodent species. Numerous resident and seasonal avian species also occur in and near project area, including the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and several other raptor and passerine species. Several species of interest or concern have never been documented during targeted surveys conducted on NFS or surrounding lands in the project area for more than 20 years, or as incidental sightings during other wildlife surveys completed during that period.

Examples of species never recorded within a project area, despite the presence of apparently suitable habitat for some of them, include the plains sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), swift fox (Vulpes velox), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), elk (Cervus elaphus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Limited potential habitat is present for the sharp-tailed grouse (grasslands) and mountain plover (short, sparse vegetation). Elk and white-tailed deer are unlikely to occur regularly in the project area due to the lack of wooded cover and the prevalence of human disturbance. Perennial waterbodies capable of supporting fish populations are not located within the project area, however, limited suitable habitat may exist downstream of the project area. The only reptile and amphibian recorded in the area with any regularity are the prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis viridis) and boreal chorus frogs (Pseudacris maculate), respectively.

The project analysis area overlies directly upon the South Hilight LBA tract and the West Hilight LBA tract. References to such are included in the resource areas throughout Chapter 3. The information in each of the following resource sections is based primarily upon the analysis included in the Wright FEIS (which covered the South and West Hilight LBA tracts) and the supplemental specialist reports. The FEIS and reports were used for the analysis of this project since this proposed project is located on a portion of the analysis area of the South Hilight LBA and a portion of the West Hilight LBA. Each resource analysis used in the Wright FEIS was completed assuming full mine development. The reason for using the Wright FEIS is that analysis provides up-to-date environmental effects and analysis for all resources for activities that are similar in nature, however, much larger in scale (compared to this project) impacts that occur on the exact same piece of land.

The FEIS analysis was included impacts to the area for full scale mine development of a typical truck and shovel benching operation in advance of the dragline and all associated activities, including but not limited to: overstripping, dewatering of the overburden, installation of powerlines, pipelines, roads, railroad facilities, topsoil stockpiling, highwall backsloping (including catch benches), highwall reduction after mining to match undisturbed topography, construction of flood and sediment control structures. The proposed activity of overstripping and dewatering is a one minor activity in the large picture to fully develop the mine and therefore it is assumed that the impacts of this proposed activity (dewatering and overstripping) is significantly less than what was analyzed for full mine development in the Wright FEIS.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 22

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Impacts on the Environment

Impacts are composed of three parts: direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time or further removed in distance. Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR 1508.7).

Cumulative Effects Protocol

Cumulative effects are defined as 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 or person undertakes such other actions…can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).

All projects listed in the Cumulative Effects section below have been implemented (past and present), are currently being developed (future), or are in progress (present and future). Additional project information can be found in the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland, Douglas Ranger District Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) at http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/mbr/landmanagement/projects.

After the project implementation date is 5 years past, the project will be moved into the “Past” column of the cumulative effects table. Given the life of various projects, some project activities may become permanent features in the Cumulative Effects table for certain areas. This protocol is aimed at decreasing the length of the cumulative effects section of an environmental document, yet including all of the appropriate information so as to be thorough and forthcoming with the most current data.

Thunder Basin National Grassland Projects

Travel Management. Travel Management for the Thunder Basin National Grassland. This project covers the entire Grassland. Review and analysis of the roads/trails for designation, include: opening trails/roads, closing trails/roads, converting roads to trails, decommissioning trails/roads, seasonal closures for trails/roads, and constructing trails/roads. Contact: Misty Hays

Inyan Kara Analysis Area Vegetation Management, Phase II. T41-48N, R61-67W. Implement vegetation management to meet the desired goals of the Grassland Plan. Implementation began in the Fall of 2008. Contact: Rachel McGee

Cheatgrass Management Analysis. States of Colorado and Wyoming, including the counties of: Garfield, Grand, Jackson, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt, Albany, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Natrona, Niobrara, Platte, and Weston. This proposal would allow the

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 23

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences aerial application of the herbicides Plateau and Journey to treat infestations of cheatgrass acres on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland. This project is in analysis with a projected decision date of May 2012. Contact: Bob Mountain

Plan Amendment for Prairie Dog Management. T37-48N, R62-73W, and T53-55N, R68- 71W. The ferret reintroduction area boundary has been modified. This project adds management tools for controlling the prairie dog that are not previously available, such as lethal and non-lethal, landownership adjustment, and third-party solutions. Prescribed burning is currently being used to develop appropriate habitat for prairie dogs and associated species. Implementation began in March 2010. Contact: Misty Hays

Land Management Planning Rule. The Department of Agriculture proposes to promulgate a new planning rule, which will set out the process for development, revision, and amendment of National Forest System land management plans. Contact: Larry Hayden

Greater Sage Grouse Plan Amendment. The Thunder Basin NG is a cooperating agency in the development of a programmatic EIS to incorporate greater sage-grouse conservation measures into land management plans through plan amendment, including the TBNG plan. The WY BLM is the lead agency. Contact: Misty Hays.

Analysis Area Projects

Given the above protocol, all projects located in the analysis area for the TBCC dewatering and overstripping are listed in Table 3-1 below by number. All project-specific descriptions are defined beneath the table according to their number. Any additional projects (i.e., more than one coal mine or power line project) of a given project type are then divided by letter (A, B, C, etc.). The associated letter relates to a specific project description listed below the table. In addition, all Forest Service projects are listed with contact information. Other agency or non-agency projects do not include contact information.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 24

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-1. Past, present, and future projects in the analysis area for the TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping.

PAST a PRESENT b FUTURE c Dispersed Recreation Dispersed Recreation Dispersed Recreation Grazing Grazing Grazing Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Roads Roads Roads Railroad Railroad Railroad Coal Mine Coal Mine Coal Mine Utility lines Power plant Utility lines a Past projects are defined as all actions, on record, that were implemented > 5 years ago. b Present projects are defined as all actions, on record, that were implemented < 4 years ago and are currently through the appeal period of the NEPA process. c Future actions are defined as all actions listed on the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the Douglas Ranger District that have not yet been implemented and are in the development process. The “Future” projects must have gone through internal scoping with District resource specialists.

Current Projects within the Proposed Project Area:

1. Wright Area Coal Lease by Application (LBA). Minerals. Contact: Amy Ormseth. Project is located east of Wright, WY. This analysis for this project included the applications for coal leases in the Wright area. It aimed at the continuation of coal mining for the Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, and North Antelope Rochelle Mines. Analysis was completed in July 2010. Conjectured implementation date is Winter 2012.

2. RT Communications, Inc. Keeline to Wright. Special use. Contact: Geri Proctor. T 43N, R 70W (Highways 450, 59, and 387). New fiber optic line would be placed in the right-of-way of WY Highway 450, 90, and 387. This would be on 4.13 miles of National Grassland. Conjectured implementation date is Fall 2012.

3. Antelope Mine Railroad Spur. Minerals. Contact: Amy Ormseth. W 1/2, SW 1/4, Section 1; W 1/2, Section 12; W 1/2, Section 13; SE 1/4, SE 1/4, Section 14, T 40 N, R 71 W, Converse County, Wyoming. Antelope Coal LLC has requested an authorization to amend the existing Antelope Mine special use permit to allow expansion of the railroad spur area associated with expansion and increased capacity of the coal loadout facility.

4. Mackey Road Relocation. Minerals. Contact: Amy Ormseth. T 42 N, R 69 W, Section 6, 7, 8,17, 21, and 22; T 43 N, R 69 W, Section 29, 30, and 31.Powder River Coal, LLC has requested an authorization to vacate and re-locate portions

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 25

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

of CR 69 Mackey (large segment) and temporary CR 83 Reno (small segment) on to Forest Service land.

5. School Creek Mine Ancillary Facilities. Minerals. Contact: Amy Ormseth. Section 11, T 42 N, R 71 W; Section 23, Section 21, Section 22; Section 26-27 T 42 N, R 70 W; Section 18, T 42 N, R 69 W, Campbell County, Wyoming. West Roundup Resources, Inc. (WRR) has requested an authorization to amend the existing School Creek Mine special use permit (SUP) to include an additional (approximately) 663 acres of National Forest Service (NFS) land.

6. Thunder Basin Coal Company – Scoria Mining. Minerals. Contact: Amy Ormseth. NFS lands within the analysis area include portions of Sections 11-14 and 23-25, T43N R70W, 6th Principal Meridian, Campbell County. The USFS is proposing to authorize TBCC a permit to allow acquisition of an adequate supply of aggregate construction material to support required maintenance and changes in infrastructure necessary for mining activities. Only small parcels no more than 20 acres of the larger approved project will be authorized for clinker removal at any given time. Areas will need to be reclaimed prior to next logical unit would have clinker removed.

7. Black Thunder Mine – Topsoil and Overburden Storage. Minerals. Contact: Amy Ormseth. W½, Section 22, W½, Section 27, T. 43 N., R. 71 W., 6th Principal Meridian, Campbell County. The USFS proposes to authorize TBCC, operator of BTM, right-of-entry access to NFS lands on the TBNG for the purpose of constructing and storing topsoil and overburden stockpiles.

8. North Antelope Rochelle Mine – Dewatering. Minerals. Contact: Amy Ormseth. W½, Section 35, T42N, R71W (~ 320 acres) and N½ N½, Section 25 and N½ NE¼, Section 26, T42N, R71W(~ 247 acres), 6th Principal Meridian, Campbell County. The USFS proposes to authorize Peabody Powder River Mining, LLC (PPRM), operator of the North Antelope-Rochelle Mine (NARM), right-of-entry access to NFS lands to conduct exploration drilling and install overburden dewatering wells and associated facilities to facilitate full development of their existing federal coal lease (WYW 150210).

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 26

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Heritage - Cultural Resources Existing Conditions

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 project 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.)

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).

The Class III cultural resources survey has been completed, however, 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.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 27

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 literature and records reviews 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 project analysis area.

The project analysis area overlies directly upon the South Hilight LBA tract and the West Hilight LBA tract. References for the heritage resources summarized in this section where completed during the Wright FEIS analysis. The information in each of the following resource sections is based primarily upon the analysis included in the Wright FEIS (which covered the South and West Hilight LBA tracts) and the supplemental specialist reports. The FEIS and reports were used for the analysis of this project since this proposed project is located on a portion of the analysis area of the South Hilight LBA and a portion of the West Hilight LBA.

The general analysis areas of the project have been 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. 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. GCM Services, Inc. of Butte, Montana was contracted to perform literature and records reviews 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.

A total of thirty-six (36) cultural sites have been documented in the South Hilight Field general analysis area. Of these, 18 are prehistoric, 12 are historic, and six are multi- component sites. Prehistoric sites consist primarily of lithic scatters and campsites. Historic sites consist primarily of homesteads and trash dumps.

Twenty-three (23) of the previously recorded sites have been determined not eligible for the NRHP by the agency with SHPO concurrence. Thirteen (13) of the previously recorded sites are considered unevaluated by the agency and all will require further work including historic documentation, updated site recording, and additional subsurface testing in order for the agency to make an eligibility determination and consult with SHPO. There are no NRHP- eligible sites documented in the general analysis area for the South Hilight Field LBA Tract at this time.

A total of twenty-two (22) cultural sites have been documented in the West Hilight Field general analysis area. Of these, one (1) site has previously been determined National Register

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 28

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible (48CA132). The other 21 sites have been determined not eligible for the NRHP by the agency with SHPO concurrence.

Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis)

Alternative 1: No Action

The No Action Alternative would result in no impact to cultural resources from this proposed project. However, since South Hilight LBA has sold, the sites will be impacted due to direct mining activities once the lease is formally incorporated into the existing mine permit and required as part of the State of Wyoming DEQ mine permit process. That incorporation will take approximately 2 to 3 years.

The West Hilight LBA tract has not currently been processed. However, if this tract is completely as proposed, processed and the lease sold, the sites will be impacted due to direct mining activities. Those impacts were analyzed and mitigation plan will be required as part of the State of Wyoming DEQ mine permit process.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

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 shall be protected from disturbance. 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 shall not 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 project area 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.

In addition, the following design criteria will apply: • The authorized user shall protect all cultural resource properties that have been determined eligible or unevaluated to the National Register of Historic Places within TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 29

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

the lease area from lease-related activities until the cultural resource mitigation measures or site evaluations 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. • The cost of conducting the inventory, preparing reports, and carrying out mitigation measures shall be borne by the authorized user. • If cultural resources are discovered during operations, the authorized user shall immediately bring them to the attention of the District Ranger of the Douglas Ranger District. The permittee shall not disturb such resources except as may be subsequently authorized by the District Ranger. Within two (2) working days of notification, the District Ranger 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 District Ranger. • All cultural resources shall remain under the jurisdiction of the United States until ownership is determined under applicable law.

Cumulative Effects for the Proposed Action The cumulative effects assume that this area of land is fully developed as part of the Black Thunder Mine as the South Hilight LBA has been sold. This alternative is consistent with Forest Plan direction, and the absence of cultural resources or sites eligible for NRHP listing in the proposal area indicates that the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse impact to historic cultural resources in combination with other actions in the region. 3.2 Paleontological Resources Existing Conditions

The project analysis area overlies directly upon the South Hilight LBA tract and the West Hilight LBA tract. References for the paleontological resources summarized in this section where completed during the Wright FEIS analysis. The information in each of the following resource sections is based primarily upon the analysis included in the Wright FEIS (which covered the South and West Hilight LBA tracts) and the supplemental specialist reports. The FEIS and reports were used for the analysis of this project since this proposed project is located on a portion of the analysis area of the South Hilight LBA and a portion of the West Hilight LBA.

The surface geologic unit of the proposal area has been mapped as the Paleocene-Eocene Fort Union Formation (Love and Christiansen 1985, Denson et al. 1989). In the PRB, the Fort Union Fm. is a heterogeneous unit of sedimentary rocks that was deposited mainly in fluvial environments. Occurrences of scientifically significant fossils have been sporadic within the TBNG due to the relative scarcity of bedrock outcrops and, possibly, taphonomic factors affecting the preservation of fossil bone in proximity to coal depositional environments.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 30

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The USFS Rocky Mountain Region has developed a Fossil Yield Potential Classification (FYPC) of geological formations reflecting their probability of containing vertebrate fossil resources. The FYPC is designed to provide Forest Service management with a way to prioritize protection of paleontological resources. Under this system, surficial formations are classified on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 as the highest paleontological sensitivity) to reflect the likelihood of containing vertebrate fossils. The Fort Union Formation in the project area has been ranked as a Class 3 formation under the FYPC system. Class 3 geologic units are defined by the Forest Service as “fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence; or sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential.” A pedestrian survey of the potentially productive portions of a project area is required for formations ranked as levels 3 through 5. A paleontological resource evaluation of the proposal area was conducted by a USFS approved paleontologist in July 2009. No vertebrate fossils or other significant paleontological resources were observed during the survey. The entire project area was block surveyed. A report documenting the findings of the survey was prepared and submitted to the TBNG-DRD for review.

Two new paleontological localities were discovered in the project area that is the same as the South Hilight LBA field tract. The first locality contained abundant multi-specific leaf impressions in a buff to tan, very thinly-bedded sandy siltstone within the Wasatch Formation. The fossil-bearing unit was approximately 0.3 meters thick and overlaid a carbonaceous shale. Exposed bedrock from this locality weathered buff to light brown and tended to break along bedding planes. Leaf impressions were oriented parallel to bedding planes and the preservation of leaf morphology was excellent. Occasional woody debris up to 5 centimeters in diameter was also present. The leaf impressions were identified as Glyptostrobus sp. from the Cupressaceae family and an unknown genus of the family Betulaceae. The type of fossil material at this locality was considered relatively common, and although the locality may have scientific interest, it was considered to have low scientific significance. No specimens were collected or reposited for curation from this locality.

The second locality covered an area of approximately 50 square meters and consisted of dark brown, carbonaceous shale with extremely abundant, multispecific paleofloral remains. The carbonaceous shale was overlain by a thin (1 meter) buff, fine-grained, poorly consolidated sandstone. The sandstone was overlain by another carbonaceous shale, which weathers to a comparatively reddish horizon. The carbonaceous shale overlying the sandstone horizon also contained leaves, but the fossils were less abundant and exhibited poorer preservation. The upper horizon was exposed throughout the outcrop, whereas the lower, more productive horizon was only exposed along the eastern half because the beds dip to the west at approximately 10 degrees. Within the lower carbonaceous shale, clastic material and preservation quality of individual leaves both increased upwards. The lower portions of the horizon were composed almost entirely of leaf remnants, many of which have preserved organic material. The abundance of leaves in the lower shale made identification of individual specimens (i.e., leaf margins) difficult. All of the leaf impressions were representative of angiosperm (broadleaf) species. Specimens representing Betulaceae, Nyssa sp. and TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 31

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Archeampelos sp. were tentatively identified. Occasional seed pods and possible fruit structures are occasionally present. No large pieces of petrified wood were identified at this locality. The type of fossil material at this locality is considered relatively common. Because the locality contains such abundant material, it may be representative of the local paleofloral community and useful in paleoecologic and paleoclimatic reconstructions. Furthermore, because its stratigraphic location near the base of the Wasatch Formation places it near the Paleocene-Eocene boundary, this location may represent a paleoflora from the PETM, a brief warm period marked by floral and faunal migrations which has been intensively studied over the past decade (Wing et al. 2005). Paleobotanists with potential interest in the locality (Scott Wing – Smithsonian Institution and Kirk Johnson – Denver Museum of Nature and Science) were informed of its location and potential significance. No specimens were collected or reposited for curation from this locality.

One locality was located in the portion of the West Hilight tract as a result of the field survey. This locality contained scattered bone and petrified wood fragments. Bone fragments have weathered to a dull yellow or brown color. All fragments except one were smaller than one square inch. The fossils were found weathering from Wasatch Formation regolith. Due to the flat topography, no contextual geologic data could be collected. The fragments were not identifiable in terms of animal type or anatomy. Examination of anthills in the vicinity of the locality produced no teeth or other bone fragments. Although the fragments were broken and weathered beyond the point of usefulness, they were well preserved and hard, indicating that identifiable fragments may exist. However, discovery of identifiable fossils was considered unlikely due to the low density of bones at the ground surface and overall limited ground visibility. Thus, the locality was considered to have low scientific significance, and no specimens were collected or reposited for curation from this locality.

Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis)

Alternative 1: No Action

The No Action Alternative will have no impact on paleontological resources as no such resources of scientific significance were observed during the paleontological resource survey. However, if/when the South Hilight and West Hilight LBA’s are processed and the leases sold the sites identified above will be impacted due to mining activities.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

All localities identified in the 2009 survey would likely be affected by activities under the Proposed Action. One locality, in particular, was noted for the abundance and quality of fossil preservation and the relative significance of its position in the stratigraphic record. However, due to the absence of scientifically significant fossil specimens (e.g., new or rare occurrences), the qualified paleontologist who conducted the survey does not recommend any additional specific mitigation measures for this locality, aside from the notification of potentially interested researchers.

Paleontological resources adjacent to the mine areas may be impacted as a result of increased access to the areas. There may be increased unauthorized collecting of fossils associated with

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 32

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences recreational activity and other pursuits outside of but adjacent to mine permit areas. Unintended 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 paleontological resources.

Fossils of scientific significance could be present within the project area but not exposed at the surface. Under the Proposed Action, some of those paleontological resources would be destroyed when overburden is removed.

The discovery of any and all fossils as the result of operations associated with the proposed project shall immediately be brought to the attention of the District Ranger. The authorized user shall cease operations until authorized to proceed by the District Ranger.

Cumulative Effects for the Proposed Action

The impacts of this project will not contribute to the cumulative impacts to paleontological resources. Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would result mainly from extensive coal extraction activities within the vicinity of the project area. Some alterations to surface topography from construction may result from additional exploration and development near that area, as well. Surface disturbance associated with these activities could result in some permanent loss of paleontological information. Additional resources may continue to be discovered and/or destroyed as a result of mineral extraction surrounding the project area; however, this is unlikely if Grassland Plan Standard and Guidelines are followed and appropriate project design criteria are employed.

3.3 Air Quality

The information in this section is based upon the air analysis that was used for the Wright FEIS and supplemental air reports. These reports were used for the analysis of this project since this proposed project is located on a portion of the analysis area of the South Hilight LBA and a portion of the West Hilight LBA. The air analysis was completed assuming full mine development. The FEIS covered an in depth analysis and supplemental reports for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide, PM2.5 (NAAQS and for Class I and Class II areas), PM10 (NAAQS and for Class I and Class II areas), visibility, and other NAAQS requirements in GHG. The FEIS analysis was conducted primarily from modeling and from actual monitors in the area for full scale mine development of a typical truck and shovel benching operation in advance of the dragline and all associated activities, including but not limited to: overstripping, dewatering of the overburden, installation of powerlines, pipelines, roads, railroad facilities, topsoil stockpiling, highwall backsloping (including catch benches), highwall reduction after mining to match undisturbed topography, construction of flood and sediment control structures proposed activity of overstripping and dewatering is a one minor activity in the large picture to fully develop the mine and therefore it is assumed that the impacts of this proposed activity (dewatering and overstripping) is significantly less than what was analyzed for full mine development in the Wright FEIS.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 33

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This section summarizes the affected environment in the general Wright analysis area and the potential air quality impacts if the West Hilight Field and South Hilight Field tracts are fully developed as a mine since the proposed dewatering and overstripping project take place directly on these lease tracts.

For further detail and analysis please refer to the Wright Area FEIS as this report is direct citation from that analysis and reports.

3.3.1 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 down slope 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 east-central 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 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, 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 (WYDEQ/AQD) under the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP).

3.3.1.1 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

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 34

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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. 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 for particulate matter associated with surface coal mining and preparation. The primary direct source of gaseous emissions from surface coal mining operations is tailpipe exhaust from large mining equipment and other vehicle traffic inside the mine permit area. Small amounts of gaseous pollutants are also emitted from small stationary boilers and off-road diesel engines. The federal and Wyoming state ambient air quality standards for the six criteria pollutants are shown in Table 3-8.

Overburden and coal blasting sometimes produces gaseous, orange-colored 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. The Federal and Wyoming State 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; • 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 lease 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.

3.3.2 Particulate Emissions

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment for Particulate Emissions

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 35

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 of the Wright Area FEIS. 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. WY-DEQ/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 48,950 PM10 samples had been collected through 2008. 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.

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 applicant mines (Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle) are shown in the Wright FIES - 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 three applicant Wright area coal (WAC) mines’ particulate monitoring samplers from 1998 through 2008. Annual coal and overburden production for the three WAC 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 three applicant mines through 2007. From 2001 through 2006 there were a total of nine exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 particulate standard associated with the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. Prior to 2007, there was no mechanism in place to account for exceedances demonstrated to be the result of natural events. The WY-DEQ/AQD

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 36

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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 more detail 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.

In 2007, a total of three 24-hour PM10 exceedances were reported at the three WAC mines (two at North Antelope Rochelle, one at Black Thunder, and none at Jacobs Ranch). These three exceedances reported in 2007 have been flagged by EPA as exceptional events under the NEAP and will not be considered when determining the region’s air quality designation.

One 24-hour PM10 particulate standard exceedance was reported by the Black Thunder Mine and no 24-hour PM10 exceedances were reported by the Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle mines in 2008 (Wright FEIS 2010). The single exceedance reported in 2008 at the Black Thunder mine was determined to be a valid exceedance (not considered to be an exceptional event under the NEAP) and a notice of violation was subsequently issued to the mine (Wright FEIS 2010).

No exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 particulate standard were reported by the three WAC mines, or any of the other surface coal mines in the PRB in 2009 (Wright FEIS 2010).

3.3.2.2 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 micrometers in diameter and smaller), have been linked to numerous respiratory-related illnesses and can adversely affect individuals with pre- existing heart or lung diseases. 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.

Alternative 1: No Action

The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas until the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

Coal mining associated with the TBCC- BTM would continue on existing leased areas within portions of, and/or surrounding, the project area. When advancement of the mine continues to approaches the lease boundary the mine will not be able to fully extract any additional coal in a safe and effective operating condition until the the new leases can be incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 37

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Potential particulate emissions related to mining operations at the existing Black Thunder are described below. As parts of the 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 the Wright FEIS 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 14.91μg/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 13.50 μg/m3 concentration value for PM10 modeling. Predicted PM10 emissions from the other regional mining operations were inventoried using those mines’ most recent WY-DEQ/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.

As discussed in the Wright FEIS, surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB have not been subject to PSD requirements. Only some fraction of the mine emissions included in the WY- DEQ/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 WY-DEQ/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 WY-DEQ/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

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 38

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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. WY-DEQ 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 a total of nine exceedances of the 24- hour PM10 particulate standards associated with the three applicant mines. These nine exceedances were all associated with elevated wind speeds exceeding 20 mph, which could have qualified as exceptional events under the NEAP. In 2007, a total of 11 exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 particulate standards were reported by six mines in the PRB; three of which were reported by the WAC mines (two at North Antelope Rochelle, one at Black Thunder, and none at Jacobs Ranch). These three exceedances reported in 2007 have been flagged by EPA as exceptional events under the NEAP. One exceedance of the 24-hour PM10 particulate standard was reported by the Black Thunder Mine and no 24-hour PM10 exceedances were reported by the Jacobs Ranch and North Antelope Rochelle mines in 2008 (Wright FEIS 2010). The single exceedance reported in 2008 at the Black Thunder mine was determined to be a valid exceedance (not considered to be an exceptional event under the NEAP) and a notice of violation was subsequently issued to the mine (Wright FEIS 2010). No exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 particulate standard were reported by the three WAC mines, or any of the other surface coal mines in the PRB in 2009 (Wright FEIS 2010).

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. 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 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

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 39

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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.

3.3.2.2.1.1 Current Mining Rates

According to TBCC, production would continue at an average rate of 135 million tons per year (mmtpy).

Black Thunder Mine obtained a new air quality permit for the Black Thunder and Jacobs Ranch mines in 2010. The operations of these two mines were combined for the 2010 permit application. The state DEQ prepared permit application analysis AP-10986 in December 2010 based upon information provided by the mine operator. This analysis presented modeled impacts to annual PM2.5 concentrations as well as 24-hour measured concentrations at the PM2.5 monitor located near the Black Thunder Mine. The PM2.5 information from this permit application is presented below. Because the rates of mining operations are not expected to change if the requested tracts are leased, the impacts from the mines to PM2.5 concentrations are not expected to change and therefore the analysis completed for the existing mines (presented below) represents the impacts to PM2.5 concentrations that may be expected if the requested tracts are mined. The Environmental Protection Agency regulates atmospheric concentrations of particulate matter in two forms, as PM10 and PM2.5. PM10 includes particles suspended in the atmosphere that are 10 micrometers or less in size. PM2.5 includes only those particles in the ambient air that are 2.5 micrometers or less in size, and is thus a subset of PM10. PM10 has been regulated since 1987, and PM2.5 since 1997. As indicated in the Wright FEIS (p. 3-51), there are separate federal standards for PM10 and PM2.5, as well as Wyoming state standards. Federal standards are expressed as primary and secondary standards, where primary standards are designed to protect human health and secondary standards are designed to protect the public welfare. These standards are repeated in the table below.

Table 3-2. Applicable Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (in µg/m3) Federal (primary and secondary) Wyoming a a PM2.5 24-hour 35 35 Annual 15 b 15 b c c PM10 24-hour 150 150 Annual ------50 d a 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years b Annual arithmetic mean, averaged over 3 years c Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over a 3-year period

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 40

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

d Annual arithmetic mean

As shown in the table above, there are short-term (24-hour) and long-term (annual) standards for PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations. The WY-DEQ does not endorse the use of air quality modeling to predict short-term impacts from coal mine fugitive particulate emissions as air quality models tend to over predict 24-hour impacts from surface coal mines (Permit Application Analysis AP-10986). As a result, the state has an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct monitoring in place of modeling to assess short- term particulate concentrations. The state operates a PM2.5 monitor at the Black Thunder mine. The permit application analysis AP-10986 discusses the historical ambient monitoring results for this group of mines. Table 3-3 below summarizes the data from the PM2.5 monitor for the years 2007 through 2009. 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 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 and were included in the Wright FEIS.

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 BTM. 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 BTM LNCM boundary of 41.9 μg/m3 in 2015 and 49.96 μg/m3 (very close to the standard) in 2017. Coal production in both years was modeled at the maximum permitted annual production level of 135 million tons. The locations of the maximum- modeled PM10 concentrations for 2015 and 2017 are shown on Wright FEIS Figures 3-7 and 3-8, respectively.

3 Table 3-3. Ambient Monitored PM2.5 Concentrations at the Black Thunder Mine (µg/m ) (Source: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Permit Application Analysis AP- 10986, December 15, 2010) Annual Average Annual PM2.5 98th Percentile 24- 24-hour PM2.5 1 2 Year PM2.5 NAAQS hour Average PM2.5 NAAQS 2007 6.59 19 2008 5.21 17.2 2009 4.07 15 9.5 35 3-Year Average 5.29 15.23

1 3 To attain the annual standard, the 3-year average of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations must not exceed 15.0 µg/m .

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 41

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

2 To attain the 24-hour standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations must not exceed 35 µg/m3.

3.3.2.3 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 WY-DEQ/AQD permits for all of the surface coal mines in the PRB require the following dust control measures, which are considered to be Best Available Control Methods (BACMs):

1. As use and condition warrant, the minor access roads at coal mines that are unpaved must be watered or treated with dust suppressants.

Additional site-specific requirements related to mine-specific layout and mining practices may be included in individual mine and air quality permits. Fugitive emissions are also controlled with a variety of other measures that the WY-DEQ/AQD considers BACT.

Timely temporary and permanent revegetation of disturbed areas is utilized to minimize wind erosion. All of these control measures are employed at the BTM.

In response to the measured exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS in certain areas of the PRB and in anticipation of possible future exceedances, the WY-DEQ/AQD in a joint effort with PRB mining stakeholders, developed a Natural Events Action Plan, or NEAP, for the coal mines of the PRB in April 2006 (revised January 2007). The NEAP was developed under the framework afforded by EPA’s Natural Events Policy of May 30, 1996. EPA Region VIII approved the WY-DEQ NEAP on March 13, 2007, and the PRB mining operators have implemented these measures and are presently complying with the NEAP.

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 required BACMs. EPA’s Exceptional Event Rule of March 22, 2007 no longer requires a NEAP. However, according to the preamble to the Exceptional Event Rule (signed March 22, 2007, effective May 21, 2007), “The EPA believes that it is advantageous for states to keep NEAPs in place that are currently being implemented in order to address the public health impacts associated with recurring natural events such as high wind events. “However, following the promulgation of this rule, states will no longer be required to keep NEAPs in place that were not approved as a part of a SIP for an area.” WY-DEQ will retain the NEAP because it provides the flexibility to control other emission sources, like fugitive emission sources, that otherwise might not be controlled with BACT. The BACM specified in the NEAP contains an appropriate and reasonable minimum level of control as required under the Exceptional Event Rule for the PRB coal mines. WY-DEQ/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

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 42

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences the Black Thunder Mine 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.

In addition, WY-DEQ/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 WY-DEQ/AQD is continually reviewing the data and considering regulatory options, such as increasing the frequency of monitoring to be used as a means of better evaluating dust problems. For example, where elevated emissions have occurred, WY-DEQ/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. WY-DEQ/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. WY-DEQ/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 the Wright FEIS Appendix F. WY-DEQ/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

3.3.3 Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Ozone (O3)

3.3.3.1 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 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 (Wright FEIS 2010):

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 43

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• 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 (Wright FEIS 2010).

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 “bad.” Motor vehicle exhaust and emissions from industrial sources contain NOX and in the presence of VOCs react to form ground-level O3. 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 WY-DEQ/AQD at the PRB coal mines, but levels have been monitored by WY-DEQ/AQD at its ambient air quality

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 44

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences monitoring sites in the PRB since 2001 (Table 3-3). An exceedance of the O3 8-hour standard occurs if the 4th-highest daily maximum value is above the level of the standard.

3.3.3.1.1 Site Specific NOX and O3 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.

Table 3-4. 2001 Through 2008 Annual 4th Max, 8-Hour Average Ozone Values (ppm).

Site Address 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TBNG 0.069 0.071 0.074 0.065 0.063 0.072 0.072 0.074 Campbell County -- -- 0.077 0.061 0.063 0.065 0.072 0.064

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

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 WY-DEQ 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 3.3.3.2. 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. Table 3-4 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 the Campbell County site).

3.3.3.2 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 reactants 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;

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 45

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• 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 (Wright FEIS 2010).

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 (Wright FEIS 2010).

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” (Wright FEIS 2010). WY-DEQ has yet not established a WAAQS for NO2 for averaging times shorter than one year. EPA recently set a 1-hour NO2 NAAQS at 100 parts per billion (ppb) effective January 22, 2010.

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 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 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 µg/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 µg/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

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 46

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• EPA recommends that concentrations not exceed 0.5 ppm (940 μg/m3) for a 10-minute exposure to protect sensitive members of the public (Wright FEIS 2010).

The Black Thunder Mine also conducted a study designed to provide information on safe setback distances for blasting activities at that mine (Wright FEIS 2010).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 NO X 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.

No Action Alternative

The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas until the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

Proposed Action

Potential NOX emissions are directly related to mining operations at the existing Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines are described in the Wright Area FEIS.

The proposed action does not authorize additional blasting activities or mining activities, which are the primary contributing factors to NOx and therefore it is assumed that this proposed action does not contribute any additional impacts to NOx.

3.3.4 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

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 47

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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.

3.3.4.1 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. (Wright FEIS 2010).. Visibility is also expressed in terms of deciview (dv). The dv index was developed as a linear perceived visual change (Wright FEIS 2010). 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 circumstances. Increasing dv values represent proportionately larger perceived visibility impairment.

3.3.4.1.1 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.” WY-DEQ/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 WY-DEQ/AQD visibility program website at http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/visibility.asp (WY-DEQ/AQD 2009-Wright FEIS 2010). The Regional Haze Rule calls for improved visibility on the most-impaired days and no additional improvement 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.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 48

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3-19 of the Wright Area FEIS shows annual averages, based on the new algorithm, for the 20 percent best (clearest), average, and worst (haziest) visibility days at the four IMPROVE visibility monitoring sites located within approximately 200 miles of the general Wright analysis area (IMPROVE 2010 -Wright FEIS 2010). These historical visibility data, in deciview, for the Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks in South Dakota, and the Bridger/Fitzpatrick and Cloud Peak Wilderness Areas in Wyoming, are depicted on Figure 3- 19. Visibility data for all IMPROVE visibility monitoring sites in the U.S. are available on the Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) website at http://views.cira.colostate.edu/ web/Trends/. Visibility data for Badlands National Park have statistically shown a trend toward improved visibility on the least-, average-, and most impaired days. The visibility data for the Bridger/Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas have statistically shown a trend toward improved visibility on the average- and least-impaired days and a trend toward greater perceived visibility impairment on the most-impaired days. The visibility data for Wind Cave National Park have statistically shown a trend toward improved visibility on the least- and most-impaired days and a trend toward greater perceived visibility impairment on the average-impaired days.

Environmental Consequences for Visibility

No Action Alternative

The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas until the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

Proposed Action

The impacts to visibility from the proposed action was found to have no additional impact to visibility but would just extend the length of years that the current impacts. Given that the proposed action (dewatering and overstripping) is a significantly smaller footprint and impact (both direct and indirect) than of full mine development it is assumed that this action would not have additional impact to visibility.

3.4 Wildlife Resources

The project analysis area overlies directly upon the South Hilight LBA tract and the West Hilight LBA tract. References for the wildlife resources summarized in this section where completed during the Wright FEIS analysis. The information in each of the following

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 49

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences resource sections is based primarily upon the analysis included in the Wright FEIS (which covered the South and West Hilight LBA tracts) and the supplemental specialist reports. The FEIS and reports were used for the analysis of this project since this proposed project is located on a portion of the analysis area of the South Hilight LBA and a portion of the West Hilight LBA.

Wildlife analyses presented in this Environmental Assessment tier directly to the Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) that was prepared for the NEPA analyses for the Wright FEIS on NFS land that has been reviewed and approved by the Forest Service. Updated information was included from the umbrella BA/BE that is prepared annually, reviewed, and approved by USFS biologists for the Black Thunder Mine. This information was all used as the activity occurs in the site specific location on the ground as the two anaylsis covers.

Background information on wildlife in the general project area was drawn from several sources, including WY-GFD and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) records, the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD), recent PRB federal coal lease application EIS documents and personal contacts with WY-GFD and USFWS biologists. Site-specific data was obtained from several sources, including baseline information contained in WY- DEQ/LQD mine permit applications and annual wildlife monitoring reports for the applicant mines and nearby coal mines. In accordance with the current WY-DEQ/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.

Due to the proximity of the proposed project to the adjacent applicant mine permit areas, the general analysis areas that overlap the project area and 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. The proposed activity here overlaps a portion of the West Hilight LBA and all of the South Hilight LBA field tracts.

All or portions of the analysis area have also been monitored for various vertebrate species of concern annually since at least 1994 (in the mine annual reporting), and considerably longer for some species (e.g., sage-grouse and nesting raptors) as part of annual wildlife monitoring programs for overlapping coal mines. Surveys for all annual monitoring and NEPA projects were conducted by qualified biologists following appropriate agency protocols for data collection and reporting. Annual wildlife reports for those mines and annual updates to current umbrella BA/BE analyses are on file with the Douglas Ranger District.

The topography within the general Wright analysis area 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) 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

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 50

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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, south, and north of the proposed project. Elevations range from approximately 4,690 to 5,170 feet above sea level.

In an undisturbed condition, the major vegetation types in the general analysis area provide high quality habitats for many species. Vegetation types tend to occur in a mosaic across the landscape; therefore, many wildlife species can be expected to utilize more than one habitat type. Predominant wildlife habitat types classified on the project area 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 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 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.

3.4.1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Vertebrate Species

Existing Conditions

Every federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species, and their habitats that could potentially occur in the TBNG, or that are located on, adjacent to, or downstream of the proposed project area and could potentially be affected, were considered and/or selected for evaluation. The endangered black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) was the only vertebrate species listed by the USFWS for Campbell County in 2009 (USFWS 2009). The Campbell County list was

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 51

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

updated in July 2010 to account for recent changes in species status (USFWS July 2010). The black-footed ferret is no longer listed in Campbell County, but it remains a federally listed species and is therefore discussed in this section. The sage-grouse is now a candidate species. Analyses of federal T&E plant species are presented in Section 3.4 of this document. Information regarding the evaluated T&E vertebrate species, the potential for their occurrence in the project area, their actual occurrence in the local area, and presence of appropriate habitat in the project area is presented in Table 3-4. No critical habitat has been designated in the project area for any vertebrate T&E species; no critical habitat has been designated in the project area for vertebrate candidate or proposed species either.

Table 3-5. Occurrence and availability of species and suitable habitats for federally Endangered and Threatened vertebrate species within the project area.

Potential for Presence of Occurrence in Evaluated Species Occurrence Habitat in Project Local Area in Project Area Area E Black-footed ferret Very Unlikely1,2, 3 Undocumented1,2,3 Limited1,2,3 Mustela nigripes

1 Based on USFWS block clearance for this species in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming; Forest Service and TWC data collected from species-specific surveys in the analysis area; and baseline studies and annual monitoring efforts at local coal mines from 1984 through 2009 (summary reports of those data are on file with the Forest Service and WY-DEQ). 2 Derived from Cerovski et al. (2004) and the USFWS (2010). 3 As indicated by the Forest Service (2002) and WY-GFD (Grenier 2003) regarding designated black-footed ferret reintroduction areas. E Classified as “Endangered” under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Black-footed Ferret The black-footed ferret is largely a nocturnal mammal and an obligate associate of prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.). This species relies exclusively on prairie dog colonies for food and shelter (Clark and Stromberg 1987). Ferrets produce one litter per year, typically giving birth to four or five kits. Currently, an introduced group in south-central Wyoming is the only known black-footed ferret population within the state, though other populations are present elsewhere in the United States and Mexico. The USFWS issued a block clearance for black- footed ferrets in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout the entire state of Wyoming (file letter ES-61411/BFF/WY7746) on February 2, 2004.

No black-footed ferrets have been documented within the analysis area (project area and 1.0- mile perimeter) for the proposed dewatering and overstripping area during nocturnal surveys conducted for ferrets and other targeted species using appropriate agency protocols over the last 20 years.

Fifteen prairie dog colonies (approximately 336.2 total acres) were found within 2 miles of the general analysis area for the project area. Only two colonies (approximately 0.1 and 89.1

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 52

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences acres in size) are within the general analysis area for the tract. None of the colonies have been designated for ferret reintroductions (refer to Management Area 3.63-USFS 2009 Plan Amendment), and all are currently being or will be impacted or removed by ongoing or future mining activities or other energy development activities (e.g., oil and gas production). Refer to the Biological Evaluation completed for the Wright FEIS and certification for this direct project for additional information regarding these colonies, on file with the Douglas Ranger District, Douglas, Wyoming.

Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis)

A summary of determinations of effect for vertebrate T&E species is provided in Table 3-5.

Alternative 1: No Action

The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas until the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Determination of Effect and Rationale

No surface disturbance would occur in any of the colonies. None of these colonies have been designated for ferret reintroductions, and all are currently being or will be impacted or removed by ongoing or future mining activities or other energy development activities (e.g., oil and gas production). Given these factors, as well as the block clearance issued by the USFWS for black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout the entire state of Wyoming, and the documented absence of black-footed ferrets from the analysis area, the Proposed Action will have no effect on black-footed ferrets.

Implementation of the Proposed Action will have “No Effect” on black-footed ferrets or their habitat.

Cumulative Effects for the Proposed Action

Cumulative effects are defined under the NEPA process as the incremental impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions conducted by any entity (federal, state, private, and others). Cumulative effects under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are those effects of future State or private activities and not involving Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 53

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-6. Determinations of effect and their primary justification for federally Endangered and Threatened vertebrate species within the TBCC dewatering and overstripping project area. Evaluated Species Effects Determination Justification Alternative 1 Alternative 2

(No Action) (Proposed Action) Block cleared in region by USFWS, no record of species Black-footed ferret No Effect No Effect presence, negligible disturbance of appropriate habitat.

3.4.2 USFS Region 2 - Sensitive Species

Additional species considered are those identified by the Regional Forester as Sensitive Species. Species are classified 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 the above criteria, a ranking system is used to identify species for Sensitive status, which is outlined in Forest Service Manual 2670 - 2671.

Existing Conditions

The Forest Service has developed a list of sensitive mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, insects, mollusks, and plants for Region 2 (Forest Service Manual 2672.11 R2 FSM Supplement No. 2600-2003-1, Exhibit 01). That list is updated periodically; the most current list (June 2009) is available on the Forest Service website at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/sensitivespecies/index.shtml#mammals. The complete list is of current Region 2 Sensitive vertebrate species is provided in Appendix E of the wildlife Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation for this project, on file with the Douglas Ranger District. Sensitive plant species are addressed in Section 3.5 (Vegetation Resources) of this Environmental Assessment and in the vegetation Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation document.

All vertebrate and invertebrate species on the Region 2 Sensitive Species list were reviewed to determine which should be considered for full evaluation. Sensitive Species or their habitats (occupied or unoccupied) that are known or suspected to occur in; near, or downstream of the proposed project area are listed in Table 3-7. If a species was known to occur in or near the proposed project area, or suitable but unoccupied habitat was present and would be disturbed by the Proposed Action, then potential effects were evaluated. If suitable habitat was not present, or was present but would not be impacted, further analysis was not conducted. Justifications for eliminating species from further consideration are also included

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 54

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences in Table 3-7, as appropriate.

Seventeen vertebrate species were identified that could potentially be impacted by the Proposed Action. Many sensitive vertebrates and one invertebrate that had been documented on the TBNG were not evaluated further because of an obvious lack of appropriate habitat on NFS land in or near the project area, or because no such habitat will be physically disturbed or otherwise affected by implementation of the Proposed Action.

Certain sensitive fish species and avian species dependent on water were excluded because suitable habitat does not exist in, near, or downstream of the project area Likewise, all other water or wetland-obligate species were excluded because the entire project will occur in upland habitats. Species requiring forested habitats (some bats, hawks, and songbirds) or cliff-lined rivers (e.g., some falcons) were eliminated due to the lack of such features in the project area. Due to the presence of sagebrush in the part of the analysis area, the greater sage-grouse was included in the evaluation. That species is also discussed in the Management Indicator Species section of this document.

Table 3-7. U.S. Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species (vertebrate fauna): General habitat characteristics and presence1, species occurrence, and rationale if excluded from analysis for the TBCC dewatering and overstripping project area.

Suitable Rationale if Not Common Name Occurrence Habitat in Habitat Carried Scientific name on TBNG Project Forward for Analysis Area Mammals Very Townsend's big-eared bat Caves and Known Limited Evaluated Plecotus townsendii abandoned mines occurrence

Juniper mixed Field visits confirmed Spotted bat with sage near Known None no suitable habitat is Eudema maculatum cliffs and occurrence present outcrops Coniferous forests, Fringed myotis bat Known Very woodlands, Evaluated Myotis thysandes occurrence Limited grasslands, and shrublands, No suitable habitat is Hoary Bat No None present Evaluated: No new Black-tailed prairie dog Grassland Known None habitat disturbance Cynomys ludovicianus Shrub-grasslands occurrence Disturbed within colonies Field visits confirmed Grassland Known None no suitable habitat is Mountain plover Shrub-grasslands Occurrence present

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 55

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Swift fox Grassland Known Limited Evaluated Vulpes velox Shrub-grasslands occurrence Suitable Rationale if Not Common Name Occurrence Habitat in Habitat Carried Scientific name on TBNG Project Forward for Analysis Area Birds Grasshopper sparrow Short-grass Known Ammodramus prairie, Limited Evaluated occurrence savannarum Shrub-steppe Short-eared owl Grasslands, Known Moderate Evaluated Asio flammeus shrub-steppe occurrence Burrowing owl Grasslands, Known Limited Evaluated Athene cunicularia shrub-steppe occurrence Flammulated owl Field visits confirmed Suspected No no suitable habitat is Otus flammeolus present† American bittern Known No suitable habitat is Wetlands Limited Botaurus lentiginosus occurrence present Ferruginous hawk Grassland Known Abundant Evaluated Buteo regalis Shrub-steppe occurrence Ferruginous hawk Documented Abundant Evaluated Buteo regalis Northern harrier Documented Limited Evaluated Circus cyaneus

Northern goshawk Field visits confirmed Documented No no suitable habitat is Accipiter gentilis present†

Olive-sided flycatcher Field visits confirmed Documented No no suitable habitat is Contopus cooperi present† Short-grass McCown’s longspur Known prairie, Limited Evaluated Calcarius mccownii occurrence shrub-steppe Chestnut-collared Short-grass Known longspur Limited Evaluated prairie occurrence Calcarius ornatus Northern harrier Known Grassland Moderate Evaluated Circus cyaneus occurrence American peregrine Tall cliffs, Evaluated due to Known Extremely falcon riverine systems, potential foraging occurrence Limited Falco peregrinus open prairie habitat Mature conifer Bald eagle or deciduous Known Limited Evaluated Haliaeetus leucocephalus habitats, often occurrence near water

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 56

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Loggerhead shrike Known Shrub-steppe Limited Evaluated Lanius ludovicianus occurrence Suitable Rationale if Not Common Name Occurrence Habitat in Habitat Carried Scientific name on TBNG Project Forward for Analysis Area Long-billed curlew Grassland Known Limited Evaluated Numenius americanus Shrub-steppe occurrence Shrub-steppe, Brewer’s sparrow Known montane Moderate Evaluated Spizella breweri occurrence shrublands

Lewis’ Woodpecker Field visits confirmed Documented No no suitable habitat is Melanerpes lewis present†

Black tern No suitable habitat is Documented Limited Chlidonias niger present

Sage sparrow Very Does not regularly Documented Amphispiza bellii limited occur in general area.

Purple Martin Field visits confirmed Documented No no suitable habitat is Progne subis present†

Yellow-billed cuckoo Field visits confirmed Documented No no suitable habitat is Coccyzus americanus present† Reptiles/Amphibians Persistent deep Northern leopard frog Known No suitable habitat is water, emergent Limited Rana pipiens occurrence present vegetation Fish Plains minnow Turbid streams Yes No Evaluated Hybognathus placitus Does not occur within Mountain sucker Low gradient Suspected No the upper regions of the Catostomus platyrynchus streams Cheyenne River Basin Flathead chub Large, turbid Field visits confirmed No No Platygobio gracilis rivers no suitable habitat Cool, weedy Does not occur within Finescale dace small streams Suspected No the Cheyenne River Phoxinus neogaeus and lakes Basin Invertebrates Sedge bordered Known Hudsonian emerald streams, lakes, No Evaluated occurrence and ponds

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 57

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

1 No coniferous forests, cottonwood-riparian corridors, tall cliffs, perennial streams, wetlands, or permanent water sources are present and/or would be disturbed in the project area; no trees are present within 0.5 mile of the project area. 2 The project area includes a 50-foot construction corridor across approximately 14.9 miles of NFS lands and a 50-foot retirement corridor across approximately 4.5 miles of NFS land, for approximately 117.6 acres of short- term disturbance and 27.1 acres of long-term disturbance.

A pre-field review of available information was conducted to assemble occurrence records and describe habitat needs and ecological requirements for each species. Sources of regional information included: Douglas Ranger District wildlife geographic information system (GIS) data (thru 2011); WY-GFD wildlife occurrence records (Cerovski et al. 2004); BLM-Buffalo Field Office wildlife data (2009 & 2010); wildlife data collected by TWC at neighboring surface coal mines (NARM, Antelope, and Black Thunder) from the mid-1980s through 2010; current scientific literature; and other available reports pertaining to the biology of those species. All surveys were conducted according to current agency protocols; results from those efforts are included where surveys have been completed. All operators and the Douglas Ranger District will be notified immediately of any known or potential conflicts identified during those field surveys, and Standards and Guidelines will apply, as appropriate.

Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis)

A summary of the determinations of effects under each alternative and their primary justifications are listed in Table 3-8 for each evaluated species.

Alternative 1: No Action

The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas until the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Brief discussions of the status, distribution, and local occurrence of each evaluated species, as well as the potential direct and indirect effects are presented in the wildlife Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation for the Wright FEIS – Appendix G and H and in the umbrella BA/BE for the BTM on file with the Douglas Ranger District Office.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 58

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-8. Determinations of impact for USFS Region 2 Vertebrate Sensitive Species evaluated under the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives for proposed project and primary Proposed Action justifications.

Impacts Determination Justification Evaluated Proposed No Action Species 1 Action Alternative Alternative No documentation of species within Project Area. Little suitable habitat Plains minnow No Effect No Effect present. Some alteration of natural stream hydrological regimes.

No documentation of species within Project Area. Little suitable habitat Northern leopard No Effect No Effect present. Some alteration of natural stream frog hydrological regimes.

No documentation of species within May adversely May adversely Project Area. Little suitable habitat. Townsend’s big- impact impact Disturbance and removal of potential eared bat individuals* individuals* foraging habitat.

No documentation of species within May adversely May adversely Project Area. Little suitable habitat. Fringed myotis impact impact Disturbance and removal of potential individuals* individuals* foraging habitat.

Potential of mortality or injury from project related vehicles and equipment. May adversely May adversely Black-tailed Disturbance and removal of foraging impact impact prairie dog habitat. Availability of alternate habitat individuals* individuals* in vicinity.

Disturbance, removal, and fragmentation of potential den sites and foraging May adversely May adversely habitats. Limited increased risk of vehicle Swift fox impact impact collisions. Availability of alternate individuals* individuals* habitat in vicinity.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 59

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Winter use of area by small groups of individuals. No recent nesting or winter roosts identified within one mile. May adversely May adversely Possibility of electrocution. Disturbance Bald eagle impact impact and fragmentation, and alteration of individuals* individuals* foraging habitats. Increased human activity.

Impacts Determination Justification Evaluated Proposed No Action Species Action Alternative1 Alternative

No documentation of species within May adversely May adversely Project Area. Disturbance and American bittern impact impact fragmentation of potential nesting and individuals* individuals* foraging habitats. Increased human activity.

Limited occurrence within vicinity. May adversely May adversely Long-billed Disturbance and fragmentation of impact impact curlew potential nesting and foraging habitats. individuals* individuals* Increased human activity.

Disturbance and fragmentation of nesting May adversely May adversely Ferruginous and foraging habitats. Alternate habitat impact impact hawk available in vicinity. Mitigation measures individuals* individuals* in place. Increased human activity.

Disturbance and fragmentation of May adversely May adversely potential nesting and foraging habitats. Northern harrier impact impact Availability of alternate habitat in individuals* individuals* vicinity. Increased human activity.

Potential for occurrence within Project Area. Disturbance and fragmentation of May adversely May adversely potential nesting and foraging habitats, Burrowing owl impact impact availability of alternate habitat in vicinity. individuals* individuals* Limited increased risk of vehicle collisions.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 60

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Disturbance and fragmentation of May adversely May adversely potential nesting and foraging habitats. Short-eared owl impact impact Availability of alternate habitat in individuals* individuals* vicinity. Limited increased risk of vehicle collisions.

Present within the vicinity. Disturbance May adversely May adversely and fragmentation of potential nesting and Chestnut-collared impact impact foraging habitats. Availability of alternate longspur individuals* individuals* habitat in vicinity. Limited increased risk of vehicle collisions.

Impacts Determination Justification Evaluated Proposed No Action Species Action Alternative1 Alternative Poor to marginal habitat. Disturbance and fragmentation of foraging habitats. May adversely May adversely McCown’s Availability of alternate habitat in impact impact longspur vicinity. Limited increased risk of vehicle individuals* individuals* collisions.

Disturbance and fragmentation of potential but largely unoccupied year- May adversely May adversely Greater sage- round habitat. Few sightings in the impact impact grouse general area. Availability of suitable individuals* individuals* habitat in vicinity.

Limited occurrence. Disturbance and fragmentation of potential but unoccupied May adversely May adversely nesting and foraging habitats. Mountain plover impact impact Availability of alternate habitat in individuals* individuals* vicinity. Increased human activity.

Present within vicinity. Disturbance and fragmentation of nesting and foraging May adversely May adversely Loggerhead habitats. Availability of alternate habitats impact impact shrike in vicinity. Limited increased risk of individuals* individuals* vehicle collisions.

Present within Project Area. Disturbance and fragmentation of nesting and foraging May adversely May adversely Brewer’s habitats. Increased human activity. impact impact sparrow Availability of alternate habitats in individuals* individuals* vicinity

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 61

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Removal of potential habitat. Availability May adversely May adversely of alternate habitat in vicinity. Creation Grasshopper impact impact of good quality habitat through sparrow individuals* individuals* reclamation. Increase human activity.

Limited potential for occurrence. May adversely May adversely Disturbance, removal, and augmentation Black tern impact impact of resting and foraging habitats. individuals* individuals* Increased human activity.

1 Impacts under the No Action alternative would be due to the continued presence and use of existing power line corridors, and to implementation of previously permitting mining operations and other energy projects. * May adversely impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area.

3.4.3 Management Indicator Species (MIS)

A Management Indicator Species (MIS) 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 social or economically important” (USFS 2002). Management indicator species 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. The MIS for the TBNG are identified by Geographic Area. In accordance with the Grassland Plan (USFS 2002), the greater sage-grouse was selected as the MIS to be evaluated for the project (as defined for the Highlight Bill Geographic Area).

The greater sage-grouse is selected as a MIS for sagebrush habitats that have tall, dense, and diverse herbaceous understories (USFS 2002). This species generally does not respond positively to human activities and disturbances. The decline in sage-grouse populations across its range has been attributed, in part, to a loss in habitat or its function, and increased human disturbances during critical periods of its life cycle. These periods include breeding, nesting and, in some cases, during stressful times due to winter conditions (USFS 2002).

Existing Conditions

General analysis area that was considered includes information from the Wright FEIS for the South Hilight tract and the West Hilight tract.

As described above, USFS lands on and adjacent to the general analysis areas for the 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 South and West Hilight Field LBA Tracts, sage-grouse numbers were never especially high in the area. TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 62

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Five sage-grouse leks are located on and within 2 miles of the South and West Hilight Field tracts’ general analysis areas: Stuart I, Stuart II, and Black Thunder.

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. 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, WY-GFD 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 WY-GFD. The Stuart II lek is located on USFS lands approximately 3 miles northwest of the tract’s general analysis area.

The Stuart II lek lies within the general analysis area for the West Hilight Field LBA Tract, and is the only lek on USFS lands in the combined wildlife survey areas for the all 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. 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 WY-GFD 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 WY-GFD (obtained from D. Thiele, Regional Biologist, WGFD, Buffalo, Wyoming), and USFS have not documented any new sage-grouse leks

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 63

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences within the approximately 131 square mile area that encompasses the combined wildlife survey areas for the Hilight Field LBA Tracts. Telemetry data collected on radio-collared grouse at the nearby NARM throughout the last 7 years (2001-2007) shows no sage-grouse locations within several miles of the Hilight Field LBA Tracts during that period. 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. 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 WY- DEQ/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 WY-GFD and WY-DEQ/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 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. Nesting and winter surveys for sage-grouse are not required as part of the annual wildlife programs for the BTM 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 South Hilight Field tract 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.

Habitat

Sage-grouse have been documented as year-round residents of the TBNG. They are primarily associated with sagebrush shrub-land habitats, with some use of adjacent habitats for movement and minimal foraging. Sagebrush is essential for sage-grouse throughout the year. This relationship is perhaps tightest in the late fall, winter, and early spring when sage-grouse are dependent on sagebrush for both food and cover. During late spring and summer, succulent forbs and insects become important additional food sources. Sage-grouse require an extensive mosaic of habitats dominated by sagebrush of varying densities and heights along with an associated diverse native plant community dominated by high levels of native grasses and forbs (Wyoming Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan 2003).

Sagebrush habitats have been identified as a key habitat. Brown and Clayton (2004) stated that “Within the southern Powder River Basin, moderately dense sagebrush was relatively uncommon (approximately 7%). Dense sagebrush was very limited (about 0.5%).” The TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 64

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

USFS currently estimates that approximately 438,000 acres of potential sage-grouse habitat (sagebrush and grassland mixture) is currently available to grouse on the TBNG (USFS 2002, Appendix H). Over half of the Hilight Bill Geographic Area is considered potentially suitable sage-grouse habitat. It is assumed that the percentages of both moderately dense and dense sagebrush stands found on the TBNG and within the analysis area are relatively consistent with overall stand conditions throughout the Powder River Basin.

Quality habitat is described as a sagebrush stand with 15 to 25% canopy cover of sagebrush and a tall and dense understory of native grasses and forbs. The tallest sagebrush available on Wyoming sites is reported as being preferred for nesting. These sites are generally in larger stands with patches of taller (16 – 32 inches), denser (up to 35% canopy cover) sagebrush interspersed throughout the stand and where no more than 25% of the stand is comprised of small openings. Tall (greater than 7 inches) and dense residual herbaceous cover of native grasses and forbs from the previous growing season provides the cover available at the onset of the nesting season when most nest sites are selected and egg-laying and incubation begins (USFS 2002). Most nests are within 2.0 to 3.0 miles of display grounds.

Populations

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 (Wright FEIS 2010). The decline rate was larger 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, 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 (Wright FEIS 2010).

The Wright Area Coal Lease Applications EIS general analysis area is within the Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Group (NWLSWG) Area. It includes portions of the WGFD Sheridan and Casper regions and the Thunder Basin National Grassland. Sage-grouse monitoring has occurred within the NWLSWG Area since 1967. Within this area, sage-grouse population trends have exhibited a cyclical pattern, with each successive peak of a cycle being lower than the preceding peak. This suggests a long term population decline since at least 1967 (Figure 3-1).

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 Thunder Basin National Grassland, has typically been lower than those observed statewide (Figure 3-2). 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 2000 or 2001.

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, habitat loss due to

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 65

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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 (Wright FEIS 2010).

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 (Wright FEIS 2010). In the case of sage-grouse lek attendance near the North Antelope Rochelle, 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 (Wright FEIS 2010).

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 (Wright FEIS 2010). 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 was present before mining.

Should the study area 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 tract, 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 pre-mining density levels, there would be a reduction in potential habitat for wildlife species associated with this habitat in the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications general 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 sites has been well documented, but monitoring of sage-grouse activities has indicated that the birds may change lek sites.

Baseline (1978-1979, 1998, 2003) and annual monitoring studies (1982-2006) have repeatedly demonstrated that sage-grouse do not inhabit the specific mine areas, although

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 66

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences some small areas with marginal potential habitat are present. As described previously, those surveys encompassed most of the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications general analysis area and its two-mile perimeter for much of that period.

Figure 3-1. Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group Area average number of males/lek for lek counts, and from all lek checks, conducted from 1967 through 2010.

Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group Area, Annual Sage-Grouse Completion Report For 2010

The appearance of West Nile virus (WNV) within sage-grouse populations breeding on the TBNG in 2002 has complicated population concerns in that region. As this disease is still relatively new to the area, the potential impact of WNV within the TBNG sage-grouse population is unknown at this time. This disease initially appeared to cause a high mortality rate in sage-grouse, possibly 75% to 100% of infected birds. Preliminary data from ongoing research may indicate that a few individuals have developed tolerance to the disease. Studies are ongoing to evaluate this new impact and its contribution to cumulative effects on sage- grouse populations on the TBNG and throughout the region. The addition of WNV could mean that population levels that were considered acceptable 10 years ago may no longer be adequate to ensure recovery from other new impacts that may occur on the TBNG.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 67

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3-2. Mean number of males/lek counted at active sage-grouse leks statewide, in Northeast Wyoming, and on the TBNG from 1996 through 2010.

44 TBNG NE WY 39 STATE

19 Sage-Grouse Males/Lek 14

4 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 3-3. Statewide and Northeast Wyoming sage-grouse populations from 1995 through 2009.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 68

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3-4. Statewide and regional sage-grouse populations from 1995 through 2009.

Figure 3-5. Minimum sage-grouse population estimates and 11-year average for the TBNG from 1998 through 2010.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 69

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000 Minimum Sage Grouse Population Estimate Grouse Population Sage Minimum 500 Population Estimate 10 year mean 0 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Hilight Bill Geographic Area

An analysis of the mean counts of sage-grouse males/lek was performed by the USFS for all Geographic Areas that currently hold sage-grouse. For comparison purposes, annual males/lek was compared to the 11-year mean for each Geographic Area. Six sage-grouse leks have been documented on NFS lands in the Hilight Bill Geographic Area. Four of those leks are classified as abandoned or destroyed due to activity associated with local surface coal mines. The average number of male grouse per lek in 2008 (most recent data available) was lower than the previous two years. Although grouse populations have occasionally been above the 11-year mean in the Hilight Bill Geographic Area, they have also shown a declining trend since 1998 (Figure 3-6); the proposed project is within that geographic area. However, it is worth noting that counts rarely exceeded five males per lek during that period, indicating that this geographic area may not be a stronghold for grouse. In 2009, two leks were still considered active on NFS lands in this Geographic Area.

Figure 3-6. Sage-grouse males per lek and 11-year average for the Hilight Bill Geographic Area from 1998 through 2010.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 70

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Hilight Bill Geographic Area

Males/Lek 9-year mean Trend grouse Males/Lek - Sage y = -0.2655x + 534.08 R² = 0.5218

Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat in the Project Area

No new impacts to known or potential sage-grouse habitat would directly result from the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur. The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas until the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Individuals in the Project Area

Under the No Action Alternative, existing mining activities involving various sources of disturbance would remain in analysis area, but no loss or additional impacts to the population would occur from scoria mining within the project area. Since telemetry indicates that most of the sage grouse in this area occur further south, implementation of the No Action alternative would have no additional short- or long-term effects on individuals.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are defined under the NEPA process as the incremental impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including the proposed action, conducted by any entity (federal, state, private, etc.).

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 71

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Cumulative short- and long-term disturbances arise from multiple sources. Many of these activities include private, state, and federal land or mineral ownership and may involve any or all jurisdictions. They include direct and indirect impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future CBNG development, conventional oil and gas extraction, scoria and open pit coal mining, road and infrastructure (power lines, pipelines, electrical substations, gas gathering facilities, etc.) development and use, rural housing development, hunting, and dispersed recreation. Within the reasonably foreseeable future, activities will include further oil and gas exploration and development, as well as continued surface mining, with minerals extraction expected to increase in the analysis area.

These impacts are expected to cause a direct loss or degradation of year-round sage-grouse habitats, including long-term impacts in all habitat types found at mining operations. Disturbances such as pipelines, power lines, roads, and facilities tend to fragment or reduce the effectiveness of remaining habitats within the vicinity of development. Noise, human presence, and increased predation often accompany these types of development. The additional and synergistic impacts from other factors including, but not limited to, drought, grazing, off-road vehicle use, and new fence construction also continue to adversely impact year-round sage-grouse habitat, especially sagebrush stands. Energy extraction activities have requirements for reclamation of disturbed sites as areas are altered and resources are depleted. These efforts would help mitigate future habitat losses, although the full benefits from reclaimed lands would not be realized for many years after the decommissioning phases of the projects. As with all of the lands administered on the TBNG, further consolidation of lands through land exchange will occur as opportunities arise.

While these impacts can and have occurred in many places across the TBNG, several areas continue to provide suitable, occupied sage-grouse habitat that serves as a stronghold for the region as a whole. Furthermore, ongoing and previously permitted surface disturbance will continue in the analysis area regardless of whether or not this project is approved. Therefore, precluding the project by selection of the No Action alternative would have no additional short- or long-term effects on sage-grouse habitat, sage-grouse population viability, or the distribution of sage-grouse across the TBNG. Sage-grouse habitat elsewhere in the TBNG currently still provides enough suitable, occupied areas to maintain a well distributed population across the Grassland.

Grassland Plan Compliance

The No Action alternative is considered to be in compliance with all Grassland-wide Standards and Guidelines for Management Indicator Species, detailed in the Grassland Plan (USFS 2002).

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Sage-grouse

One of the three sage-grouse leks located in the combined wildlife survey areas for the Hilight Field LBA Tracts occur in an area likely to be disturbed by future mining, if the proposed

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 72

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences leasing actions are approved. That lek (Stuart II in the West Hilight Field tract’s general analysis area) is on USFS lands.

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 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. WY-DEQ/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 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 general analysis areas and surrounding wildlife survey areas, USFS Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2002) would have limited applications toward controlling the type, timing, and location of disturbance activities within the 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 sage grouse population. 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

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 73

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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 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), impacts to sage-grouse habitat in the general analysis areas for the 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 sage grouse that disperse from the 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 the future, agency Standards and Guidelines would offer appropriate protections for the species and its important habitat. However, under the current conditions, and the documented absence or consistently low presence of this species in the area, mining USFS lands within the 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.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative short- and long-term disturbances arise from multiple sources. Many of these activities include private, state, and federal land or mineral ownership and may involve any or all jurisdictions. They include direct and indirect impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future CBNG development (Powder River Basin EIS), conventional oil and gas extraction, scoria and open pit coal mining (approximately 77,717 acres of private state and federal surface currently permitted), road and infrastructure (power lines, pipelines, electrical substations, gas gathering facilities, etc.) development and use, rural housing development, hunting, and dispersed recreation. Within the reasonably foreseeable future, activities will include further oil and gas exploration and development, as well as continued surface mining, with minerals extraction expected to increase in the analysis area.

These impacts are expected to cause a direct loss or degradation of year-round sage-grouse habitats, including long-term impacts in all habitat types found at mining operations.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 74

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Disturbances such as pipelines, power lines, roads, and facilities tend to fragment or reduce the effectiveness of remaining habitats within the vicinity of development. Noise, human presence, and increased predation often accompany these types of development. The additional and synergistic impacts from other factors including, but not limited to, drought, grazing, off-road vehicle use, and new fence construction also continue to adversely impact year-round sage-grouse habitat, especially sagebrush stands. Energy extraction activities have requirements for reclamation of disturbed sites as areas are altered and resources are depleted. These efforts would help mitigate future habitat losses, although the full benefits from reclaimed lands would not be realized for many years after the decommissioning phases of the projects. As with all of the lands administered on the TBNG, further consolidation of lands through land exchange will occur as opportunities arise.

However, this alternative would not conflict with the current Grassland Plan, or any future objectives to manage the area for sage-grouse.

Effects on Sage-grouse Habitat Trends Grassland-wide

Direct loss of sage brush and associated small drainages will result in a loss of potential nesting, foraging, brood rearing, and winter habitat. The trend in the loss of all types of sage grouse habitat continues to be negative. Energy development, invasive plant encroachment, transmission lines, wildfire, and roads continue to remove or reduce the effectiveness of sage grouse habitat grassland wide. Current efforts are underway to change this trend. The U.S. Forest Service and the Douglas Ranger District are currently working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Wyoming to create and implement guidelines to maintain and improve sage grouse habitat across the entire National Grassland. Nevertheless, although it would be minimal, the project would contribute to the cumulative loss of sagebrush habitat within the Hilight Bill Geographic Area and the TBNG.

While these impacts can occur, and have occurred, in many places across the Grassland, several areas continue to provide suitable occupied and unoccupied sage-grouse habitat. Those areas create a stronghold of habitat distributed in many areas across the TBNG. The Hilight Bill Geographic Area represents approximately 17% of sage-grouse habitats within the TBNG. NFS lands underlying the proposed project area constitute considerably less than 0.01% of both the TBNG itself and the potential sage-grouse habitat (sagebrush and grassland mixture) on the TBNG. Consequently, sage-grouse habitat across the region would continue to provide enough suitable, occupied habitats to maintain a well-distributed population across the TBNG.

Sage-grouse Population Trends Grassland-wide

Recent population trends in the TBNG were discussed above in Populations: Grassland-wide and Geographic Area, and illustrated in Figures 3-1 thru 3-5. The Proposed Action would be in compliance with the TBNG LRMP management direction for wildlife resources and, in particular, sage-grouse as an MIS. At this time, the viability of sage-grouse within TBNG is not a concern.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 75

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Collectively, the impacts from this project, in combination with numerous ongoing activities such as surface mining and CBNG extraction within the project area and analysis area, could diminish the survival and reproductive success of only a few individual sage-grouse. As long- term monitoring has documented that sage-grouse regularly use undisturbed lands south of the project area, the Proposed Action is expected to only marginally contribute to the reduction of sage-grouse numbers in proximity of the project area, as well as within the Hilight Bill Geographic Region and the TBNG. Therefore, contributions to any cumulative effects or loss of viability or sage-grouse within these areas would be negligible.

The sage-grouse population within the Hilight Bill Geographic area increased in some recent years, and rose above the 11-year average in 2007. Other populations across the TBNG also increased during the same period. Sage-grouse continue to remain well-distributed across the TBNG, occurring in all six Geographic Areas; the majority (96%) of the population resides outside the Hilight Bill Geographic Area. Those populations appear to be maintaining adequate numbers at this time. Although the Grassland-wide long-term trend in sage-grouse populations is showing an overall decrease, that downward trend appears to be following the same trend of sage grouse in the Northeast Wyoming Sage Grouse Working Group area, and ultimately the trend of sage grouse in Wyoming. Notwithstanding this decreasing trend, the Grassland-wide population appears to be maintaining its viability overall. If the population within the Hilight Bill Geographic Area were to become extirpated, it would not constitute a loss of sage-grouse viability on the TBNG as a whole, as grouse would still occur within 83% of the Grasslands.

Grassland Plan Compliance

The Proposed Action is considered in compliance with all Grassland-wide Standards and Guidelines for Management Indicator Species, detailed in the Grassland Plan (USFS 2002). The proposed project will not conflict with USFS implementation of Standards and Guidelines detailed for the Hilight Bill Geographic Area

Sage Grouse Determination as a U.S. Forest Service Sensitive 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 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 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

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 76

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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 BTM, and would include new permit expansions and a one-mile perimeter. Should sage grouse 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.

3.5 Vegetation Resources

3.5.1 Affected Environment

The vegetation analysis area consists of dewatering and overstripping/overburden areas on USFS lands within the northwest corner of the TBCC BTM existing lease and permit boundary (see Exhibit A, Project Map). Chapter 2, Alternative 2 – Proposed Action gives a legal description of the proposed project area and Chapter 3, Affect Environment gives a detailed ecological description of the analysis area. This area is also covered in the Vegetation Resources section of the Wright Area Environmental Impact Statement (Wright FEIS 2010).

The vegetation analysis area was mapped and sampled in accordance with the current WDEQ/LQD mine permitting requirements in 2007. The vegetation in the analysis area consists of species common to eastern Wyoming and is similar to vegetation communities that occur within the adjacent mine permit areas. Water and disturbed areas were also mapped.

The following vegetation/land cover types were identified and mapped in and adjacent to the analysis area: 1. Crested Wheatgrass/Agricultural Pastureland 2. Pasture/Hayland 3. Undeveloped Pastureland 4. Upland/Mixed Prairie Grassland 5. Big Sage Shrubland 6. Bottomland/Streamside Grassland/Meadow 7. Disturbed Lands 8. Reclaimed Lands 9. Playa/Playa Grassland 10. Rough Breaks/Breaks Grassland 11. Reservoir/Water 12. Salt Grassland/Saline Bottomland/Alkali Bottomland 13. Disturbed (topsoil stockpiles, reclaimed areas, mine disturbance, and developed areas)

The dominant vegetation types in the analysis area are the big sage shrubland, upland/mixed prairie grassland, and crested wheatgrass/agricultural pastureland. 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 prickly pear cactus (Opuntia TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 77

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences polycantha) are frequently large components of theses vegetation types. Crested wheatgrass pastureland also has high cover and occurs on relatively flat areas to rolling plains with moderately deep to deep soils that have been converted from native vegetation to crested wheatgrass used for haying or grazing purposes.

Areas mapped as disturbed were 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 (Populus and Salix spp.) 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 will be conducted as required by state and federal agencies.

The most common plant species in these vegetation types include Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), needle and thread grass (Hesperostipa comate), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), purple threeawn (Aristida purpurea), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), cheatgrass brome (Bromus tectorum), six weeks grass (Vulpia octoflora), and upland sedges (Carex spp.).

There are few occurrences of noxious weeds within the three applicant mine areas, except in some drainage bottoms adjacent to mine permit areas with high cover of Canada thistle (Cirsium canadensis) and other weeds.

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Action

The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas until the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

Impacts to vegetation related to overstripping and dewatering associated with the proposed action would not occur. Vegetation would remain in its current condition; subject to natural processes as well as possible indirect effects from neighboring mining activities such as dust

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 78

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences deposition and noxious weed invasion (see Wright Area Environmental Impact Statement, 2010 for more information on adjacent mining activities and possible impacts to vegetation).

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Under the proposed overstripping and dewatering plans, approximately 1561.4 acres of vegetation will be removed or disturbed by dewatering well installation and 1080 acres of vegetation will be removed during overstripping activities.

Short-term impacts associated with the removal of vegetation from overstripping and dewatering areas include the damage and destruction of plant populations, vegetation communities, and insect pollinators as well as increased soil erosion, dust, and dust deposition in and adjacent to the activity area. Potential long-term impacts include habitat, soil and vegetation modification, decreases in habitat suitability for some plant species, reduced plant species diversity, inhibited seed and biomass production, and reduced plant density of some long-lived, rare or highly specialized species, particularly big sagebrush, on reclaimed lands. Rare plant populations and habitats will also be negatively impacted. Current reclamation efforts and techniques are not sophisticated enough to adequately restore the specialized habitats of these species, so losses to habitats or individuals must be interpreted and total and permanent as reestablishment of rare species is highly unlikely on reclaimed lands. Impacts to each rare plant species are discussed in detail in following sections covering threatened, endangered, sensitive and local concern plant species (sections 3.5.3 through 3.5.5).

Permanent changes are expected in the surface water network in the dewatering/overstripping tracts as a result of mining activities which, despite reclamation, will have long-term to permanent impacts on vegetation establishment, patterns, and species distributions on the reclaimed areas, especially wetlands. While there would be no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands, reclaimed wetlands will have significantly less total vegetation cover than native wetlands and lower species diversity because densely vegetated natural wetlands are typically replaced by open water pond or lake-like wetlands.

Mitigation of Impacts

Reclamation, including revegetation, of these lands will occur contemporaneously with mining on adjacent lands, i.e., reclamation would begin once an area is completely mined/ overburden is removed and/or dewatering wells are no longer necessary. 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, haul roads, sediment-control structures, and other mine facilities. No new life-of-mine facilities would be located in the overstripping and dewatering tracts under the Proposed Action because these tracts will be developed as an extension of an existing mine using existing facilities. Some roads and facilities would not be reclaimed until the end of mining.

In accordance with WY-DEQ regulations, the applicants will reestablish similar, native vegetation cover and land uses during the reclamation operation. Reestablished vegetation will be dominated by native species approved by WY-DEQ. The initial seed mix will be

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 79

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences comprised primarily of a mixture of prairie grasses with a small native forb component. In the first stages of reclamation an overall reduction in species diversity will occur, especially for the shrub component. But, the final state of the reclaimed vegetation will include at least 20 percent native shrub cover at a density of one shrub per square meter. However, it is estimated that it may take up to 100 years for vegetation communities on reclaimed land to naturally progress from seeded native grasses to the WY-DEQ required 20% shrub cover. At this time there are no reclamation methods that successfully establish shrubs on a shorter time scale. Reclaimed land is also typically unsuitable for rare plant species and rare plant species and/or suitable habitat are not expected to return or recover in reclaimed areas.

Wyoming big sagebrush and other sagebrush species are the primary shrubs that will be reduced or eliminated in the first stages of reclamation. As indicated previously, sagebrush is a key component of the big sagebrush shrubland and upland/mixed prairie grassland vegetation communities. 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 the sage-grouse.

The reclamation plans include steps to control invasion by noxious weeds as per WY- DEQ/LQD regulations requiring surface coal mine operators to control and minimize the introduction of noxious weeds until bond release.

Wetlands will be restored under the jurisdiction of the COE (Section 3.7). Non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands will also be restored in accordance with the requirements of the surface landowner or as required by WY-DEQ/LQD.

Wyoming, including the TBNG, has experienced periodic drought conditions since around 2000. The climatic record of the western U.S. suggests that droughts could continue to 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. Same-aged vegetation would be more susceptible to disease than would plants of various ages. In such instances, additional seeding applications may be necessary.

Field Reconnaissance

The dewatering/overstripping tracts and adjacent areas consist primarily of uplands. The topography of the tract’s analysis area, similar to the areas within the existing permit areas of adjacent mines, is relatively flat. Surface mine lands, both disturbed and reclaimed, dominate the landscape north, northeast, and east of the dewatering and overstripping tracts.

A preliminary wetland inventory of the analysis area was conducted in 2007, based on USFWS NWI mapping (1980), review of color infrared aerial photographs (Wright FEIS 2010), and a field survey reconnaissance. 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 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 slightly from the boundaries shown on the NWI maps. Due to the

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 80

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ephemeral nature of natural surface water features and effects of CBNG dewatering activities, the boundaries, areas, and types of wetlands are changeable within and between years. A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation survey for all tracts will be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the mine permitting process if this proposal is approved.

Within the analysis area the preliminary wetland inventory identified five general wetland types: ephemeral streams, playas, ponds/reservoirs, isolated depressions, and excavated upland areas.

3.5.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Plant Species Considered and Evaluated

Two threatened, endangered, and proposed plant species (TEP) plant species were identified as potentially occurring within the analysis area. Available information was reviewed prior to the field visit to assemble occurrence records, identify habitat requirements, and determine whether on-site habitat analysis was required. No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project area and for which no suitable habitat is present. On-site habitat assessment was conducted in 2007. Summary information is provided in Table 3-9.

Table 3-9. Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species Considered and Evaluated Potential for Occurrence in Presence of Habitat in Evaluated Species Occurrence Local Area Project Area in Project Area Blowout penstemonE Very Unlikely1 Undocumented No suitable habitat in project Penstemon haydenii area. Ute ladies’ tresses orchid Species not documented at T Potential Undocumented Spiranthes diluvialis present. 1 Based on habitat requirements and known range. E Classified as “Endangered” under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. T Classified as “Threatened” under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis)

Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) In Wyoming, blowout penstemon is only known to occur in certain habitats south of the Ferris Mountains in the northern part of Carbon County. Evaluations of the analysis area did not identify any suitable habitat for blowout penstemon. This species has never been documented to occur in this area and the likelihood of the plant occurring is extremely low.

Determination of Effect and Rationale

No suitable habitat or designated critical habitat occurs for blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) within the analysis area, and no individuals were observed. There will be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to blowout penstemon under both alternatives. No further analysis is required and a biological determination of No Effect is made for blowout penstemon within the analysis area under both alternatives.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 81

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

A summary of determinations of effect based on recent survey efforts and documented vegetative and soil characteristics in the area is provided in Table 3-10.

Ute Ladies’ Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) No Ute ladies’ tresses individuals have been recorded within the analysis area or any of the adjacent mine permit areas to date. It is unlikely that orchid populations would remain undetected during multiple surveys over three consecutive years (surveyed as per U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidance). Nonetheless, there is suitable wetland/riparian habitat present and both suitable habitat and any undetected populations (despite having a low likelihood of occurring) will be lost due to surface disturbing activities. As a result the biological determination for Ute ladies’ tresses is may affect, not likely to adversely affect. A detailed effects analysis of impacts to Ute ladies’ tresses suitable habitat under both alternatives is below.

Alternative 1: No Action

The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas until the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

Impacts to Ute ladies’ tresses habitat related to overstripping and dewatering associated with the proposed action would not occur. Vegetation would remain in its current condition; subject to natural processes as well as possible indirect effects from neighboring mining activities such as dust deposition and noxious weed invasion (see Wright Area Environmental Impact Statement, 2010 for more information on adjacent mining activities and possible impacts to vegetation).

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct effects of the proposed action will be the removal/destruction of all suitable but unoccupied habitat that is located within the dewatering/overstripping action area. Indirect effects of mining would be associated primarily with downstream hydrological changes resulting from the alteration of natural stream flows and dynamics. These hydrologic changes may negatively alter nearby suitable orchid habitat and impact unknown populations. Any unknown occurrences within and near the general Wright analysis area not directly impacted by surface disturbance may be impacted by dust deposition from surface disturbing activities, Dust can affect plants by reducing vigor and reproduction capability. Fragmentation of Ute ladies’ tresses (suitable but unoccupied) habitat will occur under the proposed action, which may result in negative impacts to pollinators and disruption of seed dispersal.

Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 82

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Cumulative effects are those effects of future state or private activities, not involving federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the federal action subject to consultation (50 CFR 402.2). A cumulative impact analysis is used to evaluate the influences of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future human developments, and examines impacts on a broader scale.

Direct impacts to this plant species as a result of development activities in the dewatering/overstripping area include incremental and eventually, complete loss of suitable Ute ladies’ tresses habitat across the proposed project area. This loss of habitat will contribute to cumulative, range-wide suitable habitat destruction taking place as a result of multiple mineral and gas projects. Projects that may be destroying, fragmenting or altering suitable Ute ladies’ tresses habitat include: • Antelope Mine Rail Spur Exclusion • Mackey Road Relocation • North Antelope-Rochelle Mine Dewatering • Keeline to Wright Fiber Optic Line • School Creek Mine Startup Mining Faciliites • Clinker Scoria Mine • Wright Area Coal Lease by Application Adjacent to the proposed dewatering/overstripping area is the Wright Area coal lease. According to a recent BLM regional technical study by 2020 a total of 434,374 acres of land (including some suitable Ute ladies’ tresses habitat) is expected to be disturbed/destroyed/reclaimed by the Wright Area coal tracts alone. See the Wright EIS (Wright FEIS 2010) for more information.

Determination of Effect and Rationale

No critical habitat for Ute ladies’ tresses has been designated and no occurrences of were discovered, but suitable habitat exists within the analysis area Under the No Action alternative there will be no impacts to the suitable habitat and the biological determination is no effect. Under the proposed action there will be direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to the suitable habitat but not individuals (detailed in sections above) therefore the biological determination under the proposed action is may affect, not likely to adversely affect'. A summary of determinations of effect for all threatened, endangered and proposed plant species, including Ute ladies’ tresses a is provided in Table 3-9.

Table 3-10. Summary of Biological Determinations for TEP species

Alt 1 – No Alt 2 – Proposed Evaluated Species Justification Action Action Blowout penstemon No suitable habitat in project No Effect No Effect Penstemon haydenii area; plant absent during 2010

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 83

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

survey. Species not documented at Ute ladies’ tresses orchid May affect, not present, no known individuals No Effect likely to adversely will be impacted, suitable but Spiranthes diluvialis affect' unoccupied habitat will be impacted.

3.4.4 USFS Region 2 - Sensitive Species

Existing Conditions A total of 10 plant species are listed on the 2011 USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species list as having known occurrences or being suspected (biologically or geographically) to occur on the TBNG (Roche and Proctor 2009). None of the 10 listed species were observed within or near the project area during 2009 surveys (personal observation Smith 2009). Species for which suitable (but unoccupied) habitat occurs are identified in table 3-3 by bolded text, while the remainder of the species were dropped from further consideration due to lack of suitable habitat.. The likelihood of habitat and species occurrence was determined based upon floristic survey information and other available records (Chumley et al. 1998, Dorn 2001, Fertig and Beauvais 1999, Fertig and Heidel 2002, Hartman and Nelson 1994, WYNDD 2002, 2004, 2005, MBRTB botany files).

Table 3-11. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species Considered and Evaluated Suitability of Status on TBNG/Status on Habitat on USFS Common Name USFS Lands in General Lands in General (Scientific Name) Wright Analysis Area Wright Analysis Area Plants: Ferns and Allies Prairie moonwort (Botrychium Very Poor to Unsuitable Undocumented/Undocumented campestre) Habitat

Narrowleaf moonwort Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat (Botrychium lineare)

Leathery grapefern (Botrychium Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat multifidum var. coulteri) Plants: Monocots Foxtail sedge Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat (Carex alopecoidea)

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 84

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Elliptic spikerush Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat (Eleocharis elliptica)

Hall’s fescue Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat (Festuca hallii)

Largeflower triteleia Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat (Triteleia grandiflora) Plants: Dicots Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii) Documented/Undocumented Suitable Habitat Suitability of Status on TBNG/Status on Habitat on USFS Common Name USFS Lands in General Lands in General (Scientific Name) Wright Analysis Area Wright Analysis Area Woolly twinpod (Physaria didymocarpa var. Undocumented/Undocumented Marginal Habitat lanata) Visher’s buckwheat Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat (Eriogonum visheri) Highbush-cranberry (Viburnum opulus var. Undocumented/Undocumented Unsuitable Habitat americanum)

No further analysis is required for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. Potential effects are evaluated if suitable but unoccupied habitat is present and inventory methods are not feasible or effective for providing information on presence/absence or number and location of individuals.

The analysis area provides suitable habitat for one of the 10 species: Astragalus barrii (Barr’s milkvetch) is a regional endemic found on the plains in southwestern South Dakota, eastern Wyoming, southeastern Montana, and northwestern Nebraska. This species is known to occur in six counties in Wyoming, and there are eleven known occurrences of A. barrii in the USFS TBNG. 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. No individuals were found in the analysis area during field surveys but known populations occur outside of the project area.

Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis)

Alternative 1: No Action

The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas until the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 85

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Impacts to Barr’s milkvetch related to overstripping and dewatering associated with the proposed action would not occur. Vegetation would remain in its current condition; subject to natural processes as well as possible indirect effects from neighboring mining activities such as dust deposition and noxious weed invasion (see Wright Area Environmental Impact Statement, 2010 for more information on adjacent mining activities and possible impacts to vegetation).

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct effects of the proposed action will be the removal/destruction of all suitable but unoccupied habitat Barr’s milkvetch habitat located within the dewatering/overstripping action area. There will be no direct effects to any known individuals or populations because none were discovered during field surveys, but the proposed action will decrease habitat availability, fragment and increase discontinuity of existing suitable habitat, and significantly decrease the possibility of future Barr’s milkvetch colonization of the site. These losses would most likely be permanent because disturbed lands are reclaimed to habitats that do not support this plant species. Indirect effects on any suitable habitat not destroyed by overstripping/dewatering activities or adjacent to the project area would primarily be in the form of dust deposition. Dust deposition has been shown to decrease plant reproduction success, productivity, and photosynthetic rates

Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action

Cumulative effects are described as the effects of the action when added to past, on-going, or reasonably foreseeable actions (36 CFR § 220.4 (f) of 07/24/08). Past actions within the analysis area include mining activity (topsoil stockpile), livestock grazing, fence construction and maintenance, noxious and invasive weed control, wildlife use, recreational activities, and fire suppression. Present on-going actions remain the same, with livestock grazing and recreational activities potentially occurring only on the north side of the north fenceline (area of <0.3 acres) constructed inside of the analysis area boundary.

The process for the analysis of cumulative effects was previously presented. This process has been used for the analysis of cumulative effect with the exception noted below. It is unknown how local populations of Astragalus barrii might interact throughout the range of the species. Very little is known about interactions among disjunct populations and it is difficult to predict how effects to a single population might influence the status of other populations.

Direct impacts to this species as a result of development activities in the dewatering and overstripping areas include incremental and eventually, complete loss of suitable Barr’s milkvetch habitat across the proposed project area. This loss of habitat will contribute to TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 86

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences cumulative, range-wide suitable habitat destruction taking place as a result of multiple mineral and gas projects. Projects that may be destroying, fragmenting or altering suitable Barr’s milkvetch habitat include: • Antelope Mine Rail Spur Exclusion • Mackey Road Relocation • North Antelope-Rochelle Mine Dewatering • Keeline to Wright Fiber Optic Line • School Creek Mine Startup Mining Faciliites • Clinker Scoria Mine • Wright Area Coal Lease by Application Adjacent to the proposed dewatering/overstripping area is the Wright Area coal lease. According to a recent BLM regional technical study by 2020 a total of 434,374 acres of land (including some suitable Barr’s milkvetch habitat) is expected to be disturbed/destroyed/reclaimed by the Wright Area coal tracts alone. See the Wright EIS (USFS 2010) for more information.

Determination of Effect and Rationale

No occurrences of Barr’s milkvetch were discovered, but suitable habitat exists within the analysis area . Under the No Action alternative there will be no impacts to the suitable habitat and the biological determination is no effect.

Under the proposed action there will be direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to the suitable habitat but no impacts to known individuals (detailed in sections above). Loss of suitable habitat or undiscovered individuals or populations from mining activities related to the proposed action is not expected to result in a trend toward federal listing, therefore the biological determination under the proposed action is may adversely affect individuals but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability.

3.6 Soils Methods

All soil surveys were completed to an Order 1-2 and 3 resolutions in accordance with WY- DEQ Guideline No.1, which outlines required soils information necessary for a coal mining operation. The inventories included field sampling and observations at the requisite number of individual sites, and laboratory analysis of representative collected samples. Soils within the analysis area were identified by series. Soil series 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. In addition to field surveys, soils specialists reviewed GIS files identifying unstable soil areas for the TBNG. Those files were provided by the Douglas Ranger District. Unstable soil areas within the TBNG have slopes greater than 40%; potentially unstable soils have slopes of 25- 40%. Both areas are generally considered as no surface occupancy areas for oil and gas

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 87

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences development stipulations, though the application of those stipulations for non-oil and gas projects is unknown.

Existing Conditions

The TBCC dewatering and overstripping project soils analysis area overlaps several previous study areas, including the recently completed Wright Area Coal Lease Applications FEIS (Wright FEIS) is which the analysis was for full mine development. Since the Wright FEIS fully analyzed the impacts of full mine development which includes the proposed project activities the report from that analysis was used in this specific analysis.

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 coarse textured 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.

All soil surveys were completed to the Order 1-2 or Order 3 level of intensity in accordance with criteria contained in WY-DEQ/LQD Guideline No. 1, Soils and Overburden (Wright FEIS 2010), which outlines the required soils information necessary for a coal mining operation. The WY-DEQ 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.

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 BTM, 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 WY-DEQ/LQD mine permits. In addition, the entire general analysis area has been covered by the NRCS Order 3 survey of southern Campbell County (Wright FEIS 2010).

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 BTM, which is included in the approved WY-DEQ/LQD mine permit. In addition, the entire general analysis area has been covered by the NRCS Order 3 survey of southern Campbell County (Wright FEIS 2010).

Environmental Consequences (Effects Analysis)

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 88

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Action

The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas until the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Under the proposed overstripping and dewatering plans, approximately 1561.4 acres of soil may be disturbed by dewatering well installation and 1080 acres of soil will be removed during overstripping activities.

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 the six LBA tracts included in the Wright FEIS, indicate that the amount of suitable topsoil that would be available for redistribution on all disturbed acres within the 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.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 89

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 resources on each LBA tract following reclamation under the Action Alternatives.

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. 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 pre-mine conditions. The types of soils and the quantities of the soil resource included in the South Hilight Field LBA tract are similar to the soils on the existing leases at the adjacent Black Thunder Mine.

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. 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 pre-mine conditions. The types of soils and the quantities of the soil resource included in the West Hilight Field LBA tract are similar to the soils on the existing leases at the adjacent Black Thunder Mine.

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.

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 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.

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.

Cumulative Effects for the Proposed Action

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 90

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Due to the absence of unstable soils in the analysis area the Proposed Action will have no cumulative impacts on such soils. Cumulative effects on potentially unstable soils will be negligible due to their minimal presence in the area and the limited nature and duration of surface disturbance associated with this project.

Surface disturbance will occur only in upland habitats. Because the project area is entirely within the permit areas for the BTM, the project will ultimately be subject to strict requirements for post-mining sub-surface and topsoil restoration and reclamation.

3.7 Hydrology

Existing Conditions

The TBCC dewatering and overstripping project hydrology analysis area overlaps several previous study areas, including the recently completed Wright Area Coal Lease Applications FEIS (Wright FEIS) is which the analysis was for full mine development. Since the Wright FEIS fully analyzed the impacts of full mine development which includes the proposed project activities the report from that analysis was used in this specific analysis.

Ground Water

The general Wright analysis area contains three water-bearing geologic units that have been directly affected by existing mining activities. 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 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 WY-DEQ/LQD mine permit for the BTM included in this analysis (Wright FEIS 2010).

The Wasatch Formation is recharged from the infiltration of precipitation and surface water stored in playas and in-channel reservoirs, and from lateral movement of water from adjacent scoria bodies. Groundwater is typically discharged from the formation by evaporation and transpiration, pumping wells, drainage into mine excavations, and seepage into the alluvium along stream courses. Groundwater movement through the formation typically follows the topography of the area, with low overall hydraulic conductivity and low flow rates. Because the water-bearing units within this formation are not continuous, the Wasatch Formation is not considered as a regional aquifer. The quality of groundwater in the Wasatch Formation is highly variable and generally poor. This formation provides limited groundwater for livestock and domestic uses on a local scale, provided the water quality is suitable. The Wyodak coal seam is considered a regional aquifer because it is water-bearing and laterally continuous throughout the area. The hydraulic conductivity within this coal seam is

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 91

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences highly variable; recharge occurs primarily through infiltration of precipitation. In general, groundwater flows from east to west, following the natural dip of the coal seam deeper underground as it moves west from the PRB. Monitoring conducted by local coal mines over the last 25 years indicates that groundwater levels and flow directions in the Wyodak coal seam have been greatly influenced (i.e., decreasing) by surface mine dewatering and groundwater discharge associated with CBNG development (Wright Area Coal LBA final Environmental Impact Statement 2010). Groundwater from coal seams is typically suitable only for livestock and wildlife because concentrations of certain substances often exceed many suitability criteria for domestic uses. The water may also have high salinity and sodium levels that make it unsuitable for agricultural uses.

Surface Water

This project area is located in the Little Thunder Creek watershed. Little Thunder Creek flows easterly through Section 33, (T 43N, R 71W) and a tributary of the North Prong Little Thunder Creek flows through Section 10 (T43N, R71W) of the project area. Little Thunder Creek flows into Black Thunder Creek which flows east into the Cheyenne River. Little Thunder Creek upstream of its confluence with North Prong Little Thunder Creek and Black Thunder Creek are both are designated as Class 3B, a subcategory of Class 3 waters. Class 3B waters are tributary waters including adjacent wetlands that are not known to support fish populations or drinking water supplies and where those uses are not attainable. Class 3B waters are intermittent and ephemeral streams with sufficient hydrology to support communities of aquatic life including invertebrates, amphibians, or other flora and fauna which inhabit waters of the state at some stage of their life cycles (WY-DEQ, 2001). The primary water uses in this area are related to coal mining (floodwater retention, dust control, etc.) and for livestock watering.

Due to its location within the existing permit area for TBCC, all disturbances within the 40 acre project area are covered under the mine’s Nationwide Permit 21, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Downstream of the project area, both Little Thunder Creek and Black Thunder Creek have been highly altered by coal mining activities. Little Thunder Creek flows through the mine area and has been mined through and subsequently channelized for several miles downstream of the confluence with the tributary in the project area.

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 (Wright FEIS 2010). Black Thunder Creek demonstrates 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. 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

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 92

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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 (Wright FEIS 2010).

Water quality in both Little Thunder and Black Thunder Creeks 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 WY-DEQ/LQD are included in the three applicant mines’ WY-DEQ/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 WY-DEQ/LQD in the mines’ existing permits and annual reports that are on file and available for public review at WY-DEQ’s offices in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming.

Alluvial Valley Floors

Alluvial valley floors (AVF) are defined in WY-DEQ regulations as unconsolidated stream- laid deposits where water availability is sufficient for subirrigation or flood irrigation agricultural activities. The identification of AVF’s requires detailed studies of the geomorphology, soils, hydrology, vegetation, and land use. For any designated AVF, regardless of its significance to agriculture, it must be demonstrated that the essential hydrologic functions will be protected. No AVF's have been identified within the project area.

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 project area included in this analysis.

The investigations concluded, and WY-DEQ concurred, that an AVF that is significant to agriculture exists at the confluence of North Prong Little Thunder Creek and Little Thunder Creek. WY-DEQ/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 BTM permit boundary downstream (eastward) to the streams’ confluence.

Wetlands

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 93

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wetlands are aquatic features characterized by three specific components: hydric soils, a dominance of hydrophytic plants, and wetland hydrology. These areas are often inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a vegetation community typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. These sites are typically highly productive and diverse, and provide habitat for many wildlife species. Wetlands play an important role in controlling floodwaters, recharging groundwater, and filtering pollutants (Niering 1985).

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 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 natural surface water features and CBNG dewatering activities, the boundaries, areas, and types of wetlands 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.

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 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 natural surface water features and CBNG dewatering activities, the boundaries, areas, and types of wetlands are likewise ephemeral. A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation survey for the West Hilight

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 94

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 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.

Four wetlands (totally 21 acres) are located on NFS lands within the overstripping and dewatering area. Three of these wetlands are natural, seasonally wet features, and one wetland is a stock pond.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Action

The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas until the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

The proposed action will impact the quantity of the groundwater resource in 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.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 95

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 further to the northwest, west and southwest of the active mine areas. The extent that drawdown would propagate away from the mine pits is primarily a function of the affected aquifer’s hydraulic properties (i.e., hydraulic conductivity, storativity, and current saturated thickness). While there are variations in the affected aquifers’ hydraulic properties, duration of time that the pits would be open, distance from the open pits, and CBNG development (intensity and duration) in the vicinity of mining, the area subject to lower groundwater levels would be extended roughly in proportion to the increase in areas affected by mining. The amount and extent of additional drawdown may not be significant 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 analysis area.

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 southern group of mines (Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, North Antelope Rochelle, and Antelope) due to their proximity to each other and due to the large drawdowns caused to the west by CBNG development. The cumulative coal mine dewatering drawdown caused by the southern group of mines overlaps west of the mines with drawdown caused by CBNG development. Hydro-Engineering (2007) states that the extent of drawdown west of the mines caused by mining alone can no longer be directly defined due to the much greater drawdown caused by CBNG development. 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. Overlapping impacts of the existing mining activities with other existing and proposed activities are addressed further in Chapter 4 of the Wright FEIS. (Wright FEIS 2010)

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 (generally less than ½ mile) from the active mine pits. Due to the varied nature of the water-bearing 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

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 96

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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 immediately adjacent to the mine pits and decrease with distance from the pits. (Wright FEIS 2010).

Cumulative Effects for the Proposed Action The cumulative effects contribution would be negligible in light of the highly altered landscape within the existing coal mining area and the impacts that were already covered in the Wright FEIS. With erosion and stormwater control, this project should have minimal effects on any creeks downstream of the project.

Determination of Effects and Rationale The Proposed Alternative would have an effect on hydrological resources. However, ongoing existing activities in the project area already have an affect those features.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would meet the Clean Water Act and Grassland Plan Standards if it is in compliance with all applicable permits and the design criteria below:

• No ground disturbance or stockpiling of materials on NFS lands within 100 feet from the edge of the channel banks or in the floodplain of the ephemeral channel located along the eastern edge of the project area. This is to retain the natural drainage pattern where it has not already been altered and to minimize sedimentation of the stream channel. • Monitoring of stormwater runoff, erosion control and water quality as required by the applicable WQD permits. 3.7 Land Use Existing Conditions

The TBCC dewatering and overstripping project analysis area overlaps several previous study areas, including the recently completed Wright Area Coal Lease Applications FEIS (Wright FEIS) is which the analysis was for full mine development. Since the Wright FEIS fully analyzed the impacts of full mine development which includes the proposed project activities the report from that analysis was used in this specific analysis.

Surface ownership within the general analysis area consists primarily of private lands with intermingled federal lands. Federally owned lands included in the general analysis area include portions of the TBNG administered by the USFS.

The TBCC dewatering and overstripping project area includes a mosaic of private, State, and Federal lands. Surface coal mining is the primary land use in the general project area. Other

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 97

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences land uses include oil and gas production (conventional and CBNG), wildlife habitat, power lines and communication, transportation (road and rail), livestock grazing (sheep and cattle), and recreation (mainly big game hunting outside the permit areas). Those activities occur on all surface ownership. No fisheries are present and no public fishing opportunities are available in the project area or surrounding perimeter. Surface mining and its related infrastructure will gradually move north and west through the analysis area (power line construction and relocation corridors) itself.

Grazing and recreation are secondary land uses for both public and private lands. This federal land is within Grazing Allotment #256 (located in the South and West Hilight Field tracts) all of which are currently held by Thunder Basin Grazing Association. This agreement annually permits the Thunder Basin Grazing Association (TBGA) for a total of 71,500 animal unit months (AUMs) on approximately 351,192 TBNG acres for a period of 10 years. In turn, TBGA permits these allotments to its individual members. These allotments within the proposed project for the South and West Hilight tracts are currently permitted to one member for a total 612 AUMs.

Areas of existing disturbance within the project area includes roads, oil and gas wells and associated production facilities, surface mine 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 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 mining tracts. According to the WOGCC records as of January 2012, there were 33 permitted CBNG wells on lands included within the project area. Of these 33 CBNG wells, no wells were producing, 5 were shut-in (not producing), 12 were permanently abandoned, and 1 is temporarily abandoned. Extensive CBNG development has also occurred on lands surrounding the areas, especially to the west.

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 of the Wright FEIS. 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

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 98

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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. Additional support facilities might not be constructed on the tracts because conventional oil and gas and CBNG well 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 mines (Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle) are part of a group of contiguous surface coal mines located in Campbell County. Coal production from the three 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 Wright EIS are in this group of mines.

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 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 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. (Wright FEIS 2010).

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 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 WY-GFD in their attempt to distribute and control harvest at optimal levels, as well as for sportsmen who desire access to these animals (Wright FEIS 2010).

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 99

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In general, publicly owned lands 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. Approximately 1,080 acres of the public surface lands within the project area 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 WY-GFD’s 2007 Big Game Herd Unit Job Completion Reports for the Casper and Sheridan Regions (Wright FEIS 2010). The WY-GFD 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 WY-GFD in this area. WY-GFD 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 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 WY-GFD 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 WY-GFD objective of 38,000 animals (Wright FEIS 2010).

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 (Wright FEIS 2010).

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

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 100

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences publicly owned lands. Given inadequate access to private lands, WY-GFD’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.

The 2007 post-season population estimate was 45 percent above the objective. While WY- GFD significantly increased license issuance in 2008, the estimated harvest assumes many remain unsold and the 2008 postseason population was expected to be 53,142 antelope (Wright FEIS 2010).

The WGFD has classified the general analysis area as yearlong and “OUT” mule deer use range (the OUT designated areas do not 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 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 WY-GFD, 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. WY-GFD 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 (Wright FEIS 2010).

No elk have been observed recently within the project area, 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 non-consumptive 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. WY-GFD stocked the reservoir with catchable rainbow trout from 2004 through 2006. Upon an evaluation, they found that it was well-stocked with bullheads

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 101

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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; however, USFS has an easement over this land that allows legal public access to the reservoir.

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 groundwater discharges from CBNG development 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 naturally-occurring 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.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Action

The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas until the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Many of the effects to land use under the Proposed Action would be similar to those described under the No Action Alternative. Existing infrastructure would still be relocated or removed in many cases, and activities other than mining would eventually be reduced or halted until post-mine reclamation matures sufficiently to support them again. However, mining would continue into existing and future leased coal reserves under the Proposed Action as power lines are relocated and/or constructed to allow access to coal reserves under the current corridors and to maintain uninterrupted power for mining equipment.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 102

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects for the Proposed Action

Due to the similarities of ongoing and future activities in the project area, the nature of the proposed project, and the fact that the project is entirely within the existing permit areas for the TBCC (where land use and public access are already restricted and strict reclamation standards apply), cumulative impacts from the proposed project would be similar under either alternative, and would be expected to mirror those of the existing projects within the leased area.

3.8 Economic and Social Conditions

Existing Conditions

The project analysis area overlies directly upon the South Hilight LBA tract and the West Hilight LBA tract. References for the economic and social conditions summarized in this section where covered completely and incorporated into the Wright FEIS analysis. The information in each of the following sections is based primarily upon the analysis included in the Wright FEIS (which covered the South and West Hilight LBA tracts) and the supplemental specialist reports. The FEIS and reports were used for the analysis of this project since this proposed project is located on a portion of the analysis area of the South Hilight LBA and a portion of the West Hilight LBA.

Social: Although individuals and communities over a wide geographic area use grassland resources, this report will concentrate its affect to the local area of Campbell County, Wyoming. This is the county that will be included in the project area.

Historically, ranching has a long history in the local communities dating back to the 1800s. Many of the local ranching families are direct descendents of the area’s earliest settlers while others have moved in recently (mostly with the energy boom). The use of the National Grasslands has been an integral part of the management of these ranches for years and contributes to the viability of their agricultural operations.

More recently, the energy increase in coal production, as well as oil and gas development has created a temporary work force. These workers are a current influence on the local social systems. They bring in different sets of values and lifestyles from all over the country.

Gillette: Gillette’s original growth was largely due to the railroad. In July 1891, Gillette was platted and lots were sold; one month later, the Burlington and Missouri Railroad reached the town. Three months after the railroad arrived, Gillette was a thriving town (US GenWeb). Gillette was incorporated on January 6, 1892, less than two years after statehood. The city was named after Weston Gillette, a surveyor and civil engineer (Wikipedia). After the railroad had extended beyond Gillette the commissary moved and the population declined. A fire moved through Gillette and destroyed many buildings, and in 1894, there were only two saloons, two stores and a restaurant remaining (US GenWeb).

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 103

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Gillette is a small city centrally positioned in an area that is critical to the development of extensive quantities of American coal, oil, and coal bed methane gas. The city describes itself as the "Energy Capital of the Nation" (Wikipedia).

Population trend- Gillette’s population grew 20.4% from 2001 to 2006. Currently, Gillette’s population is 19,646 (2000 US Census Data). Other population figures for the county are compared below. Table 3-12 - Population demographics by county. *County by By By By age ages ages ages By By location locatio location 0-20 21-44 45 -61 over gender gender % of Farm n Urban in in 61 Female Male

Population rural

Campbell 1.9 36.64 61.46 26 38 29 7 48.63 51.36 *2000 year figures from the Human Resources Module of the National Resource Information System (NRIS).

Economic: The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Northern Great Plains Management Plans (includes Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resources Management Plan) presents data and analysis on the employment, income, economic diversity, and dependency and 25% Payment Funds for each county within a zone of influence. The zone of influence includes Campbell County in Wyoming. See the Economics section of Chapter 3 of the Wright FEIS for a description of the employment composition and the affect or potential effect on each county due to management of the Thunder Basin National Grasslands. Economic uses of the project area include: livestock grazing, oil, gas, mineral leasing, recreation and tourism. These uses provide both employment and income to the local community. Some economic factors of the counties are compared below.

Table 3-13. Economic figures for five counties located on the Thunder Basin National Grassland, Wyoming. County % Unemployment Median Median Payment in lieu of in 2006 Family Home Value taxes (federal income government pays counties)* Campbell 2.1 $53,927 $102,900 $140,986 Converse 3.4 $45,905 $84,900 $183,853 Crook 2.8 $43,105 $85,400 $305 Niobrara 3.4 $33,,714 $60,300 $847 Weston 3.5 $40,472 $66,700 $226,374 Percent unemployment, Median Family income, and Median Home values were acquired from Socioeconomic Profiles produced by Economic Profile System (EPS); Median Family TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 104

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences income and Median home value information is gathered from 2000 US Census data. *Payment in lieu of taxes (federal government pays counties) values were obtained from information sent in 2008 from the USDA Forest Service, Washington office to the county treasurer. Table 3-14. Campbell County incomes from the largest industries. County Mining (in millions Government (in Other (in millions of 2005 dollars) millions of 2005 of 2005 dollars) dollars) Campbell 610.5 170.4 135.1 Construction Data is from Socioeconomic Profiles produced by the Economic Profile System (EPS).

Legal and administrative framework

Social: NEPA requires the integrated use of natural and social sciences in all planning and decision making that affect the human environment. The human environment includes the natural and physical environment and the relationship to that environment (40 CFR 1508.14). Forest Service land planning requires the integration of social science knowledge into the forest and regional planning process (36 CFR 219.5).

Economics: Economic analysis is required and/or supported by several acts (per FSM 1970.1). The Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 has direction to manage resources for the greatest good over time necessitating the use of economic and social analysis in determining management of the National Forest System. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires identification and analysis of economic and social impacts of proposed agency actions. Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 219, provides guidelines for evaluating alternatives in Land and Resource Management Plans and requires consideration of economic and social factors. FSM R2 supplement states conduct an economic benefit-cost and a financial revenue-cost analysis on all resource projects for which an: EA or EIS is prepared.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Action

The existing mining operation would continue, and no dewatering or overstripping would occur within the additional areas if and/or when the lease is acquired and incorporated into the State Mine Permit.

Alternative 2, Proposed Action TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 105

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This alternative would have a minor effect on the social systems as dewatering and overstripping only allow continued mining of an existing lease to meet safety standards and conditions. If the amount of available employment changes then the social patterns would shift. New individuals may reside in the area because of the change in the management system.

All Alternatives

Neither of the two alternatives would have a significant effect directly or indirectly on the economic status of the area. The area will continue to produce energy resources and the subsequent development and economic benefits will continue. There would be a negative effect under Alternative 1 and an insignificant negative social effect on the local community.

Cumulative Effects, social and economics

Cumulative effects on economic and social systems are hard to judge. Mining of coal and other geologic resources are an important part of Grassland activity and local economies. Social systems tend to change with or without any action on the part of the Forest Service. Implementing the No Action alternative may change the social system for mining, local employment, and county amenities. However, Alternative 1 would probably have little effect on the system, overall because mining and other mineral and energy extraction will likely continue to increase in this portion of Grassland.

Environmental Justice

A specific consideration of equity and fairness in resource decision-making is encompassed in the issue of environmental justice. As in Executive Order 12898 (Federal action to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations), provides that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations”. Statistics from the National Resources Information System (human module) are shown on the chart below. Both minorities and poverty percentage is very low; therefore, no adverse effects to minorities or low-income populations are likely to occur. The road system is used by all groups of people. Changes in road management, including closing or decommissioning of any of the roads would have the same effect on all groups of people, including minorities and different cultures. No minority or low-income communities or groups would be disproportionately affected by any alternative. Table 3-15. The environmental justice statistics for the project area. *County % minorities % poverty per families

Campbell 3.9 3.1

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 106

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 107

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The Forest Service consulted with the following individuals, organizations, and Federal, State, and local agencies during the development of this Environmental Assessment: Consultation and Coordination Federal, State, and Local Agencies Bureau of Land Management (Casper and Buffalo Field Offices) Blackfoot Nation Campbell County Commissioners Campbell County Economic Development Corporation Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Converse County Commissioners Converse County Fire Warden Environmental Protection Agency Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes Gillette Chamber of Commerce Gillette Mayor Hunkpap-Santee Sioux Tribe Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Northern Arapaho Tribe Northern Cheyenne Tribe Oglala Sioux Tribe Rosebud Sioux Tribe Standing Rock Sioux Tribe State Engineer’s Office Shoshone Business Council Three Affiliated Tribes USDI Office of Surface Mining US Fish and Wildlife Services-Buffalo Field Office US Fish and Wildife Service-Ecological Services Office U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis U.S. Senator John Barrasso U.S. Senator Michael Enzi Wyoming State Representative Thomas Lubnau II Wyoming State Senator John Hines Wyoming State Senator Michael VonFlatern Wright Mayor Wyoming Department of Agriculture Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Land Quality Division Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Water Quality Division

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 108

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

Wyoming Department of Revenue-Ad Valorum Tax Wyoming Department of State Lands & Investments Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources Historic Sites Division Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wyoming Oil & Gas Commission Wyoming State Geological Survey Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office Wyoming State Planning Office

Individuals and Organizations Biodiversity Conservaton Alliance BNSF Railway Co. Funk, Wendell Jacobs Ranch Coal Medicine Wheel Coalition Peabody Natural Gas LLC Powder River Basin Resource Council Powder River Coal, LLC Powder River Energy Corporation Rio Tinto Energy America Shoshone Cultural Committee Thunder Basin Coal Co. Thunder Basin Grazing Association Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Eco Thunder Basin Resource Coalition Tracy, Dan Wyoming Business Council Wyoming Public Lands Council Wyoming Stockgrowers’ Association Wyoming Water Development Commission List of Preparers Interdisciplinary Team Leader: Amy Ormseth Forest Service Specialists: Aquatics — Shawn Anderson Botany — Katie Driver Engineering — Hilaire Peck Fire/Fuels — Clay Westbrook Fluid Minerals — Amy Ormseth Heritage — Amanda Sanchez Hydrology — Carol Purchase Lands/Realty — Geri Proctor NEPA — Allen Hambrick Paleontology — Mike Fracasso Range — Moriah Shadwick

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 109

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

Recreation — Marcia Rose-Ritchie Solid Minerals — Amy Ormseth Social and Economics — Danielle Rebolletti Soils — Randy Tepler Visuals — Jeff Tupala Wildlife — Tim Byer

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 110

Chapter 5 References Cited

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES CITED

36 CFR 219.5. July 2006. Title 36, Volume 2. Planning. US Government Printing Office. Washington D.C.

Thunder Basin Coal Company (TBCC). 2011. Black Thunder Mine Biological Evaluation- Wildlife (Amendment to the Umbrella). Prepared by Thunderbird Associates.

Thunder Basin Coal Company (TBCC). 2010 Black Thunder Mine Biological Evaluation- Botany (2010 Umbrella). Prepared by BKS Environmental Associates, Inc.

USDA Forest Service. May 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision, Northern and Rocky Mountain Regions. Chadron NE.

USDA. 2008. Department Regulation 9500-4. USDA, Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.ocio.usda.gov/directives/doc/DR9500-004.pdf [03/02/10].

USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region (FS RMR). 2003. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. 2003. Regional Planning Desk Guide Chapter 27: Selection of Sensitive Species, Species of Local Concern, and MIS in R2. Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. On file at Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Supervisor's Office, Laramie, WY.

USDA Forest Service (FS). 2002. Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Medicine Bow Routt National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland Supervisor's Office, Laramie, WY. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/mbr/projects/forestplans/thunderbasin/index.shtml [06/16/06].

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA USA.

USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010. Wright Area Coal Lease by Applications – Final Environmental Impact Statement. Casper Field Office, Casper WY. Also online at:

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Species Profile for Penstemon haydenii. Website http://www.fws.gov/species/.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 111

Chapter 5 References Cited

USDI FWS. 2004. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Notice of Review; Proposed Rule. Federal Register Tuesday, May 4, 2004. USGPO, Washington, DC.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. US Fish and Wildlife Service Recommendations and Guidelines for Ute Ladies’-tresses orchid recovery and fulfilling section 7 consultation and responsibilities. Unpublished document on file at Medicine Bow-Routt NFs and Thunder Basin NG Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=Q2WA [03/12/10].

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to list the plant Spiranthes diluvialis as a Threatened species. Federal Register 57(12): 2048–2054. As cited in Fertig et al. 2005.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Species Profile: Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=Q2WA [03/12/10]. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS and NMFS). 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook. US Department of Interior FWS and Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/consultations/s7hndbk/s7hndbk.htm [03/10/07].

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment 112

Appendix 1 Location Map

APPENDIX A: LOCATION MAP

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment A-1

APPENDIX B PUBLIC COMMENTS AND FOREST SERVICE RESPONSES

TBCC Coal Company, LLC Black Thunder Mine Dewatering and Overstripping Summary of Scoping Input

The Douglas Ranger District received input to our scoping from 3 individuals, groups, governmental agencies. The following numbered list corresponds to the Comment and Response Table below. These letters, emails, and phone call notes are located in the project file. The input received was summarized in the table below and is not always presented verbatim.

1. Jeremy Nichols, Wild Earth Guardians (email, letter attachment) 2. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (letter) 3. Wyoming Department of Agriculture (letter)

Comment(er) Comment Response Number 1A What action is being proposed and Proposed Action is described in the under what authority (p. 1) EA in the Summary and again in the Introduction and in the DN. The authorities are also described in the EA. 1B USFS has not provided sufficient The proposed action and conformance information that any permit meets with special use rules is addressed in USFS special use rules (p. 2) the EA and in the decision document. 1C Purpose and need is inappropriately Development of a purpose and need is narrow if the proposed action is to developed based on the proponent issue a SUP (p. 2) application to the USFS for authorization. 1D USFS has not addressed connected Connected actions and reasonably actions and reasonably foreseeable foreseeable impacts are addressed in impacts (p. 2) the project description section of the EA and Cumulative Effects. 1E USFS has not analyzed and assessed CO2 isn’t a direct effect from this the impacts of CO2 emissions (p. 3) project or mining in the Powder River Basin, it is however a result of power plants that burn coal to operate. Therefore, Global warming and CO2 emissions were fully considered and analyzed throughout the document that the air quality section of this EA was tiered to in the Wright Area FEIS under the cumulative effects analysis

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment B-1

covered in Section 4.2.14.2. 1F USFS has yet to analyze and assess Climate change impacts were fully the potentially significant climate considered and analyzed throughout change impacts (p. 3) the document that this EA was tiered to in the Wright Area FEIS. 1G USFS must analyze in detail a range Climate change impacts were fully of alternatives to address greenhouse considered and analyzed throughout gas emissions and climate change this EA and the parent document that impacts (p. 4) this EA was tiered to in the Wright Area FEIS. 1H USFS must analyze and assess air Air quality impacts, including ozone, quality impacts: ozone, nitrogen nitrogen dioxide, PM2.5 (NAAQS and dioxide, PM2.5 NAAQS, PM2.5 for Class I areas), PM10 (NAAQS and Increments for class I areas, PM10 for Class I areas), and visibility were NAAQS and Increments, and fully considered and analyzed Visibility (p. 4-8) throughout the document that this EA was tiered to in the Wright Area FEIS. 1I USFS must demonstrate that the The decision complies with Air proposed action will comply with Quality standards in the Grassland grassland plan standards related to air Plan. This is further explained in quality protection (p. 8) detail in the EA Air Quality Section and in the decision document. 1J USFS must demonstrate that the The decision complies with all of the proposed action will comply with all standards in the Grassland Plan. other grassland plan standards (p. 9) This is further explained in detail in the EA Compliance with current plans. 2A Antelope and mule deer yearlong and Impacts to antelope and mule deer winter range (p. 1) habitat and other wildlife are analyzed in the Biological Assessments/Biological Evaluations for Wildlife, and are disclosed in the Environmental Assessment. 2B Restore native vegetation on Restoration and seeding requirements reclaimed portions (p. 1) and direction are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.5 (Vegetation Resources). Reclamation and restoration of land is a required part of the permit. 2C Allow big game, game birds, and Impacts to hunting are analyzed and waterfowl hunting on leased lands disclosed in Chapter 3, Section 3.7 that don’t have safety issues. (p. 1) (Land Uses). Mitigation of impacts to other land uses are incorporated and required as part of the permit. 2D Hunting and hunting access (p. 1) Impacts to hunting are analyzed and disclosed in Chapter 3, Section 3.7 (Land Uses). Mitigation of impacts to other land uses are incorporated and required as part of the permit.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment B-2

2E Sage grouse habitat (p. 2) Impacts to sage grouse and habitat and other wildlife are analyzed in the Biological Assessments/Biological Evaluations for Wildlife, and are disclosed in the Environmental Assessment. 2F Sage –dependent non-game birds and Impacts to sage grouse and habitat small mammals habitat (p. 2) and other wildlife are analyzed in the Biological Assessments/Biological Evaluations for Wildlife, and are disclosed in the Environmental Assessment. 2G Known raptor nesting areas. ½ mile Impacts to raptor nests and other buffers should be maintained (p. 2) wildlife are analyzed in the Biological Assessments/Biological Evaluations for Wildlife, and are disclosed in the Environmental Assessment. Mitigation for raptors is also incorporated into the decision and authorization. 2H Groundwater removal location(p. 2) Hydrology, including groundwater, was fully analyzed and assessed in the EA and the Wright Area LBA EIS. 3A Long term loss of vegetation and Restoration and seeding requirements AUMs (p. 1) and direction are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.5 (Vegetation Resources). Reclamation and restoration of land is a required part of the permit. 3B TBCC, LLC and Douglas Ranger Outside the scope of the project. District work closely with permittees However, mitigation of the impacts of and private land owners to address this project will be incorporated and concerns. (p. 1) required as part of the authorization and will require coordination for all current land uses. 3C Mitigation between TBCC, LLC and Impacts to livestock grazing are permittees to lessen economic analyzed and disclosed in Chapter 3, impacts to agriculture (p. 1) Section 3.7 (Land Uses). Mitigation of impacts to other land uses are incorporated and required as part of the permit. 3D Use grazing to achieve desired goals In reference to reclamation and and objectives of reclaimed areas (p. restoration for the general mine 1) permit that is outside the scope of this project. However, reclamation and restoration of land is a required part of the any Special Use Permit will require reclamation. If lands were to ever be incorporated into a leased area, the SUP would be cancelled and

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment B-3

reclamation would be incorporated into the WY-DEQ/LQD state permit.

3E Successful and timely reclamation Restoration and seeding requirements and weed control (p. 2) and direction are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.5 (Vegetation Resources). Reclamation and restoration of land is a required part of the permit. Weed control is also incorporated into the design criteria and required within the terms of the permit. 3F Analysis of effects upon livestock Impacts to livestock grazing are operations (p. 2) analyzed and disclosed in Chapter 3, Section 3.7 (Land Uses). Mitigation of impacts to other land uses are incorporated and required as part of the permit.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment B-4

APPENDIX C PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND FOREST SERVICE RESPONSES

TBCC Coal Company, LLC Black Thunder Mine Dewatering and Overstripping Summary of Draft EA comments

The Douglas Ranger District received input to our scoping from 2 individuals, groups, governmental agencies. The following numbered list corresponds to the Comment and Response Table below. These letters, emails, and phone call notes are located in the project file. The input received was summarized in the table below and is not always presented verbatim.

1. Wyoming Department of Agriculture (letter)

Comment(er) Comment Response Number 1A Recommend adding language This language was added and impacts referencing the Wright EIS and to livestock grazing are analyzed and explaining the impacts of the TBCC disclosed in Chapter 3, Section 3.7 project to livestock grazing or range (Land Uses). Mitigation of impacts improvements. to other land uses are incorporated and required as part of the permit.

TBCC Dewatering and Overstripping Environmental Assessment C-1