Federal judge halts expansion of coal mine near Colstrip

A federal judge has halted a large coal mining project that would be used to keep the coal-fired Colstrip plant in Rosebud operational, saying the Federal Office of Surface Mining had approved the expansion without considering the impact to the environment and the Yellowstone River.

The project, known as “Area F,” would have allowed Westmoreland Resources to strip mine an additional 6,500 acres, which translates to 70 million tons of coal. Environmental groups which challenged the expansion calculated that the nearby Colstrip plant would release more than 100 million tons of greenhouse gases, and continue to divert as many as 50,000-acre feet of water from the Yellowstone River each year.

The ruling found that while the federal office considered the economic impacts of the project in 2019, it did not consider the environmental costs, nor did it consider other alternatives, as required by law. Furthermore, Judge Susan Watters ruled that the OSM was not “even-handed” in considering both the costs and benefits of coal mining.

As part of her ruling, Watters said that in permitting the new coal mining expansion, the Office of Surface Mining had not properly followed the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires a thorough review of projects that affect the environment and consider alternatives. Those are usually found in a document called the “Environmental Impact Statement,” which should satisfy the provisions of NEPA. However, Watters said that while the Office of Surface Mining noted the impact, it glossed over them, failing to provide an adequate discussion.

“That summary states that the mine expansion would ‘contribute to long-term adverse cumulative impacts on surface water hydrology that would range from minor to major,’” she wrote. “And ‘to short-term and long-term adverse cumulative impacts on surface water quality … that would range from minor to major.’”

Watters said the conclusions were “devoid of the meaningful analysis required by NEPA.”

Watters also criticized how the impact statement was put together, saying that the public would have to piece together three different sections “in order to come to their own conclusions about the cumulative impacts to surface water. Such an expectation contravenes the core of an EIS which is to ‘foster both informed decision-making and informed public participation.’”

While the ruling said that the Office of Surface Mining had considered the economic impacts, for example, continued employment, ongoing royalty payments and support of the local tax base, it failed to consider the environmental cost of mining more than 70 million tons of coal and the greenhouse gases that would be released by burning it.

Watters also found that the OSM failed to look at other reasonable alternatives, which rendered the environmental impact statement it provided “inadequate.”

In her ruling, she sent the matter back to the Office of Surface Mining to prepare a valid environmental impact statement and consider the alternatives, as well as the environmental costs of mining coal and the possible effects on the Yellowstone River.

While many federal agencies are given 12 months to study the issue, Watters granted the Office of Surface Mining 19 months to remedy the decision.