2011-11-10_REVISION - C1981022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appeal Deciding Officer instance, in the case of a site - specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long -term effects are relevant. Discussion: The Appellant mischaracterizes recent actions by the BLM and USFS for the Elk Creek Mine. In December 2010, the USFS sent out a scoping notice regarding a modification to the existing Federal Coal Lease COC -61357 to add 157 acres (Tract 5) of National Forest System lands to facilitate the mining of the existing D -seam reserves on the parent lease. The addition of Tract 5 on the northeast corner of the mine would enable the Elk Creek Mine to consider an additional sixth panel to its mine design. The modification to include Tract 5 would contribute between 35,000- 235,000 tons of coal to the parent lease. Access to the additional D -seam reserves is expected to take place from the existing D -seam, Tract 1. Tract 1 was analyzed in the North Fork Coal EIS of 2000 (Tab 4). The D -seam is the primary mineable coal. The concern raised by the Appellant in their appeal regarding the mining of an additional 0.52 million tons of coal on the parent lease was not raised during the comment period (Tab 10). The lease modification, Tract 5, would facilitate safer and more logical mining of 0.52 million tons of previously leased reserves on the parent coal lease with the additional sixth panel (Tab 2, page 16). In 2008, the BLM prepared an EA for the Elk Creek East Tract Coal Lease (COC- 70615); this tract provided a logical extension of the Elk Creek Mine's D -seam workings within the current mine. This was a Lease by Application (LBA) for approximately 786 acres of BLM - managed surface and mineral estate on the southeast side of the mine (and south of USFS boundary). The proposed action associated with the above LBA was to continue mining operations into the additional area. As a result, the production rate of the Elk Creek Mine would be lowered from 4.8 million to 3.96 million tons of coal annually (Tab 12). • Removal of an additional 0.52 million tons of coal outside of the lease modification boundary The Appellant states "The Forest Supervisor violated NEPA by failing to disclose the impacts of the proposed action by mining a half - million tons of coal outside the lease modification area." The half - million tons of coal is associated with the parent lease, but is addressed in the EA because the lease modification for Tract 5 will allow for the efficient and effective recovery (and logical development) of the coal seam. There is disagreement between BLM and Oxbow Mining, LLC ( OMLLC) whether this quantity of coal would be mined on the parent lease with or without the lease modification; but, effects were disclosed in the EA (Section 3.2) such that either scenario may apply (DN, page 5). The 0.52 million tons of previously leased coal that could be developed with this modification to the lease area was evaluated as part of the baseline condition the impacts of authorizing OMLLC to mine coal from the parent lease (including the aforementioned 0.52 million tons) was previously analyzed (North Fork Coal EIS, Tab 4 and USFS Record of Decision, Tab 5). In OMLLC's application, MSHA approved a change to a 5- panel design within the existing lease boundary. By adding Tract 5, a 6 th panel can be added, which would facilitate the mining of the additional coal in the parent lease (Tab 8; June 1, 2010 application).