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