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

This is a text-only version of the document "Black Mesa - Final Environmental Impact Statement - Vol 1 of 2 - 2008". To see the original version of the document click here.
B ac M e a P OJC l k s R ET
I NA nv r nt MP T T E NT F LE i onme alI AC SAT ME
D F S 84 OI E 0 -9 OS ES3 M-I-3

D F S 84 OI E 0 -9 OS ES3 M-I-3

F LE i onme alI AC SAT ME I NA nv r nt MP T T E NT

B ac M e a P OJC l k s R ET

USD p r n o tenei . e at t fh I r r . me to O f e f ufc Miig fc o S r e nn i a R c main n E fre n el t a d nocme t a o P .o 467 . B x 66 O D ne C l a o 00-67 e vr o rd 82166 , o

USD p r n . e at t . me o teneir fh Itr o Ofe f fc o i S r c Miig uf e nn a R c main n el t a d a o E fre n nocme t

USD p r notenei . e at tf I r r . me h to Ofe fuf e n g fc oS r c Min i a i R c mai a d nocmet el t n n E fr a o e n

N vmbr08 oe e20

N vmbr08 oe e20

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mission: As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural and cultural resources. This includes fostering wise use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people.

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Our mission is to carry out the requirements of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in cooperation with States and Tribes. Our primary objectives are to ensure that coal mines are operated in a manner that protects citizens and the environment during mining and assures that the land is restored to beneficial use following mining, and to mitigate the effects of past mining by aggressively pursuing reclamation of abandoned coal mines.

Cover photographs (from left to right): (1) dragline removing overburden from coal at Peabody Western Coal Company’s Black Mesa Complex (2) drilling of test well for Coconino aquifer water-supply system (3) sheepherder and flock on reclaimed land at Peabody Western Coal Company’s Black Mesa Complex (4) Black Mesa Pipeline, Incorporated’s coal-slurry preparation plant (5) Black Mesa Pipeline, Incorporated’s coal-slurry pipeline Pump Station Number 2

COVER SHEET 

PROPOSED ACTIONS: Approval of revisions to the life-of-mine operation and reclamation plans for surface coal mining at Peabody Western Coal Company’s Black Mesa Complex. LEAD AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement COOPERATING AGENCIES: Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tribes Hopi Tribe Hualapai Tribe Navajo Nation County and City Mohave County City of Kingman FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Richard Holbrook Attn: Dennis Winterringer Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Western Regional Coordinating Center P.O. Box 46667 
 Denver, Colorado 80201-6667 
 Telephone: (303) 293-5048
 ABSTRACT: This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared to analyze and disclose the potential impacts resulting from approval of a permit application from Peabody Western Coal Company (Peabody) proposing revisions to the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plan for surface coal mining at the Black Mesa Complex in northern Arizona. The action proposed by Peabody is to revise the life-of-mine operation and reclamation plans for its permitted Kayenta mining operation and, as a part of this revision, incorporate into these plans the initial program area surface facilities and coal resource areas of its adjacent Black Mesa mining operation, which previously supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada. Three alternatives were considered. Alternative A would involve the approval of the LOM revision and all components associated with supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station (e.g., approve the permit for the coal-slurry preparation plant, reconstruct the Black Mesa coal-slurry pipeline, and construct and operate the Coconino aquifer water-supply system). Alternative B, the preferred alternative in this Final EIS, would be the approval of the LOM revision. Alternative C would be the disapproval of the LOM revision. The following actions would occur: The BLM Arizona State Director (or designee), in consultation with the BIA, Hopi Tribe, and Navajo Nation, would approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the LOM mining plan. The OSM Director (or designee) would approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove Peabody’s permit application package and, in the case of an approval or conditional approval, issue a Federal permit to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations, with conditions, as necessary, to comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations.

E E U IE U X C TV S MMA Y R

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE AND NEED This environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in order to analyze and disclose the probable effects of the Black Mesa Project in northern Arizona. The purpose of and need for the Black Mesa Project is to continue the supply of coal from Peabody Western Coal Company’s (Peabody’s) Kayenta mining operation to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona. The action proposed by Peabody is to revise the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for its permitted Kayenta mining operation and, as a part of this revision, to incorporate into these plans the initial program area surface facilities and coal-resource areas of its adjacent Black Mesa mining operations, which previously supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada. This EIS collectively refers to the area occupied by the Kayenta mining operation and Black Mesa mining operation as the Black Mesa Complex. The United States Department of the Interior (USDI), Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), is the lead agency responsible for preparing this EIS. Other Federal agencies and tribal governments cooperating with OSM in the preparation of the EIS include the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Navajo Nation, City of Kingman, and Mohave County.1 The following actions would occur: the BLM Arizona State Director (or designee), in consultation with the BIA, Hopi Tribe, and Navajo Nation, would approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the LOM mining plan. The OSM Director (or designee) would approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove Peabody’s permit application package and, in the case of an approval or conditional approval, issue a Federal permit to conduct surface-coal mining and reclamation operations, with conditions, as necessary, to comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations. This EIS is being prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500-1508), and other applicable regulations including the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. Changes to the Purpose and Need from the Draft EIS Since the Draft EIS was published in November 2006, the purpose of and need for the Black Mesa Project to supply coal to the Mohave Generating Station no longer exists. With this change, Peabody amended its permit revision application, thus causing the change in the statement of purpose and need and reducing the scope of the proposed action. Some of Peabody’s LOM revisions and three of the four original proposed actions are no longer proposed. •	 As a part of its LOM revisions, Peabody no longer proposes to construct a new coal-haul road and new coal-washing facility, produce coal from the Black Mesa mining operation for the Mohave Generating Station, and acquire additional water for slurry transportation of coal and coal washing.

1

As described in the Draft EIS, Section 1.2, under Alternative A, other agencies would have authorities and actions to take regarding the coal-slurry preparation plant, coal-slurry pipeline, and/or C aquifer water-supply system.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-1

Executive Summary

•	 Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. (BMPI) no longer proposes to continue to operate the Black Mesa coalslurry preparation plant. •	 BMPI also no longer proposes to reconstruct the 273-mile-long coal-delivery slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station. •	 The co-owners of the Mohave Generating Station2 no longer propose to construct a new watersupply system, including a 108-mile-long water-supply pipeline and a well field near Leupp, Arizona, to obtain water from the Coconino aquifer (C aquifer) and to convey the water to the Black Mesa Complex for use in the coal slurry and other mine-related purposes. The Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation also proposed that the C aquifer water-supply system could be expanded to provide an additional 5,600 acre-feet per year (af/yr) of water for tribal domestic, municipal, industrial, and commercial uses. Both tribes indicated that upsizing the pipeline and expanding the system’s well field would fulfill the needs of both tribes to significantly expand and improve tribal water supplies at a relatively modest cost. This EIS analyzes the tribes’ potential withdrawals of C-aquifer water from the proposed well field, which would be interrelated with the sizing of the previously proposed water-supply pipeline and well field and the total amount of C-aquifer water ultimately withdrawn from the well field near Leupp. The construction of tribal water-distribution systems was never proposed as a part of the Black Mesa Project; therefore, it is not analyzed in this EIS. Although these actions are no longer proposed and not part of the preferred alternative, they still could occur under certain circumstances. Alternative A addresses supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station, which remains permitted for operation. Although operation of the Mohave Generating Station was suspended in December 2005, it has not been decommissioned. Although it appears that implementing Alternative A is unlikely, Peabody wishes to proceed in revising its permit to incorporate the surface facilities and coal-resource areas in the initial program area of its adjacent Black Mesa mining operation; that is, Alternative B. Because Alternative A is still possible, albeit unlikely, this EIS continues to analyze its effects. BACKGROUND The Black Mesa Complex has operated as two separate surface-mining operations (Kayenta mining operation and Black Mesa mining operation) since the early 1970s and is an area composed of three

Operation of the Mohave Generating Station—owned jointly by Southern California Edison Company (SCE), Salt River Project (SRP), Los Angeles Water and Power, and Nevada Power Company—was suspended on December 31, 2005. After a comprehensive reassessment of efforts required to return the power plant to operation, SCE, the operator and majority owner of the Mohave Generating Station, announced on June 19, 2006, that it would not continue to pursue resumed operation of the power plant. Two other owners, Nevada Power Company and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, made similar announcements. The fourth owner, SRP, announced that it was continuing to assess the situation and might pursue resumed operation of the power plant with new partners, but not as sole owner. In September 2006, SRP announced that it was accelerating efforts to return the plant to service, and requested that the environmental impact statement process resume while it attempted to form a new ownership group. With SCE’s concurrence, SRP committed to replace SCE as the principal applicant for those aspects of the Black Mesa Project that SCE had initiated. On February 6, 2007, SRP announced that it would no longer pursue resumption of the coal operations at the Mohave Generating Station and no longer continue as the project proponent for completion of the Black Mesa Project EIS. On February 7, 2007, SCE resumed responsibility for completion of the EIS and, on May 18, 2007, SCE announced that work on the Black Mesa Project EIS was suspended. In letters dated February 25 and April 30, 2008, Peabody Western Coal Company notified the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement of its intention to amend the pending life-of-mine permit-revision application for the Black Mesa Complex to remove proposed plans and activities that supported supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station because it believed that reopening the Mohave Generating Station for operation is unlikely.

2

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-2

Executive Summary

contiguous leases and several surface rights-of-way and easements granted to Peabody from the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. The Black Mesa Complex comprises approximately 24,858 acres of land where the surface and mineral interests are held exclusively by the Navajo Nation (Navajo Exclusive Lease Area, Lease 14-20-0603-8580), and approximately 40,000 acres of land are located in the former Hopi and Navajo Joint Minerals Ownership Lease Area (Joint Lease Area, Leases 14-20-0603-9910 and 14-20-0450-5743). The tribes have joint and equal interest in the minerals that underlie the Joint Lease Area; however, the surface has been partitioned and is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribe to which the surface is partitioned (6,137 acres partitioned to the Hopi Tribe and 33,863 acres partitioned to the Navajo Nation). The coal-mining leases with the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation provide Peabody the right to produce up to 290 million tons of coal from the Navajo Exclusive Lease Area and up to 380 million tons of coal from the Hopi and Navajo Joint Lease Area for a combined total of 670 million tons. The coal-mining leases, approved by the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation, provide Peabody with the rights to prospect, mine, and strip leased lands to produce coal and kindred products, including other minerals that may be found, except for oil and gas. Peabody also is given the right to construct support facilities such as buildings, pipelines, tanks, plants, and other structures; make excavations, stockpiles, ditches, drains, roads, spur tracks, electric power lines, and other improvements; and to place machinery and other equipment and fixtures and do all other things on the leased lands necessary to carry on mining operations, including rights of ingress and egress, and to develop and use water for the mining operations, including the transportation by slurry pipeline of coal mined from the leases. The Kayenta mining operation produces 8.5 million tons of coal per year and, since 1973, has been supplying coal from the Black Mesa Complex exclusively to the Navajo Generating Station by way of the Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad, a distance of 83 miles. The Kayenta mining operation is permitted by OSM to mine coal reserves into 2026 at current production rates. The intent of the LOM revision is to improve or enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the mine plan for the Kayenta mining operation. However, no changes to this coal-delivery system or to the generating station are needed. The Black Mesa mining operation supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station from 1970 until December 2005, when the Black Mesa mining operation ceased delivering coal due to suspension of Mohave Generating Station operations. On February 17, 2004, Peabody filed an LOM permit revision application with OSM proposing several revisions to the LOM plans of the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. On July 2, 2008, Peabody amended the pending mine permit revision application for the Black Mesa Complex to remove proposed plans and activities that supported supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station because Peabody believed that reopening the Mohave Generating Station for operation as a coal-fired power plant is unlikely. Peabody submitted an amended application on July 2, 2008, which is consistent with its letters omitting components to supply coal to the Mohave Generating Station and the haul road. ALTERNATIVES Under the SMCRA, OSM must make decisions on the LOM revision for the Black Mesa Complex. The primary decision options available to OSM are (A) approval of the LOM revision and all components associated with coal supply to the Mohave Generating Station, (B) approval of the LOM revisions without all components associated with coal supply to the Mohave Generating Station, and (C) disapproval of the LOM revision (no action). In making the decisions, OSM will consider issues associated with the use of water from the N aquifer, as required by the Secretary of the Interior, prior to issuance of the permanent LOM permit. The three alternatives addressed in the EIS are as follows:

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-3

Executive Summary

•	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components Associated with Coal Supply to the Mohave Generating Station •	 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) •	 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) Table ES-1 shows the differences in acreages of the permanent program permit area, amounts of coal for delivery, and amounts of water usage for each of the three alternatives. Description of the three alternative decisions addressed in the EIS follow the table. Table ES-1 Summary of Alternatives
Alternative B 62,930 0 6,942 0 8.5 Alternative C 44,073 0 6,942 0 8.5

Alternative A Acres permitted 63,057 Acres for coal-haul road 127 Acres disturbed by mining 12,409 Coal produced into 2026 (million tons per year) 6.35 • Black Mesa mining operation 8.5 • Kayenta mining operation Water use (af/yr) • C aquifer o Coal washing 500 o Coal slurry 3,700 o Mine-related and domestic 1,600 o Contingency 200 o Tribal 2,000 ƒ Hopi Tribe ƒ Navajo Nation 3,600 Total 11,600 • N aquifer (average annual use in acre-feet) 2,0001 o 2008 through 20251 o 2026 through 2028 o 2029 through 2038 Coal-slurry pipeline2 • Construction right-of-way acres • Permanent right-of-way acres Water-supply system3 • Construction right-of-way acres • Permanent right-of-way acres Up to 505 Up to 444 2,319 1,821 1,261 722

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average of 1,236 505 444 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average of 1,236 505 444 0 0 0 0

NOTES: 1 As a worst case, under Alternative A, an estimated average of 2,000 acre-feet of Navajo-aquifer water would be used for (1) public consumption, (2) withdrawal from the N-aquifer wells to maintain their function, (3) emergencies, and (4) the Kayenta mining operation. 2 Alternative A only; reflects acreage for the existing pipeline alignment with realignments in Moenkopi Wash and Kingman area. 3 Alternative A only; reflects acreage for the scenario of 11,600 acre-feet of water per year and Eastern Route (including the four pump stations, substation, and power line). af/yr = acre feet per year

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-4

Executive Summary

Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components Associated with Coal Supply to the Mohave Generating Station If Alternative A were selected, Peabody’s February 2004 application for the LOM permit revision and mine plan changes would be approved as would all the components associated with supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Alternative A was the proposed project and the agencies’ preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. LOM Revision and Mine Plan Changes Under Alternative A, Peabody’s February 2004 application for the LOM permit revision would be approved and a Federal permit would be issued to continue surface-coal-mining and reclamation operations at the Black Mesa Complex. OSM’s existing permanent Indian Lands Program permit area (the 44,073 acres within the current permit area for the Kayenta mining operation) would be expanded to incorporate the initial program parts of the existing lease area (the 18,984 acres) associated with the Black Mesa mining operation and existing and proposed rights-of-way (including 127 acres for a new coal-haul road described below). The Black Mesa Complex would continue operations through 2026. Peabody would obtain a separate and additional off-lease right-of-way from the Hopi Tribe to construct the new coal-haul road, between the southern portions of Peabody’s leases, as a support facility for continued Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. The road would be 500 feet wide and approximately 1.6 miles long; approximately 127 acres would be required. Until its suspension in December 2005, the Black Mesa mining operation produced about 4.8 million tons of coal annually, all of which were delivered to the Mohave Generating Station. Approval of the 2004 LOM permit revision would allow the Black Mesa mining operation to continue through 2026 under a permanent Indian Lands Program permit. The LOM revision did not propose to change the Black Mesa mining methods, but would increase the average annual production rate of the Black Mesa mining operation from 4.8 million tons to about 6.35 million tons. Under Alternative A, a new coal-washing facility would be constructed adjacent to the existing Black Mesa coal-preparation facilities to meet the anticipated future coal-quality requirements of the Mohave Generating Station. The purpose of the coal-washing facility would be to remove out-of-seam rock and mineral impurities (earth materials), commonly referred to as refuse, from the coal, which results in less ash when the coal is burned. The coal-washing facility would use about 500 af/yr of C-aquifer water and would remove about 0.95 million tons per year of coal-processing refuse, resulting in about 5.4 million tons per year of washed coal being crushed and mixed with water at the coal-slurry preparation plant and transported as slurry to the Mohave Generating Station through a pipeline. The estimated 0.95 million tons per year of coal-processing refuse would be returned by end-dump trucks to designated mine pits (N-06 and J-23) for disposal. Peabody would develop (and submit for regulatory approval) a refuse sampling and disposal plan that would be incorporated in the mining permit. No refuse piles or coal-mine­ waste impoundments are proposed. The coal-washing process, preparation process and facilities, potential fugitive dust emissions, and refuse disposal are described in Appendix A-1. Peabody’s February 2004 application for the LOM revision proposed actions to replace a portion of the N-aquifer water with C-aquifer water for the Black Mesa mining operation, the use of which resulted in the administrative delay in permitting the Black Mesa mining operation and the Black Mesa coal-slurry preparation plant. Under Alternative A, about 672 af/yr of water from the C aquifer water-supply system would be used to replace much of the N-aquifer water used by the Black Mesa mining operation; 500 af/yr of C-aquifer water also would be used for washing coal. From 2026 through 20028, 505 af/yr of

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-5

Executive Summary

N-aquifer water would continue to be pumped for mine reclamation, public use, and to maintain operation of the N-aquifer wells, and 444 af/yr would be used from 2029 through 2038. Components Associated with Coal Supply to the Mohave Generating Station In addition to approval of the 2004 LOM permit application, the components associated with supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station would be approved; that is, the coal-slurry preparation plant permit, reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline, and construction of a new water-supply system. Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant Until December 2005, the coal from the Black Mesa mining operation was prepared (i.e., crushed and mixed with water) at the coal-slurry preparation plant for transportation through the coal-slurry pipeline to the Mohave Generating Station. BMPI submitted a permanent Indian Lands Program permit application (preparation-plant permit application) to OSM in 1988 for operation of the plant. Like the Black Mesa mining operation, OSM’s decision on the preparation-plant permit application was delayed due to issues associated with the use of N-aquifer water. On January 3, 2005, BMPI submitted a revised permit application to OSM, which was determined to be administratively complete. Only minor modifications to the existing plant would need to occur; no ground-disturbing activities would result. Coal-Slurry Pipeline Until 2005, coal from the Black Mesa mining operation was transported by BMPI via the coal-slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa Complex to the Mohave Generating Station, a distance of approximately 273 miles. The existing pipeline crosses the Hopi and Navajo Reservations, as well as Federal, State, local government, and private lands. The pipeline, constructed in the late 1960s and operated since the early 1970s, reached its 35-year design life. Reconstruction of the pipeline would involve burying a new pipeline adjacent and parallel to the existing pipeline for most of its length. A temporary right-of-way width of about 15 feet would be needed, in addition to the existing 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, for construction activities. BMPI is proposing localized realignments along the existing alignment. In the Moenkopi Wash, the pipeline would be shifted about 200 feet on one side or the other of the existing pipeline to move it out of the active wash channel (this realignment may or may not require new right-of-way). In the vicinity of Kingman, Arizona, approximately 28.5 miles of the pipeline would be rerouted to the south of Kingman to avoid areas in major residential or commercial developments. The reroute would require new right-of­ way; however, the reroute would parallel other linear utilities and/or roads for the majority of the reroute. Existing booster-pump stations (one at the coal-slurry preparation plant and three along the coal-slurry pipeline) would require only minor modification, if any; no ground-disturbing activities would result. Water Supply Until December 2005, approximately 4,400 af/yr of water were drawn from the N aquifer within Peabody’s lease. Under Alternative A, use of C-aquifer water would replace the majority of N-aquifer water use. Proposed future use of C-aquifer water for the Black Mesa Complex and coal slurry would total an average of 6,000 af/yr (Table ES-2).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-6

Executive Summary

Table ES-2

Alternative A Water Use
Acre-Feet per Year 500 3,700 1,600 200 6,000

Use Coal washing Coal slurry Mine-related and domestic purposes Contingency Total

The water from the C aquifer would be supplied from a well field to be located near Leupp, Arizona, and conveyed via pipeline to the Black Mesa Complex. The N aquifer would be a contingency standby source that would be used in case of interruptions or curtailments of the C-aquifer water supply. The components of the C aquifer water-supply system, as proposed for the Black Mesa Project, are described below. •	 A well field in the southwestern part of the Navajo Reservation and on the Hopi Hart Ranch (south of Leupp, Arizona) including 12 to 21 wells and associated facilities (e.g., well yards, collector pipelines, access roads, electrical power lines). •	 An approximately 108-mile-long pipeline with a capacity of 6,000 af/yr from the well field northnortheast to the Black Mesa Complex following, to the extent practicable, existing roads. •	 An estimated two pump stations and associated facilities (e.g., access roads, electrical 
 transmission lines) 
 Water for the project would come primarily from the C aquifer with some supplemental use of water from the N aquifer. Additionally, the development of a water-supply system from the C aquifer provides an opportunity to enhance water availability to the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation for municipal, industrial, and commercial uses by expanding the system capacity. Two water-withdrawal scenarios and pipeline capacities were considered. C-Aquifer Water Withdrawal and Supply: 6,000 af/yr. Under this alternative, up to 6,000 af/yr would be withdrawn from the C aquifer and delivered to the Black Mesa Complex for the life of the project (i.e., 2010 through mid 2026). This is the amount of water that would be needed annually for the coal slurry, coal-washing facility, other mine-related and domestic uses, and a contingency. After 2026, the water would no longer be needed for the project and pumping from the C aquifer would cease. Water for reclamation would be provided from the existing N-aquifer wells. C-Aquifer Water Withdrawal and Supply: 11,600 af/yr. Under this alternative, the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation would have an option to pay the incremental costs of increasing the water production from the C aquifer and increasing the size of the water-supply pipeline in anticipation of potential future use of the system for tribal purposes. The total maximum amount of water that could be delivered would be 11,600 af/yr—6,000 af/yr for project-related purposes and an additional 5,600 af/yr for tribal use. Under this alternative, 2,000 af/yr and 3,600 af/yr would be available for use by the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation, respectively. In addition, after 2026 when the 6,000 af/yr of water would be no longer needed for project-related purposes, the Navajo Nation would use up to 6,000 af/yr in addition to the 3,600 af/yr, and pumping C-aquifer water up to 11,600 af/yr would continue for the estimated 50-year life of the pipeline. In order to deliver the system’s additional capacity to Hopi and Navajo communities, lateral pipelines would have to be constructed; however, the details of the delivery spur pipelines, timing of construction, and ultimate use of the water are not known at this time.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-7

Executive Summary

The proposed well field is near Leupp, Arizona. To produce 6,000 af/yr of water, a minimum of 12 wells would be developed; to produce 11,600 af/yr of water 21 wells would be developed. For the 11,600 af/yr alternative, the section of the well field proposed to produce the 6,000 af/yr for the Black Mesa Complex (12 wells) and 3,600 af/yr for the Navajo Nation (5 wells) would be located on the Navajo Reservation in a triangular area bounded by State Route 99, Canyon Diablo, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad just north of Red Gap and Interstate 40 (I-40). To provide 2,000 af/yr of water to the Hopi Tribe, four wells would be developed in the section of the well field that is within the Hart Ranch (owned in fee by the Hopi Tribe), a triangular area bounded by the BNSF Railroad, Canyon Diablo, and I-40. Proposed use of C-aquifer water under Alternative A is shown in Table ES-2. When the 6,000 af/yr of C-aquifer water is no longer needed for the project (in 2026), the use of the 6,000 af/yr and associated wells would be transferred to the Navajo Nation. The Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations would cease in 2026, and the mines would be reclaimed. From 2026 through 2028, 505 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for reclamation and public use and 444 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used from 2029 through 2038. Under this alternative, pumping the N aquifer for project-related uses would cease when the water is no longer needed for project-related uses. The leases between the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, and Peabody require N-aquifer wells to be transferred to the tribes in operating condition. The wells would be transferred to the tribes once Peabody completes reclamation and relinquishes the leases. N-Aquifer Water Supply. Until December of 2005, approximately 4,400 af/yr of water were withdrawn from the N aquifer within Peabody’s lease area—3,100 af/yr of water for slurry of 4.8 million tons of coal and 1,300 af/yr of water for mine-related and domestic purposes. Both mining operations and local residences together accounted for the 1,300 af/yr of water. Under Alternative A, use of N-aquifer water would continue at a reduced rate. Peabody’s N-aquifer well field would be conserved to provide potable water for the public and as an emergency backup supply should the primary C-aquifer source supply be interrupted for any reason. It is the applicants’ intent to no longer use water from the N aquifer for minerelated or slurry use except as noted below. Under Alternative A, if the C aquifer water-supply system were developed, the wells must be pumped periodically for extended periods of time to maintain the N-aquifer well field in an operationally ready state in case of emergencies and to supply the public. As a worst case, an estimated average of 2,000 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for (1) public consumption, (2) withdrawal from the N-aquifer wells to maintain their function, (3) emergencies, and (4) the Kayenta mining operation. If the N aquifer were to be used as the sole water supply (i.e., the C aquifer water-supply system was not developed); up to 6,000 af/yr of water would be withdrawn from the N aquifer within Peabody’s lease area for the life of the project (i.e., 2010 through mid 2026). If the N aquifer were to be used as the sole water supply, concerns of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation regarding use of N-aquifer water for coal slurry leading to the administrative delay of OSM’s permanent Indian Lands Program permitting decision for the Black Mesa mining operation would not be resolved. C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline Under Alternative A, the C aquifer water-supply pipeline would convey the water from the proposed well field near Leupp, Arizona, along one of two major alternative routes to the Black Mesa Complex. The Eastern Route, would be about 108 miles long, need two pump stations, and cross both Hopi and Navajo Reservations. Along this Eastern Route pipeline alternative, there are two areas where localized routing subalternatives are considered. At the Little Colorado River, the pipeline would cross either (1) under the river using horizontal boring as the method of construction (which would be the preferred method) or (2) over the river on an abandoned historic road bridge. In the Kykotsmovi area, the pipeline would be

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-8

Executive Summary

buried under a road that bypasses the community or in a road that passes through the community. The Western Route pipeline alternative would be approximately 137 miles long, need four pump stations, and cross only the Navajo Reservation. Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision If Alternative B were selected, Peabody’s February 2004 LOM application, as revised by the July 2008 amendment of the application (together the “2008 LOM Revision”) would be approved. The Black Mesa mining operation, coal-slurry preparation plant, and coal-slurry pipeline that supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station until the end of 2005 would not resume operation. The coalwashing facility, the 127-acre coal-haul road, and the C aquifer water-supply system, in any configuration, would not be constructed. The preferred alternative includes the use of N-aquifer water to supply amounts averaging 1,236 af/yr for mine-related uses through 2025. If OSM approves the LOM revision for the Black Mesa Complex, the area previously associated with the Black Mesa operation (18,857 acres), including associated surface facilities, would be added to the 44,073 acres of the existing OSM permanent permit area for the Black Mesa Complex, bringing the total acres to 62,930, which would be considered as one operation for the purpose of regulation by OSM. This entire area is within Peabody’s existing coal leases. Areas mined out by the Black Mesa operation by the end of 2005 have already been or are being reclaimed. One coal-resource area that was not completely mined out by the end of 2005 (N-06) is currently producing coal for the Navajo Generating Station. Several coal-resource areas, totaling 5,950 acres, which were never mined by the Black Mesa mining operation, would be incorporated into the permanent permit area for the Black Mesa Complex. If the LOM revision were approved, Peabody would not be authorized to mine these coal-resource areas. However, the unmined coal-resource areas could be mined in the future if applications were submitted to, and approved by, OSM. Under the existing permit, Peabody has approval to produce coal from the N-09, N-10, N-99, J-19, and J-21 mining areas to supply the Navajo Generating Station through 2026. It is anticipated that Peabody would continue to request that OSM renew its permit every five years until the coal is mined out. Impacts of an extended mining scenario beyond 2026, which could include mining of some or all of the aforementioned eight coalresource areas, are addressed in the cumulative effects section of the EIS. Through 2026, the Black Mesa operational infrastructure would be used as necessary to facilitate mining and reclamation by the Kayenta mining operation. From 2026 through 2028, 505 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for reclamation and public use and 444 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used from 2029 through 2038. The wells would be transferred to the tribes once Peabody successfully completes reclamation and relinquishes the leases. Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) OSM’s decision under Alternative C to disapprove the LOM revision would have the same effect as OSM taking no action on the LOM revision. The Black Mesa mining operation, coal-slurry preparation plant, and coal-slurry pipeline that supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station until the end of 2005 would not resume operation. The coalwashing facility, 127-acre coal-haul road, and the C aquifer water-supply system, in any configuration, would not be constructed. The leased area previously associated with the Black Mesa operation (18,857 acres) would not be incorporated into the permanent program permit area for the Black Mesa Complex. The remaining unmined coal-resource areas, totaling 5,950 acres that were within the area of the Black Mesa operation would not be incorporated into the permit area for the Black Mesa Complex if

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-9

Executive Summary

the LOM revision were not approved. If no action were taken on the LOM revision, those unmined coalresource areas could not be mined under OSM’s administrative delay rules because Peabody never received a prior authorization to mine those resource areas. However, the unmined coal-resource areas could be mined in the future if a future application were submitted to, and approved by, OSM. If the LOM revision is disapproved or no action is taken on it, the facilities and structures located in the initial program area that historically were shared by the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations would continue to be used by the Kayenta mining operations, but they would have to be permitted separately under a future revision. The 1990 permit issued by OSM “authorizes those surface coal mining and reclamation operations described in the application for this permit approved by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) on July 6, 1990, as it applies to the Kayenta Mine.” If the LOM revision is disapproved, the permit area would need to be revised to include the facilities and structures that were approved for use under the 1990 permit. Under the current permanent Indian Lands Program permit, the Black Mesa Complex’s Kayenta mining operation already has OSM-approved mining, operation, and reclamation plans that allow it to produce all of the coal needed by the Navajo Generating Station through 2026. The Kayenta mining operation would continue to use N-aquifer water in amounts averaging 1,236 af/yr through 2025. Whether no action is taken on the LOM revision or the LOM revision is disapproved, the Kayenta mining operation would continue to operate through 2026, at which time the mine would be reclaimed, similar to Alternative B. From 2026 through 2028, 505 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for reclamation and public use and 444 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used from 2029 through 2038. The wells would be transferred to the tribes once Peabody successfully completed reclamation and relinquished the leases. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Chapter 3 addresses the existing conditions of the human and natural environment that potentially could be affected by any of the alternatives. The existing conditions of the environment are described based on the most recent data available—primarily literature, published and unpublished reports, and agency databases. Field reconnaissance and interviews were conducted as necessary to verify specific information (such as land use or traditional cultural resources). The affected environment is characterized in the EIS for the following general resource concerns. •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 Landforms and Topography Geology and Mineral Resources Soils Water Resources (surface and groundwater hydrology) Climate Air Quality Vegetation Fish and Wildlife (including threatened and endangered species) • • • • • • • • • • Land Use Cultural Environment Social and Economic Conditions Environmental Justice 
 Indian Trust Assets 
 Noise and Vibration Visual Resources Transportation Recreation 
 Health and Safety


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The information regarding the existing condition of the environment (Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment) was used as a baseline by which to measure and identify the potential impacts that could result from implementing the Black Mesa Project. The EIS team considered and incorporated best management

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-10

Executive Summary

practices, conservation measures, and mitigation (which the applicants commit to implement), where appropriate, before arriving at the impacts described in the EIS. An impact, or effect, is defined as the modification to the environment brought about by an outside action. Impacts vary from no change, or only slightly discernible change, to a full modification or elimination of the environmental condition. Impacts can be beneficial (positive) or adverse (negative). Impacts can be short-term, or those changes to the environment during and following ground-disturbing activities that generally revert to predisturbance conditions at or within a few years after the ground disturbance has taken place. Long-term impacts are defined as those that substantially would remain beyond short-term ground-disturbing activities. For the mining operations, the local short-term impacts are those that would occur from the beginning of mining of a unit through reclamation of that unit when vegetation is reestablished (i.e., through regrading, replacement of topsoil, reseeding, and initial revegetation). The mining operation continually advances with contemporaneous reclamation. That is, earth material excavated from a coal-producing unit is deposited to backfill the adjacent previously mined unit. When the unit has been backfilled, the area is reclaimed. This sequence continues until all of the coal has been removed from a given coal-resource area. Mining and reclamation of a given coal-resource area generally spans between 20 and 25 years. Long-term impacts are defined as those occurring during the period when vegetation is established and controlled livestock grazing is permitted, through and beyond release of the property by Peabody. For the coal-slurry pipeline and water-supply system, local short-term impacts of the project are those that would occur during construction of the pipelines (and water-supply well field) plus a reasonable period for reclamation (i.e., a total of about five years). Long-term impacts are those that would persist beyond or occur after the five-year construction and reclamation period. An action can have direct or indirect effects, and it can contribute to cumulative effects. Direct effects generally occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are later in time or farther in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative effects result from the proposed action’s incremental impacts when these impacts are added to the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of the agency or person who undertakes them (Federal or non-Federal). Also in identifying impacts, the vulnerability of resources is considered. The status of a resource, resource use, or related issue in this regard is evaluated against the following: •	 Resource significance—a measure of formal concern for a resource through legal protection or by designation of special status •	 Resource sensitivity—the probable response of a particular resource to project-related activities •	 Resource quality—a measure of rarity, intrinsic worth, or distinctiveness, including the local value and importance of a resource •	 Resource quantity—a measure of resource abundance and the amount of the resource potentially affected Several resources are more conducive to quantification than others. For example, impacts on vegetation can be characterized partly using acreage, and air quality can be measured against air quality standards. Evaluations of some resources are inherently difficult to quantify with exactitude. In these cases, levels of impact are based on best available information and professional judgment.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-11

Executive Summary

For purposes of discussion and to enable use of a common scale for all resources, resource specialists considered the following impact levels in qualitative terms. The terms major, moderate, minor, negligible, or none that follow, consider the anticipated magnitude, or importance, of impacts, including those on the human environment. •	 Major—impacts that potentially could cause irretrievable loss of a resource; significant depletion, change, or stress to resources; stress within the social, cultural, and economic realm; degradation of a resource defined by laws, regulations, and/or policy •	 Moderate—impacts that potentially could cause some change or stress (ranging between 
 significant and insignificant) to an environmental resource or use; readily apparent effects 
 •	 Minor—impacts that potentially could be detectable but slight •	 Negligible—impacts in the lower limit of detection that potentially could cause an insignificant change or stress to an environmental resource or use •	 None—no discernible or measurable impacts Impacts are described for the four main project components under Alternative A. Under Alternatives B and C, the coal-washing facility would not be constructed, the coal-slurry preparation plant would not be permitted for operation, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed nor operate in the future, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed, and, consequently, coal would not be delivered to the Mohave Generating Station. Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components Associated with Coal Supply to the Mohave Generating Station Black Mesa Complex For the resumption and expansion of Black Mesa mining operation and continued Kayenta mining operations, the primary impacts at the Black Mesa Complex from the mining and reclamation process include the following. The upper 250 feet of surface material would be removed from more than 12,409 acres. This would include a loss of about 7,500 acres of piñon/juniper woodland vegetation and about 3,850 acres of sagebrush. The existing vegetation on these 12,409 acres would be permanently removed during mining operations. Before coal is removed, vegetation is cleared and topsoil is removed and saved. After topsoil is replaced, it is seeded and planted. Places where there are steep-sided slopes and sharp angled rocky hills would be replaced with gently rolling hills with smoother contours. The water drainage patterns would be restored to pre-mining conditions to the extent practicable through backfilling and grading of the mined areas. The areas would be reseeded with a mix of shrubs, forbs, and grasses. The regulatory requirement is to restore the land affected to a condition capable of supporting the uses which it was capable of supporting prior to any mining (in the case of the Black Mesa Complex, livestock grazing and wildlife) and to establish a diverse, effective, and permanent vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety native to the area of land to be affected and capable of self-regeneration and plant succession at least equal in extent of cover to the natural vegetation of the area. The replacement of piñon/juniper woodland with grassland results in 10 times the productivity for grazing. Plants that are important to and used by the Hopi and Navajo people for medicinal or ceremonial purposes also would be planted.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-12

Executive Summary

Once vegetation has been established on these reseeded areas, limited (or controlled) livestock grazing would be allowed, to facilitate the revegetation process. Controlled livestock grazing would continue for about 10 more years before an area is released from Peabody’s management and transferred to the tribes. The total amount of time from when an area begins to be mined to when the land is returned to the tribes is about 20 to 25 years. Peabody’s LOM application indicates 163 surface-water impoundments to exist in 2008 under SMCRA to control sediment transport from mined areas into the washes. A total of 51 impoundments are proposed to be permanent (left as part of the post-mining landscape). All the operations related to mining and handling the coal would result in about 145 tons per year of particulate matter (primarily PM10) (very small particles of soil or dust, liquid droplets, or/or chemicals) being emitted into the air over current conditions (prior to suspension of the Black Mesa mining operations) by the end of the project. There would be a very small decrease in the amount of surface-water flow traveling down the major washes within the Black Mesa Complex resulting from development and use of temporary and permanent impoundments, as well as reclamation actions to reduce erosion from surface water runoff. The change in flow would be so small, it would not be detected by the gauges that measure stream flow. There could be some decrease in groundwater quantity as a result of the mining exposing pockets of porous rock that are saturated with water. Some local water wells and springs could go dry. Once mining has ceased and the land has been reclaimed and returned to its previous use (which could take up to 20 years), the groundwater system would reach a new balance. Some springs could return, but some would not. There also could be a decrease in groundwater quality, both from increased total dissolved solids and formation of acidic water pockets. Where a water supply (e.g., a well or developed spring) has been affected by contamination, diminution, or interruption resulting from mining operations, Peabody would be required by OSM’s permit to provide alternate water supplies as close to the original water supply as practicable. Refuse from washing the coal, composed of earth materials, would be reburied in mined pits. It is anticipated that impacts from this refuse would be similar to that already experienced by disposal of regraded spoil material (which are temporary and immeasurable). Peabody would use a sampling and testing plan to analyze the chemical constituents of the refuse verifying the results are consistent with the original leachate test study. If they are significantly different and indicate a potential for greater adverse impact, special disposal procedures would be implemented so the refuse cannot mix with existing soil or water. The primary impacts on the people and lands located adjacent to the Black Mesa Complex from the mining and reclamation operations within the Black Mea Complex include relocation of households and nuisance dust and noise. Seventeen Navajo households, currently located on land that would be permitted for mining under the proposed project, would have to be resettled out of the area to be mined through 2026. Peabody, in coordination with the Navajo Nation, would attempt to resettle these families within the residents’ customary use areas (e.g., where ranching activities take place or where socio-cultural ties exist). This resettlement would include providing new houses, areas for family garden plots, and livestock grazing areas. These families would be able to return to their original home sites after reclamation is considered completed and the land is returned to tribal control, after about 20 to 25 years. The mined area would be reclaimed with the goal of increasing its grazing productivity.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-13

Executive Summary

Mining-related activities would continue to generate particulate matter (primarily PM10)that can exacerbate breathing and health problems. Residents living next to the mining operations would have a greater exposure to this particulate matter for the duration of the mining operations. Local residents would be allowed to continue to get free firewood, coal, and potable water at two water stands within the Black Mesa Complex for the duration of the proposed project. The primary impacts on the region as a whole, from the mining and reclamation operations at the Black Mesa Complex, would include economic benefits from employment and coal and water royalties, which would benefit both tribal governments and the general economy. This would include restoration of about 400 mining jobs that were lost when the operation of the Mohave Generating Station was suspended, as well as about 80 additional mining jobs resulting from the increased production included under the proposed Black Mesa Project. There would be about a 10.5 percent increase in revenues historically paid to the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation from royalties related to increased coal production. This would result in the payment of royalties of about $15.5 million and $37.9 million annually to the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation, respectively. Other taxes, payments, and grants to the tribes resulting from resumption of coal mining activities would be restored and increased as a result of increased coal production. Retail revenues in the local economy also would be restored after mining operations resume. There also would be an increase of $18.1 million annually to the State of Arizona in sales taxes paid by Peabody. Payment of water royalties to the Navajo Nation would resume due to either continued use of the N aquifer, or as a result of development and use of the C aquifer water-supply system. There would be an increase in the amount of water used over past years due to the increase in coal production for the Mohave Generating Station under the LOM revision. A permanent access road would be built from water-supply pipeline Milepost 71 to 76. This would provide an incidental opportunity to have the road extended north from Arizona Route 264 (adjacent to the pipeline) to the mining operations. Developing the route would improve the transportation network for Hopi and Navajo residents, especially the Hopi villages and the Navajo chapters of Forest Lake and Hardrock. Reconstruction and Operation of the Coal-Slurry Pipeline Construction-related impacts along the existing coal-slurry pipeline alignment would include ground disturbance, disturbance of land uses and natural and cultural resources, and construction employment. Construction would disturb about 2,100 acres of land. Depending upon the final route selected, between 24 and 38 percent of the impacted area has not been disturbed previously. Except for a permanent operations and maintenance road, the remainder of the pipeline right-of-way would be revegetated. There could be impacts from construction activities on several sensitive species that are protected by Federal, tribal, and/or State laws, including the destruction of some individual plants; however, no permanent impacts on or threat to the population as a whole are expected. Timing of construction activities and preconstruction surveys would reduce impacts on those species of special concern. Twenty-three cultural resources were identified as being located within the existing coal-slurry pipeline right-of-way that are significant and eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places because of their potential to yield important information about the prehistory and history of the region. The alternate route would affect nine more sites, all of which also are National Register-eligible properties. The Hopi also consider all Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloan sites to be significant because of their association with important events in Hopi history, and sites with remnants of architecture to be eligible for listing on the National Register because they represent distinctive types. Efforts would be made during

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-14

Executive Summary

preparation of final designs to avoid or reduce impacts on the National Register-eligible properties. For sites that cannot be avoided, there is good potential to satisfactorily mitigate the impacts through data recovery studies. In some areas, farming, grazing, out-structures, and/or development occur on top of or adjacent to the existing coal-slurry pipeline right-of-way. These uses of the pipeline right-of-way would be temporarily impacted during reconstruction of the pipeline. Structures that have been placed on top of the pipeline right-of-way would be relocated off the right-of-way. Nonpermanent uses of the right-of-way could be restored once construction has been completed. Reconstruction of the pipeline using the existing route would affect about 70 residences in the Kingman and Laughlin areas, either by temporarily limiting access or disturbance to residential property during construction. If the alternate route is chosen, three low- to moderate-density residential areas adjacent to the right-of-way would be affected as access to residential and industrial properties may be limited temporarily during construction. Construction-related employment would provide a temporary benefit to the local economy. Long-term impacts from operation and maintenance of the coal-slurry pipeline include the following. When mining resumes in mid 2009, 15 to 20 operational employees would be hired to staff the pipeline’s booster-pump station locations and BMPI’s office in Flagstaff. The jobs would continue through 2026. Though unlikely, pipeline failure (with release of coal slurry) could occur, but it is not possible to estimate where it would occur or the amount of slurry that could be discharged. The impact would be short term and repairable. An emergency response plan that addresses clean-up and management of impacts, including the length of time required for cleanup, would be developed and followed for the coalslurry pipeline operation. Construction and Operation of the C-aquifer Water-Supply System Impacts in the immediate area of the proposed well field and water-supply pipeline route from construction and operation of the system would include the following. There would be temporary interruption of livestock grazing and traffic; and presence of noise and dust from construction of the well field, water-storage tank, road network, water-supply pipeline, pump stations, and power lines. The eastern route would follow existing roads for the majority of its length. There would be a greater temporary impact on traffic from construction of the eastern route, where it proceeds near and through Kykotsmovi. With the western route, there would be greater impact (loss of grazing habitat) on grazing from construction and creation of a permanent access road for operation and maintenance. If blasting is needed, there would be temporary noise from blasting along the pipeline route. There are residences (about 55) and corrals, windmill wells, and water tanks associated with grazing dispersed in the area identified for the well field. Construction of access roads temporarily would limit access to and from residences, grazing, and other use areas. Pump stations along the water-supply pipeline would be located near highly traveled roads where grazing would less likely to be concentrated, and would be located at least 0.25 mile from any permanent residence. Each pump station would displace approximately 4 acres during construction and 1.2 acres for the life of the water-supply system. There would be a permanent loss of about 160 acres (total over a large area) of grazing land due to the construction of permanent structures (i.e., pump houses, water-storage tank, pump stations, power lines,

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-15

Executive Summary

substations). Visual impacts would result from the permanent intrusion of these new structures on the landscape, but would be minimized by painting the structures to blend with the surroundings. Noise from the operating pumps at the pump stations would be audible; however, the pump stations would not be located near residences or public facilities. There potentially could be impacts on numerous archaeological, historical, and traditional cultural resources. However, there is great flexibility in locating the individual wells and access roads, and, to a lesser degree, the power lines and pump stations related to the pipeline alignments. These resources would be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. If they cannot be avoided, treatment of the resources would be undertaken in compliance with Federal and tribal policies. Areas affected by the western water-supply pipeline route have some of the highest densities of archaeological sites in the region, and use of this route would require substantial time and money to mitigate impacts on these resources. Temporary jobs for community members as construction workers would be available during construction. Impacts in the region from long-term operation and use of the C aquifer water supply system include the following. There could be a potential lowering of water levels in shallow livestock wells in the vicinity of the C aquifer well field; however, the project proponent would provide an alternate water source for livestock grazing should the groundwater levels drop such that these shallow wells become inoperable. There could be a potential minor reduction of about 1.3 to 1.5 percent in base flow in three perennial stream reaches that receive discharge from the C aquifer—lower Clear Creek, lower Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River from Holbrook to Winslow. These reaches are important to several native fish species including bluehead sucker, Little Colorado sucker, and roundtail chub. Lower Chevelon Creek is an important reach for the Little Colorado spinedace. Little Colorado spinedace is a federally threatened species, and the affected reach of the lower Chevelon Creek is designated as its critical habitat. Although these reductions in base flow that could result from the proposed project would be very small and likely may not even be measurable, they may affect the availability of suitable stream habitat and reduce the ability of fish populations to survive the dry seasons. The project proponents would implement conservation measures to offset the potential adverse effects of stream base flow depletion attributable to the proposed project. Funds would be provided to implement activities to aid in the survival, conservation, and recovery of the federally threatened Little Colorado spinedace, and the roundtail chub. Construction and operation of the C aquifer water-supply system would provide the opportunity to develop a permanent water-supply system that could deliver water to numerous tribal communities along and off the main water-supply pipeline alignment. Also, with the construction of the power lines to serve the well field and pump stations, there is a potential opportunity to provide electricity to local residents. Impacts resulting from use of the N aquifer water-supply system include the following: If the N aquifer water-supply system is used solely as a supplemental supply, as proposed, estimated reductions in base flow would average about 1.3 percent as compared to 1955 pre-mining base flow estimates, with the largest reduction occurring in Begashibito Wash, which would be about 1.48 percent, or 32 af/yr as compared to 1955 base flow estimates. If the N aquifer water-supply system continues to provide all the water needed for the Black Mesa Complex, the amount of groundwater pumped would increase from about 4,400 af/yr to 6,000 af/yr. There would be reductions in groundwater discharges to streams. Based upon 1955 pre-mining estimates,

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-16

Executive Summary

the largest reductions from Peabody’s pumping through 2038 are anticipated to occur in Begashibito Wash, where there would be an estimated 1.66 percent, or about 36 af/yr, reduction, and in Moenkopi Wash, where there would be an estimated 0.56 percent, or about 23 af/yr, reduction, as compared to 1955 base flow estimates. Alternative B –Approval of the LOM Revision It is anticipated that, under Alternative B, approximately 6,942 acres would be disturbed by mining from 2010 through 2026. The impacts are characterized similarly to those of Alternative A, for an area reduced in size (i.e., about 6,942 acres would be mined [5,467 acres fewer than Alternative A]. Water from the N aquifer, averaging 1,236 af/yr, would be used for mine-related uses through 2025. From 2026 through 2028, 505 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for reclamation and public use, and 444 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used from 2029 through 2038. The areas in which vegetation would be disturbed would be reduced, but the relative proportions of the vegetation types impacted would be similar to those of Alternative A (i.e., 65 percent piñon/juniper, 30 percent sagebrush, and a few percent in other vegetation types). Five Navajo households, currently located on land that would be permitted for mining under the proposed project, would have to be resettled out of the area to be mined through 2026. Fewer cultural resource and traditional cultural resources would be affected. The opportunity for improved livestock grazing would be foregone, because the unmined area would be less productive for grazing. With the reduction in mining, there would be fewer coal-haul roads constructed. No mining in 5,467 acres would preserve coal resources for future use. Although the unmined coalresource areas would be incorporated into the permanent program permit area, mining of these resources would not be authorized until Peabody proposes that these resources be mined and submits to OSM a permit application, and OSM and BLM approve this mining. Without knowing a new customer’s purpose and need for purchasing and using the coal, the amount and quality of the coal needed per year, and a plan for mining and transporting the coal, impacts associated with the potential transaction cannot be predicted. If and when there is such a proposal, impacts associated with the mining plan revision, development and construction of a means for transportation of the coal to its destination) would need to be reviewed under NEPA. Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No-Action) Under Alternative C, most of the impacts are characterized the same as Alternative B. Because the mined areas and mining facilities and infrastructure for the Black Mesa mining operation would be promptly reclaimed and the possibility of mining in the Black Mesa mining operation area would disappear, residents in or near the Black Mesa mining operation who live a traditional lifestyle would experience the benefit of the end of nearby mining-related activities more rapidly than in Alternative B. Cumulative and Indirect Effects The most notable cumulative effects (i.e., the incremental impact of an action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions) addressed are related to air quality, water resources (hydrology), vegetation and wildlife habitat, and social and economic conditions, particularly for Alternative A. Air Quality. The effects of particulates and gaseous air pollutants were assessed within a regional context. During construction of the pipelines increased particulate matter (primarily PM10) emissions would be 206 tons per year. That temporary 3.6 percent increase in total regional PM emissions would not be anticipated to cause an exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), especially since the Black Mesa mining operations would not occur during that time period. Consequently, the air quality impacts during construction of the pipelines are considered minor.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-17

Executive Summary

Under Alternative A, upon completion of construction, the ongoing Kayenta and resumed Black Mesa mining operations would be the only project component contributing to regional PM10 and the resumption of Black Mesa mining operations would increase total regional PM10 emissions by 145 tons per year, an increase of 12 percent in total regional emissions. Peabody has demonstrated that the increased PM10 emissions from the ongoing Kayenta and resumed Black Mesa mining operations would not cause exceedance of the NAAQS. Consequently, the air quality impacts are considered minor locally during construction and negligible during normal operation; thus, there would be negligible to no impact regionally. The effects of gaseous air pollutants also were assessed. Those pollutants, associated with vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions currently have minor, localized impacts within the immediate vicinity of the complex, but have negligible impacts on air quality in the region. During the time of construction of the pipelines, total regional gaseous pollutant effects would be negligible. Although continued operation of Navajo Generating Stations and resumption of operations at the Mohave Generating Station are not included in the preferred or alternate actions, in 2008, and in response to comments on the Draft EIS by agencies and others, additional text pertaining to emissions of mercury, selenium, and greenhouse gases from these facilities, along with a discussion of the current scientific community consensus on climate change, was added to the appropriate sections in Chapters 3 and 4. Under Alternatives B and C, there would b no increase in emissions over that currently emitted from the Kayenta mining operation. Water Resources (Hydrology). According to groundwater modeling completed for the project, under Alternative A, continued and increasing regional pumping of groundwater from the C aquifer (municipal, irrigation, and industrial, mostly unrelated to the Black Mesa Project) is expected to cause declines in groundwater elevations, especially near major pumping centers. In 2026, declines of 20 feet or more are predicted in areas of Silver Creek along the Little Colorado River from Holbrook to Joseph City, and the upper Little Colorado River above St. Johns, while declines of between 5 and 15 feet would occur at lower Chevelon and Clear Creek. This compares with less than 1 foot decline at lower Chevelon and Clear Creek due to maximum project pumping. Cumulative regional pumping of groundwater from the N aquifer would reduce groundwater discharge to various streams on Black Mesa. The greatest change is expected to occur at Pasture Canyon near Tuba City. Diminution in groundwater discharge is predicted to be 58.9 af/yr in 2025, all of which is attributable to nonproject pumping. This reduction in discharge is 15 percent of the total 2005 estimated Pasture Canyon discharge. At Cow Springs, which is closer to the mine well field, the reduction due to community pumping is 2.0 af/yr versus 14.9 af/yr due to the project. Water withdrawn from the N aquifer for Alternatives B or C (average of 1,236 af/yr) would be much less than the amount that has been withdrawn in the past and would result in negligible impact. No water would be withdrawn from the C aquifer. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat. Historic and continuing grazing has caused reductions in perennial grasses and forbs in all ecosystems in northern Arizona, and increases in species that are not palatable to livestock, including some shrubs and weedy species. Natural fire regimes have been altered by removal of grasses through grazing and by fire suppression. This has led to encroachment of trees into former grass­ land areas and increases in tree density in both grasslands and wooded habitats. Large-scale piñon and juniper removal projects have been conducted east and northeast of the permit area within the past 30 to 50 years for range improvement, resulting in short- or long-term conversion of woodlands to grasslands. Although reclamation of mined areas at the Black Mesa Complex results largely in grassland, the

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-18

Executive Summary

herbaceous forage established in the reclaimed areas has been shown to be beneficial to wildlife. In addition, rock features are established to restore wildlife protection and cover, and islands of shrubs or trees are planted for more diversified habitat. Activities that have affected and will continue to affect the distribution and abundance of wildlife in northern Arizona include grazing, fire suppression, rural residential development, spread of invasive species, increasing populations of brown-headed cowbirds (a nest parasite), fragmentation of large habitat blocks by new roads and utility corridors, and increasing human population. Increased attention by governmental and nongovernmental agencies to the management and protection of biodiversity is countering some of these activities. Special Status Species. Depending on the hydraulic connection between the river alluvium and the C aquifer, projected drawdowns in excess of 20 feet effectively could preclude or reduce the development and persistence of large tracts of salt cedar in this area. Under Alternative A, cumulative impacts from pumping also would reduce groundwater levels 5 feet along lower Chevelon Creek and 15 feet along lower Clear Creek, but pumping for the Black Mesa project would contribute only to an additional reduction in groundwater levels from 0.1 foot along lower Chevelon Creek and 1.0 foot along lower Clear Creek. Due to these factors and the low likelihood that southwestern willow flycatchers are present and use riparian habitats along this portion of the Little Colorado River, cumulative impacts as a result of the proposed project are anticipated to be unlikely. The decline and eventual elimination of base flow in lower Chevelon Creek from regional groundwater pumping would have significant adverse effects on Little Colorado spinedace and its habitat, including reductions in the length of flowing stream in the dry season, elimination of riffles and shallow runs during the dry season, and a marked reduction in the size and depth of pools. The effects would likely be most significant in the drier months of June and July, but impacts would be expected throughout other portions of the year as well. However, project-related groundwater pumping is not expected to contribute to longterm cumulative impacts on lower Chevelon Creek, because the cumulative effects from regional pumping essentially would eliminate all flow by 2060, even if the project were not constructed. Projectrelated pumping would contribute a reduction of 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) for lower Clear Creek out of an estimated 2006 base flow of 2.7 cfs. Regional water use combined with potential effects of climate change could decrease available habitat for Navajo sedge, known to occur in Tsegi Canyon, near Inscription, and in Ho No Geh Canyon. Economic Conditions. Due to the existence of the Black Mesa Complex, mining drives the economy of the local area and makes the largest private-industry contribution to the revenue of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. The affected region includes the entire Hopi and Navajo Reservations, Page, and Flagstaff. Mining employees earn the highest wages in the local area, with many contributing to the support of extended families. Mining-related multiplier effects accrue to the local area, providing jobs and income in sectors such as wholesale and retail trade. When both mining operations are active, the local unemployment rate is about half that of both reservations, overall. However, significant economic impacts have resulted from the suspension of the Black Mesa mining operation in December 2005. Final closure of the Black Mesa Complex would cause major economic impacts on the Kayenta area and major revenue impacts on both reservations. High rates of poverty—often three times the rate of the nation overall—have persisted on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations throughout modern history. With the loss of the mining operations, the historical (premining) level of poverty would return throughout the reservations absent other economic development, and would eliminate the island of relative prosperity in the Kayenta area.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-19

Executive Summary

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The lead and cooperating agencies’ preferred alternative is Alternative B, which is approval of Peabody’s July 2, 2008, amended application for the LOM revision, which includes adding 18,857 acres to the permanent program permit area, revising the operation and reclamation plan, approving changes to the mining plan for the Hopi and Navajo coal leases, and using an average 1,236 af/yr of N-aquifer water. Coal would no longer be supplied to the Mohave Generating Station from the Black Mesa Complex. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The analyses for this EIS were completed in consultation with other agencies and the public. OSM sent letters inviting 11 agencies to participate in the preparation of the Black Mesa Project EIS; nine decided to accept the invitation to be cooperating agencies: BIA, BLM, Reclamation, USEPA, Forest Service, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Mohave County, and the City of Kingman. The Arizona State Land Department and U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, both responded to OSM that they would participate as reviewers of the EIS rather than as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Later, at its request, the Hualapai Tribe became a cooperator. OSM has worked closely with the cooperating agencies throughout the EIS process. Many of the Federal cooperating agencies are participants in the multi-agency consultations for Section 7 under the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 under the National Historic Preservation Act. Several other Federal and State agencies and local governments were involved during the preparation of the EIS, but to a lesser extent than the cooperating agencies. Also, OSM consulted government-to-government with the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and Navajo Nation. Public scoping meetings were held during January and February 2005 in Saint Michaels, Forest Lake, Kayenta, Kykotsmovi, Leupp, Kingman, and Flagstaff in Arizona, and in Laughlin, Nevada. More than 700 people attended the 10 scoping meetings, and 351 written submissions and 237 oral statements were made by the public and other governmental agencies to OSM during the scoping period. A detailed report of comments and issues heard from the public was developed and placed on the OSM project web site at www.wrcc.osmre.gov/WR/BlackMesaEIS.htm and an informational newsletter detailing the results of the scoping period were distributed in September 2005. More than 700 copies of the Draft EIS were distributed in late November 2006 to Federal agencies; tribal, State, and local governments; organizations; and individuals. OSM published the notice of availability of the Draft EIS for public review and comment in the Federal Register on November 22, 2006. The USEPA published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on December 1, 2006. The availability of the Draft EIS, deadline for public comments, and locations, dates, and times of public meetings on the Draft EIS were announced in media releases, paid newspaper legal notices, and radio announcements. Radio broadcasts were in English, Hopi, and Navajo. Copies of the Draft EIS also were mailed to those who contacted OSM after the November 22, 2006, Federal Register notice. Copies of the document also were made available for public review at the Gallup Public Library, Hopi Public Library, Tuba City Public Library, Page Public Library, Winslow Public Library, Holbrook Public Library, Flagstaff City-Coconino County Public Library, Kingman Library, Laughlin Library, and Bullhead City Library. The USEPA Federal Register notice on December 1, 2006, initiated a 45-day public comment period that was to end 45 days later on January 22, 2007. News and information about the Draft EIS—regarding its availability, comment deadlines, and the dates, times, and locations of public meetings—was publicized through media releases, and by paid newspaper legal notices and radio. In a Federal Register Notice published on December 20, 2006, OSM announced that the comment period would be extended to February 6, 2007, and that a second public meeting would be held in Leupp.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-20

Executive Summary

OSM held 12 public meetings—Window Rock, Moenkopi, Forest Lake, Kykotsmovi, Kayenta, Leupp (2), Peach Springs, Kingman, Winslow, and Flagstaff in Arizona, and Laughlin, Nevada. The comment period ended on February 6, 2007; however, OSM received and accepted comments beyond that date. OSM received 18,148 submittals containing comments from Federal agencies, tribal, State, and or local governments; public and private organizations; and individuals. At the request of the project proponents, work on the Final EIS was suspended in May 2007. After a one-year suspension of work on the EIS, OSM in May 2008 resumed work on the EIS. In a Federal Register published on May 23, 2008, OSM announced that the comment period on the Draft EIS was being reopened for 45 days until July 7, 2008. It did so to allow persons the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and preferred alternative, which is now Alternative B instead of Alternative A. The comments in each submittal were identified, recorded, and analyzed. Responses were prepared for all substantive comments. A description of the comment analysis, the comments received, and the responses to those comments are provided in this Final EIS (Volume II, Appendix M).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ES-21

Executive Summary

P EA E RFC

PREFACE

This environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in order to analyze and disclose the probable effects of the Black Mesa Project in northern Arizona. The purpose of and need for the Black Mesa Project is to continue the supply of coal from Peabody Western Coal Company’s (Peabody’s) Kayenta mining operation to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona. The action proposed by Peabody is to revise the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for its permitted Kayenta mining operation and, as a part of this revision, to incorporate into these plans the initial program area surface facilities and coal resource areas of its adjacent Black Mesa mining operations, which previously supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada. This EIS collectively refers to the area occupied by the Kayenta mining operation and Black Mesa mining operation as the Black Mesa Complex. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is the lead agency responsible for preparing this EIS. Other Federal agencies and tribal and local governments cooperating with OSM in the preparation of this EIS include the Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Land Management; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Hopi Tribe; Hualapai Tribe; Navajo Nation; Mohave County, Arizona; and City of Kingman, Arizona. This EIS consists of 7 chapters and 13 appendices. Chapter 1 provides a description of the proposed Federal actions and the need for these proposed actions; the action proposed by Peabody; scope of the analysis; relation of the proposal to other development; and scoping issues and concerns. Chapter 2 provides a description and comparison of the range of alternative decisions available to OSM and BLM regarding the proposed life-of-mine revision for the Black Mesa Complex. Also described are the alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed study in this EIS. Chapter 3 provides a description of the existing environment that would be affected by the proposed action. Chapter 4 provides a description and analysis of the probable effects on the environment that could result from each of the three alternatives. A comparison of the alternatives is found both in the Summary and in Section 2.5 in Chapter 2 of this EIS. Chapter 5 provides a description of the consultation and coordination that occurred with the public, American Indian tribes, government agencies, and private organizations during the preparation of the EIS and lists those from whom comments were solicited. Chapter 6 contains a list of the individuals, with their qualifications, who prepared this document and/or the environmental analyses contained herein. Chapter 7 is a list of the selected references used in the preparation of this document. Appendices have been included to provide supplemental information on mining and reclamation procedures and typical well field and pipeline construction, operation, and maintenance; legal authorities and mandates; estimated project costs; truck and rail alternatives to transporting coal via slurry; biological resources; land use; water resource impact assessment methodology; visual resources, and comments on the Draft EIS and responses to those comments.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

P-1

Preface

t be c a l of ont nt e s

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-1 
 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1-1 
 	 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .............................................................................1-1 
 1.1.1 	 Changes to the Purpose and Need from the Draft EIS...........................................1-1 
 1.2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................1-2 
 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION ......................................................................................................1-7 1.4 RELATION TO OTHER DEVELOPMENT......................................................................1-7 
 1.4.1 	 Navajo Generating Station .....................................................................................1-7 
 1.4.2 	 Mohave Generating Station ...................................................................................1-8 
 1.5 ISSUES IDENTIFIED THROUGH SCOPING..................................................................1-9 
 1.5.1 Scoping ..................................................................................................................1-9 
 	 1.5.2 	 Summary of Issues .................................................................................................1-9 
 1.5.2.1 Actions and Alternatives........................................................................1-9 	 1.5.2.2 Environmental Issues...........................................................................1-10 	 1.5.2.3 Process Concerns .................................................................................1-11 	 2.0 	 ALTERNATIVES.........................................................................................................................2-1 
 2.1 PROPOSED BLACK MESA PROJECT............................................................................2-1 
 2.2 ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................................2-6
 2.2.1	 Alternative A – Approval of the 2004 LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to the Mohave Generating Station ..........................2-6 
 2.2.1.1 	 LOM Revision and Mine Plan Changes ................................................2-6 
 2.2.1.2	 Components Associated with Coal Supply to the Mohave 
 Generating Station .................................................................................2-7 
 2.2.1.3 Costs ....................................................................................................2-22 	 2.2.2	 Alternative B – Approval of the 2008 LOM Revision (Preferred 
 Alternative) ..........................................................................................................2-23 
 2.2.3 	 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No-Action Alternative)......2-23 
 2.3 AGENCY AUTHORITY AND ACTIONS......................................................................2-24 
 2.4 	 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 
 STUDY IN THE EIS ...........................................................................................2-36 
 2.4.1	 Approval of the Black Mesa Portion of the 2004 LOM Revision and 
 Disapproval of the Kayenta Portion of the 2004 LOM Revision.........................2-36 
 2.4.2 Other Water Sources ............................................................................................2-36 	 2.4.2.1 	 Colorado River Water-Supply Options................................................2-36 
 2.4.2.2 	 Groundwater Basins Near the Coal-Slurry Pipeline ............................2-38 
 2.4.2.3 	 Groundwater Sources Near the Black Mesa Complex ........................2-39 
 2.4.2.4 Gray-Water Alternatives......................................................................2-40 
 	 2.4.3 Water-Return Pipeline..........................................................................................2-41 	 2.4.4 	 Alternative Coal Delivery Methods .....................................................................2-41 
 2.4.4.1 Truck Transportation ...........................................................................2-41 	 2.4.4.2 Rail Transportation ..............................................................................2-43 	 2.4.4.3 	 Other Media for Slurry ........................................................................2-46 
 2.4.5 	 No Coal-Washing Facility ...................................................................................2-46 
 2.4.6 	 Alternative Energy Sources and Energy Efficiency.............................................2-47 
 2.4.7 	 Construction of the C Aquifer Water-Supply System..........................................2-47 
 2.4.8 Reduced-Mining Alternative................................................................................2-48 	
i Table of Contents





 
 









 
 





Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2.5 2.6 3.0

2.4.9 Hybrid Water Alternative.....................................................................................2-48 
 2.4.10 No Mining Alternative .........................................................................................2-49 
 2.4.11 New Customer for Black Mesa Coal Alternative.................................................2-49 
 2.4.12 No-Sacred-Springs-or-Sites Alternative ..............................................................2-49 2.4.13 Lower-Emissions Coal Power Generation Alternative ........................................2-49 
 2.4.14 No-Relocation Alternative ...................................................................................2-50 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES............................................................................2-50 
 AGENCIES’ PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................2-50 



 


AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................3-1
 3.1 LANDFORMS AND TOPOGRAPHY...............................................................................3-1 
 3.1.1 Black Mesa Complex .............................................................................................3-2 
 3.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...............................................................................................3-4 3.1.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ....................................................3-4 
 3.1.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments......................3-4 
 3.1.3 Water Supply..........................................................................................................3-5 
 3.1.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System ...........................................................3-5 
 3.2 GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.....................................................................3-5 
 3.2.1 Black Mesa Complex .............................................................................................3-7 
 3.2.1.1 Geologic Environment...........................................................................3-7 3.2.1.2 Geologic Natural Areas .........................................................................3-8 
 3.2.1.3 Mineral Resources .................................................................................3-8 
 3.2.1.4 Paleontological Resources .....................................................................3-8 3.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...............................................................................................3-8 3.2.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ....................................................3-8 
 3.2.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments....................3-10 
 3.2.3 Water Supply........................................................................................................3-11 
 3.2.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................3-11 
 3.3 SOIL RESOURCES..........................................................................................................3-12 
 3.3.1 Black Mesa Complex ...........................................................................................3-12 
 3.3.1.1 Prime Farmland Determination ...........................................................3-14 3.3.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline.............................................................................................3-14 3.3.3 Water Supply........................................................................................................3-15 
 3.3.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................3-15 
 3.4 WATER RESOURCES (HYDROLOGY)........................................................................3-16 
 3.4.1 Black Mesa Complex ...........................................................................................3-23 
 3.4.1.1 Surface Water ......................................................................................3-23 3.4.1.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................3-29 3.4.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline.............................................................................................3-30 3.4.2.1 Surface Water ......................................................................................3-30 3.4.2.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................3-31 3.4.3 Water Supply........................................................................................................3-31 
 3.4.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................3-31 
 3.4.3.2 N and D Aquifer Water-Supply Systems.............................................3-38 
 3.5 CLIMATE.........................................................................................................................3-41 
 3.5.1 Region ..................................................................................................................3-41 
 3.5.2 Black Mesa Complex ...........................................................................................3-42 
 3.5.3 Climate Change....................................................................................................3-45 3.6 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................3-48 
 3.6.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.............................................................3-48 
 3.6.2 Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program....................................3-49 

ii Table of Contents








 



 



 
 
 
 





Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

Designation of Air Quality Study Area for Proposed Project ..............................3-52 
 Black Mesa Complex Ambient-Air Monitoring ..................................................3-52 
 3.6.4.1 	 Average Annual Ambient Air Concentrations.....................................3-53 
 3.6.4.2 	 Short-Term (24-Hour) Ambient-Air Concentrations...........................3-55 
 3.6.5 Coal-Slurry Pipeline.............................................................................................3-56 3.6.6 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................................3-56 
 3.6.7 Other Emission Sources in the Region.................................................................3-56 
 3.6.8 Visibility Conditions ............................................................................................3-57 3.6.9 Air-Quality Monitor Data ....................................................................................3-58 3.7 VEGETATION .................................................................................................................3-60 
 3.7.1 Black Mesa Complex ...........................................................................................3-60 
 3.7.1.1 Vegetation Types .................................................................................3-60 	 3.7.1.2 	 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species .................................................3-63 
 3.7.1.3 	 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species ..........................3-63 
 3.7.1.4 Culturally Important Plant Species ......................................................3-63 	 3.7.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline.............................................................................................3-63 3.7.2.1 	 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ..................................................3-63 
 3.7.2.2 	 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments....................3-67 
 3.7.3 Water Supply........................................................................................................3-67 
 3.7.3.1 	 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................3-67 
 3.7.3.2 	 N Aquifer Water-Supply System.........................................................3-71 
 3.8 FISH AND WILDLIFE.....................................................................................................3-71
 3.8.1 Black Mesa Complex ...........................................................................................3-71 
 3.8.1.1 Summary of Habitats ...........................................................................3-71 	 3.8.1.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................3-71 	 3.8.1.3 	 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitats ............................................................3-73 
 3.8.1.4	 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, 
 and Other Special Status Animal Species............................................3-73 
 3.8.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline.............................................................................................3-74 3.8.2.1 	 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ..................................................3-74 
 3.8.2.2 	 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments....................3-78 
 3.8.3 Water Supply........................................................................................................3-78 
 3.8.3.1 	 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................3-78 
 3.8.3.2 	 N Aquifer Water-Supply System.........................................................3-83 
 3.9 LAND USE .......................................................................................................................3-83 
 3.9.1 Black Mesa Complex ...........................................................................................3-86 
 3.9.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline.............................................................................................3-88 3.9.2.1 	 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ..................................................3-88 
 3.9.2.2 	 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments....................3-92 
 3.9.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................................3-93 
 3.9.3.1 Well	Field ............................................................................................3-93 3.9.3.2 	 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline........................................................3-93 
 3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................3-98 3.10.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................3-100 
 3.10.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...........................................................................................3-101 3.10.2.1 	 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ................................................3-101 
 3.10.3 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments..................................3-104 
 3.10.4 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................................3-104 
 3.10.4.1 Well Field ..........................................................................................3-104 	 3.10.4.2 	 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route .............................3-104 
 3.10.4.3 	 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route............................3-107 

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 iii Table of Contents

3.6.3 3.6.4





 






 



 









 
 





3.11

3.12 3.13

3.14

3.15

3.16

3.17

3.10.5 N Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................................3-109 
 3.10.6 Summary ............................................................................................................3-109 
 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .................................................................3-110 
 3.11.1 Regional Overview of Demographics and Economics ......................................3-111 
 3.11.2 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................3-113 
 3.11.2.1 Population in the Local Area .............................................................3-113 
 3.11.2.2 Unemployment in the Local Area......................................................3-114 
 3.11.2.3 Employment and Income in the Local Area ......................................3-114 
 3.11.2.4 Fiscal Conditions ...............................................................................3-117 3.11.2.5 Public Utilities ...................................................................................3-121 3.11.2.6 Education ...........................................................................................3-122 3.11.2.7 Health Care ........................................................................................3-122 3.11.2.8 Public Safety: Law Enforcement and Fire Protection........................3-123 
 3.11.3 Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant ............................................................................3-123 
 3.11.4 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...........................................................................................3-124 3.11.5 Water Supply......................................................................................................3-125 
 3.11.5.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................3-125 
 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE......................................................................................3-126 INDIAN TRUST ASSETS .............................................................................................3-133 
 3.13.1 Indian Trust Assets Definition and Characteristics............................................3-133 
 3.13.2 Indian Trust Assets Within the Affected Environment......................................3-134 
 3.13.2.1 Minerals .............................................................................................3-134 3.13.2.2 Land ...................................................................................................3-135 3.13.2.3 Water..................................................................................................3-135 3.13.2.4 Hunting and Gathering and Other Natural Resources .......................3-135 
 NOISE AND VIBRATION ............................................................................................3-135 
 3.14.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................3-138 
 3.14.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...........................................................................................3-140 3.14.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ................................................3-140 
 3.14.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments..................3-140 
 3.14.3 Water Supply......................................................................................................3-141 
 3.14.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................3-141 
 VISUAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................3-143 3.15.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................3-146 
 3.15.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...........................................................................................3-146 3.15.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ................................................3-146 
 3.15.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments..................3-148 
 3.15.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................................3-148 
 3.15.3.1 Well Field ..........................................................................................3-148 3.15.3.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline......................................................3-148 
 TRANSPORTATION .....................................................................................................3-150 3.16.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................3-151 
 3.16.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...........................................................................................3-152 3.16.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ................................................3-152 
 3.16.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments..................3-153 
 3.16.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................................3-154 
 3.16.3.1 Well Field ..........................................................................................3-154 3.16.3.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline......................................................3-154 
 RECREATION ...............................................................................................................3-154 
 3.17.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................3-155 
 3.17.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...........................................................................................3-155
iv Table of Contents


 
 
 









 
 






 



 
 








Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3.17.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ................................................3-155 
 3.17.3 	 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................................3-159 
 3.17.3.1 Well Field ..........................................................................................3-159 3.17.3.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline......................................................3-159 
 3.18 HEALTH AND SAFETY ...............................................................................................3-160 
 3.18.1 	 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................3-160 
 3.18.1.1 Safety Policies, Procedures, and Enforcement ..................................3-160 
 3.18.1.2 Hazards and Contaminants ................................................................3-161 3.18.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...........................................................................................3-164 	 3.18.3 	 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................................3-165 
 4.0 	 NVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................4-1 E 4.1 LANDFORMS AND TOPOGRAPHY...............................................................................4-6 
 4.1.1	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ................................4-6 
 4.1.1.1 Black Mesa Complex.............................................................................4-6 4.1.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..............................................................................4-6 4.1.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System ...........................................................4-7 
 4.1.2 	 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ..............4-7 
 4.1.2.1 Black Mesa Complex.............................................................................4-7 4.1.3 	 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) ...........................4-8 
 4.1.3.1 Black Mesa Complex.............................................................................4-8 4.2 GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.....................................................................4-8 
 4.2.1	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ................................4-8 
 4.2.1.1 Black Mesa Complex.............................................................................4-8 4.2.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..............................................................................4-9 4.2.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................4-10 
 4.2.2 	 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ............4-10 
 4.2.3 	 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .........................4-10 
 4.3 SOILS ..............................................................................................................................4-11 
 4.3.1	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ..............................4-11 
 4.3.1.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-11 4.3.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ............................................................................4-12 4.3.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................4-13 
 4.3.2 	 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ............4-14 
 4.3.3 	 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action).........................4-14 
 4.4 WATER RESOURCES (HYDROLOGY)........................................................................4-14 
 4.4.1	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ..............................4-15 
 4.4.1.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-15 4.4.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ............................................................................4-22 4.4.1.3 Water Supply .......................................................................................4-23 4.4.1.4 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................4-25 
 4.4.1.5 D and N Aquifer Water-Supply System ..............................................4-30 
 4.4.2 	 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ............4-37 
 4.4.3 	 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .........................4-40 
 4.4.3.1 Project Water Supply ...........................................................................4-40 4.5 CLIMATE.........................................................................................................................4-40 
 4.5.1 	 Traditional Climate Issues ...................................................................................4-40 

v Table of Contents





 






 



 



 



 



 
 





Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.5.2 	 Global Climate Issues ..........................................................................................4-40 
 4.5.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with the Black Mesa 
 	 Complex...............................................................................................4-41 
 4.5.2.2 	 Current Scientific Consensus on Climate Change ...............................4-41 
 4.5.2.3 	 Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................4-43 
 4.5.2.4	 Summary of IPCC-Reported Predictions for Future Climate 
 Change .................................................................................................4-44 
 4.5.3 Summary ..............................................................................................................4-48 
 	 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................4-48 
 4.6.1 	 LOM Revision Air-Pollutant Emissions ..............................................................4-49 
 4.6.1.1 	 Particulate-Matter Emissions from Mining Activity ...........................4-49 
 4.6.1.2	 Particulate-Matter and Gaseous-Air-Pollutant Emissions from
 Vehicle and Equipment Exhaust..........................................................4-49 
 4.6.2 	 Pipeline Construction Emissions..........................................................................4-49 
 4.6.2.1 	 Particulate Emissions from Earthmoving Activity ..............................4-49 
 4.6.2.2	 Particulate and Gaseous-Pollutant Emissions from Construction 
 Equipment............................................................................................4-50 
 4.6.2.3 	 Emissions from Pipeline Operations....................................................4-51 
 4.6.3	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station..............4-51 
 4.6.3.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-51 	 4.6.3.2 	 Total Air-Quality Impacts of Alternative A.........................................4-60 
 4.6.4 	 Alternative B: Approval of the 2008 LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) .....4-68 
 4.6.5 	 Alternative C: Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No-Action Alternative)........4-69 
 4.6.6 	 Fugitive Dust and Health-Related Issue...............................................................4-69 
 4.6.6.1 Asthma.................................................................................................4-70 	 4.6.6.2 Black Lung...........................................................................................4-70 	 4.6.7 	 Acid-Deposition Effects Due to Mining Activities..............................................4-71 
 4.6.8 	 Federal Implementation Plan Conformity (Navajo Nation).................................4-72 
 4.6.9 	 State Implementation Plan Conformity (Arizona, California, and Nevada) ........4-73 
 VEGETATION .................................................................................................................4-73 
 4.7.1 	 Types of Common Impacts ..................................................................................4-73 
 4.7.2	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ..............................4-75 
 4.7.2.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-75 	 4.7.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ............................................................................4-78 	 4.7.2.3 Water Supply .......................................................................................4-81 	 4.7.3 	 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ............4-86 
 4.7.3.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-86 	 4.7.4 	 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .........................4-86 
 FISH AND WILDLIFE.....................................................................................................4-86
 4.8.1 	 Types of Common Impacts ..................................................................................4-86 
 4.8.2	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ..............................4-87 
 4.8.2.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-87 	 4.8.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ............................................................................4-91 	 4.8.2.3 Water Supply .......................................................................................4-95 	 4.8.3 	 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ..........4-101 
 4.8.4 	 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-101 






 



 
 
 



 
 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

vi

Table of Contents

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

LAND USE .....................................................................................................................4-102 
 4.9.1	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ............................4-102 
 4.9.1.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-102 4.9.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-103 4.9.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................4-104 
 4.9.2 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ..........4-106 
 4.9.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-106 
 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT .....................................................................................4-106 4.10.1	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ............................4-107 
 4.10.1.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-107 4.10.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-109 4.10.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................4-113 
 4.10.1.4 Continued Use of the N Aquifer ........................................................4-119 
 4.10.2 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ..........4-119 
 4.10.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-120 
 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .................................................................4-120 
 4.11.1 Assumptions.......................................................................................................4-120 
 	 4.11.2 	 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................4-121 
 4.11.3	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ............................4-121 
 4.11.3.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-121 4.11.3.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-124 4.11.3.3 Water Supply .....................................................................................4-124 4.11.4 Alternative B –Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ...........4-126 
 4.11.5 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-127 
 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE......................................................................................4-127 4.12.1 Assumptions.......................................................................................................4-127 
 	 4.12.2	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ............................4-128 
 4.12.2.1 Economy (Employment, Incomes, and Fiscal Conditions) ...............4-128 
 4.12.3 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ..........4-130 
 4.12.3.1 Economy (Employment, Incomes, and Fiscal Conditions) ...............4-130 
 4.12.4 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-131 
 INDIAN TRUST ASSETS .............................................................................................4-131 
 4.13.1	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ............................4-131 
 4.13.2 	 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ..........4-133 
 4.13.3 	 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-134 
 NOISE AND VIBRATION ............................................................................................4-134 
 4.14.1 Noise 	 ..................................................................................................................4-134 
 4.14.2 Vibration ............................................................................................................4-134 
 	 4.14.3	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ............................4-135 
 4.14.3.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-135 4.14.3.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-136 4.14.3.3 Water-Supply.....................................................................................4-136 4.14.4 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ..........4-137 
 4.14.5 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-137 



 






 



 
 






 
 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

vii

Table of Contents

4.15 VISUAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................4-138 4.15.1	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ............................4-139 
 4.15.1.1 Black 	Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-139 4.15.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-140 	 4.15.1.3 Water	Supply .....................................................................................4-141 4.15.2 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ..........4-143 
 4.15.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-143 
 4.16 TRANSPORTATION .....................................................................................................4-143 4.16.1	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ............................4-143 
 4.16.1.1 Black 	Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-143 4.16.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-144 	 4.16.1.3 	 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................4-144 
 4.16.2 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ..........4-145 
 4.16.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-145 
 4.17 RECREATION ...............................................................................................................4-145 
 4.17.1	 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components 
 Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station ............................4-145 
 4.17.1.1 Black 	Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-145 4.17.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-146 	 4.17.1.3 	 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................4-147 
 4.17.2 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) ..........4-147 
 4.17.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-148 
 4.18 CONSERVATION MEASURES (ALTERNATIVE A) ................................................4-148 
 4.18.1 East Clear Creek Watershed Habitat Improvement Projects .............................4-149 
 4.18.2 Annual Conservation Fund for Native Fish Species ..........................................4-150 
 4.18.2.1 Priority Species ..................................................................................4-151 	 4.18.2.2 Priority Project Locations ..................................................................4-151 	 4.18.2.3 Priority Project Types ........................................................................4-151 	 4.18.2.4 Endowment Limitations and Constraints...........................................4-151 	 4.18.2.5 	 Project and Endowment Decision-Making Process...........................4-152 
 4.18.2.6 Conservation Fund Structure .............................................................4-153 	 4.19 MITIGATION.................................................................................................................4-154 
 4.19.1 Measures Common to All Project Components.................................................4-154 
 4.19.1.1 	 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species ...............................................4-154 
 4.19.1.2 	 Small Mammals and Birds.................................................................4-155 
 4.19.1.3 	 Threatened and Endangered Species and Sensitive Plant Species.....4-155 
 4.19.1.4 Visual.................................................................................................4-155 	 4.19.1.5 Cultural Resources.............................................................................4-155 	 4.19.2 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................4-156 
 4.19.2.1 Mine Facilities ...................................................................................4-156 	 4.19.2.2 Coal Mining .......................................................................................4-158 	 4.19.2.3 Reclamation .......................................................................................4-160 	 4.19.2.4	 Protection of Fish and Wildlife, and Related Environmental 
 Values ................................................................................................4-162 
 4.19.3 Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Water-Supply System................................................4-163 
 4.19.3.1 Water-Quality Control .......................................................................4-164 	 4.19.3.2 Dust Abatement .................................................................................4-164 	 4.19.3.3 Air-Quality Control ...........................................................................4-164 	 4.19.3.4 Noise 	Abatement ...............................................................................4-164
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 viii Table of Contents





 
 






 



 



 
 
 
 



 
 
 
 



 
 
 


4.19.3.5 Light Pollution Abatement.................................................................4-165 4.19.3.6 Transportation....................................................................................4-165 4.19.3.7 Preservation of Historical and Archaeological Data..........................4-165 
 4.19.3.8 Raptors and Migratory Birds .............................................................4-165 
 4.19.3.9 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.......................................................4-166 4.19.3.10 Bighorn Sheep ...................................................................................4-166 4.19.3.11 Desert Tortoise...................................................................................4-166 4.19.3.12 Other Wildlife....................................................................................4-166 4.19.3.13 Colorado River Fish...........................................................................4-167 4.19.3.14 Clearing and Grading.........................................................................4-167 4.19.3.15 Excavation .........................................................................................4-168 4.19.3.16 Construction Methods in Special Areas.............................................4-169 
 4.19.3.17 Lowering and Backfilling ..................................................................4-171 4.19.3.18 Cleanup and Restoration....................................................................4-171 4.19.3.19 Hydrostatic Testing............................................................................4-172 4.20 MONITORING ...............................................................................................................4-172 
 	 4.20.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................4-172 
 4.20.1.1 Hydrology ..........................................................................................4-173 4.20.1.2 Air Quality .........................................................................................4-173 4.20.1.3 Soil and Spoil Sampling ....................................................................4-173 
 4.20.1.4 Vegetation Monitoring.......................................................................4-173 4.20.1.5 Wildlife Monitoring...........................................................................4-174 4.20.1.6 Reclamation .......................................................................................4-174 4.20.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Water-Supply System................................................4-175 
 4.21 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .............................4-176 
 4.21.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................4-176 
 4.21.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Water-Supply System................................................4-177 
 4.22 	 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES........4-177 
 4.23 	 INDIRECT EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH RESUMING OPERATION AT 
 MOHAVE GENERATING STATION ..........................................................................4-179 
 4.23.1 Hydrology ..........................................................................................................4-179 
 4.23.2 Air Quality .........................................................................................................4-180 
 4.23.3 Climate ...............................................................................................................4-180 
 4.23.4 Noise and Vibration ...........................................................................................4-181 
 4.23.5 Social and Economic Conditions .......................................................................4-181 
 4.23.6 Visual Resources................................................................................................4-182 4.23.7 Transportation ....................................................................................................4-182 
 4.23.8 Other Impacts.....................................................................................................4-182 
 4.24 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS.............................................................................................4-182 	 4.24.1 General ...............................................................................................................4-182 
 4.24.1.1 Climate...............................................................................................4-182 4.24.1.2 Air Quality .........................................................................................4-183 4.24.2 Specific to the Black Mesa Complex .................................................................4-190 
 4.24.3 Specific to the Water Supply .............................................................................4-191 
 4.24.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................4-191 
 4.24.3.2 N Aquifer Water Supply ....................................................................4-194 



 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 
 
 






 
 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

ix

Table of Contents

5.0

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..............................................................................5-1 
 5.1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................5-1 
 5.2 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.....................................................................5-1 
 5.2.1 Cooperating Agencies ............................................................................................5-1 5.2.2 Government-to-Government Consultation.............................................................5-2 
 5.2.3 Formal Consultation...............................................................................................5-2 5.2.3.1 Biological Resources .............................................................................5-3 5.2.3.2 Cultural Resources.................................................................................5-5 5.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...............................................................................................5-6 5.3.1 Notice of Intent ......................................................................................................5-6 
 5.3.2 Newspaper and Radio Announcements .................................................................5-6 
 5.3.3 Additional Public Notice........................................................................................5-7 
 5.4 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS .......................................................................................5-8 
 5.4.1 Comments Received During Scoping ....................................................................5-8 
 5.5 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIS ..........................................................................5-9 
 5.6 DISTRIBUTION OF THE FINAL EIS ............................................................................5-13 
 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS.......................................................................................6-1 
 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................7-1 



 
 
 
 


6.0 7.0

GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................Glossary-1 
 INDEX ...............................................................................................................................................Index-1 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

x

Table of Contents

LIST OF APPENDICES 

A Mining and Reclamation Procedures A-1 Black Mesa Complex: Mining And Reclamation Procedures A-2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Typical Pipeline Construction, Operation, and Maintenance A-3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System: Typical Well Field and Pipeline Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Estimated Costs for Proposed Coal-Delivery System Legal Authorities and Mandates Truck Alternative Study Technical Memorandum Railroad Alternative Study Technical Memorandum Biological Resources Land Use Impact Assessment Methodology: Water Resources (Hydrology) Scenic Quality Classes and Descriptions Visual Simulations Consultation and Coordination Letters Federal Register Notices Comments on the Draft EIS and Responses (under separate cover)

B C D E F G H I J K L M

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

xi

Table of Contents

LIST OF MAPS 

Map 1-1 Map 1-2 Map 2-1 Map 2-2 Map 2-3 Map 2-4a Map 2-4b Map 2-5 Map 2-5a Map 2-5b Map 2-6 Map 2-7 Map 3-1 Map 3-2 Map 3-3 Map 3-4 Map 3-5 Map 3-6 Map 3-7 Map 3-8 Map 3-9 Map 3-10 Map 3-11 Map 3-12 Map 3-13 Map 3-14 Map 3-15 Map 3-16 Map 3-17 Map 3-17a Map 3-17b Map 3-17c Map 3-17d Map 3-18 Map 3-19 Map 4-1 Map 4-2 Map 4-3 Map 4-4 Project Area .....................................................................................................................1-3 
 Lease Area .......................................................................................................................1-4 
 Black Mesa Complex: OSM’s Initial and Permanent Programs......................................2-3 
 Mine Plan Areas...............................................................................................................2-4
 Black Mesa Complex and Facilities ................................................................................2-5 
 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Moenkopi Wash Realignment.....................................................2-13 
 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Kingman Area Reroute ...............................................................2-14 
 Water-Supply Pipeline Route Alternatives ....................................................................2-17 
 Water-Supply Pipeline: Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives......................2-20 
 Water-Supply Pipeline: Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives...........................................2-21 
 Percentages of Existing Traffic Volumes, and Traffic Volumes with
 Trucking Operation........................................................................................................2-42 
 Conceptual Railroad Spur Alignments ..........................................................................2-44 
 Geology............................................................................................................................3-3 
 Surface Geology and Structure Proposed C-Aquifer Well Field ...................................3-13 
 Major Watersheds ..........................................................................................................3-18 
 Location of Surface Drainages on Black Mesa andKey N-Aquifer Features ................3-19 
 Location of Surface Drainages South of Black Mesa and Key C-Aquifer Features......3-20 
 Extent of Regional Aquifers ..........................................................................................3-22 
 Temporary and Permanent Impoundments ....................................................................3-25 
 C-Aquifer Test Wells and Other Nearby Wells .............................................................3-34 
 Meteorological Monitoring Stations ..............................................................................3-43 
 Attainment Classification ..............................................................................................3-50 
 Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas ..............................................................................3-51
 Air Monitoring Stations .................................................................................................3-54 
 Vegetation......................................................................................................................3-61 
 AGFD Game Management Units...................................................................................3-76 
 Clear and Chevelon Creeks Watershed Features ...........................................................3-81
 Riparian Areas Potentially Associated with N-Aquifer Discharge................................3-84 
 Land Use ........................................................................................................................3-85
 Existing Land Use: Kingman Area ................................................................................3-90 
 Existing Land Use: Well Field and Leupp.....................................................................3-91 
 Existing Land Use: Kykotsmovi Area ...........................................................................3-96 
 Existing Land Use Along Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Alternative .......................3-97 
 Scenic Quality..............................................................................................................3-144 
 Recreation/Special Designations .................................................................................3-157 
 Drawdown vs. Saturated Thickness, C Aquifer 6,000 af/yr Subalternative ..................4-27 
 Drawdown vs. Saturated Thickness, C Aquifer 11,600 af/yr ........................................4-28 
 2023 PM10 Significant Impact Area...............................................................................4-65 
 2023 NO2 Significant Impact Area ................................................................................4-66 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

xii

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4 Figure 3-5 Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 Figure 4-3 Figure 4-4 Figure 4-5 Figure 4-6 Alternatives Evaluated .....................................................................................................2-8
 Alternative A Subalternatives ..........................................................................................2-9 
 Stratigraphic Column of Black Mesa Area ......................................................................3-6 
 Regional Hydrology.......................................................................................................3-21 
 Historic and Proposed C-Aquifer Pumping Centers ......................................................3-36 
 Monitoring Site Locations at the Black Mesa Complex ................................................3-44 
 Payroll per Employee, Private-Sector, 2001 Hopi and Navajo Areas .........................3-118 
 Simulated Drawdown in the N Aquifer in 2025 Due to Peabody Pumping Only, Relative to 2005 .............................................................................................................4-39 
 Summary of Predicted Temperatures.............................................................................4-45 
 Pumping Rates .............................................................................................................4-192 
 Lower Chevelon Creek Baseflow Diminution from Regional Pumping and 
 Project Pumpage of 11,600 (acre-feet per year) ..........................................................4-193 
 Lower Clear Creek Baseflow Diminution from Regional Pumping and 
 Project Pumpage of 11,600 (acre-feet per year) ..........................................................4-193 
 Simulated Drawdown in the N Aquifer in 2025 Due to Community and 
 Peabody Pumping, Relative to 2005............................................................................4-196 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

xiii

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 2-3 Table 2-4 Table 2-5 Table 2-6 Table 2-7 Table 2-8 Table 2-9 Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 3-3 Table 3-4 Table 3-5 Table 3-6 Table 3-7 Table 3-8 Table 3-9 Table 3-10 Table 3-11 Table 3-12 Table 3-13 Table 3-14 Table 3-15 Table 3-16 Table 3-17 Table 3-18 Table 3-19 Table 3-20 Table 3-21 Table 3-22 Issues Raised by the Public and by Government Agencies During Scoping.................1-12 
 Coal Resource Areas and Mining Status1 .......................................................................2-2 
 Approximate Miles Crossed by the Existing Coal-Slurry Pipeline, by Surface 
 Manager or Owner .........................................................................................................2-10 
 Alternative A Water Use................................................................................................2-12 
 Proposed Use of C-Aquifer Water.................................................................................2-16 
 Total Costs for Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern and Western Route Alternatives .........2-22 
 Summary of Potential Major Agency Authorities and Actions .....................................2-25 
 Comparison of Estimated Costs for Transporting Coal by Truck and by Coal 
 Slurry .............................................................................................................................2-43 
 Comparison of Estimated Costs for Transporting Coal by Rail and by Coal 
 Slurry .............................................................................................................................2-45 
 Summary of Impacts by Alternative ..............................................................................2-51 
 Mean Concentrations of Chemical Parameters in Stormwater, Stream Monitoring Sites by Site Number (1986 to 2002)..........................................................3-24 
 Mean Concentrations of Chemical Parameters, Permanent Internal 
 Impoundments by Site Number (1986 to 2002).............................................................3-26 
 Seep-Water Samples not Meeting Livestock Drinking-Water Standards*....................3-28 
 State-Designated Use, as declared by AZ Rule R18-11, Appendix B ...........................3-31 
 Aquifer Parameters for C-Aquifer Well Field ...............................................................3-35 
 Test Well Selected Inorganic Water-Quality Parameters, in mg/L except Arsenic 
 (µg/L).............................................................................................................................3-35 
 Navajo Nation Water Pipeline Stream Crossings, Designated Uses..............................3-37 
 Estimated 2010 Groundwater Uses................................................................................3-38 
 Meteorological Conditions of the Study Area ...............................................................3-41 
 Meteorological Conditions at the Black Mesa Complex, July 7, 1985, through 
 December 31, 2004 ........................................................................................................3-42 
 Seasonal Meteorological Conditions at the Black Mesa Complex ................................3-45 
 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.......................................................................3-49 
 Annual Average Ambient PM10 Monitoring Data (in µg/m3) at Black Mesa 
 Complex (2003 to 2005) ................................................................................................3-53 
 24-Hour Average Ambient PM10 Monitoring Data (in µg/m3) at Black Mesa 
 Complex (2003 to 2005) ................................................................................................3-55 
 Major Sources Located within and near the Air-Quality Study Area (Northern 
 Arizona Region).............................................................................................................3-56 
 Standard Visual Ranges from IMPROVE Monitors in and near the Air-Quality
 Study Area .....................................................................................................................3-58 
 Measured Air-Quality Concentrations from Monitors in and near the Air-Quality
 Study Area (Highest Recorded from 2003 to 2005) .....................................................3-59 
 Acres of Hopi and Navajo Reservation Land in the Black Mesa Complex..................3-87 
 Archaeological and Historical Sites Along the Coal-Slurry Pipeline1 ........................3-102 
 Traditional Cultural Resources Along the Coal-Slurry Pipeline .................................3-103 
 Archaeological and Historical Sites within the Area of Potential Effects for 
 Construction Impacts of the Proposed C Aquifer Water-Supply System1 ..................3-105 
 Traditional Cultural Resources within Area of Potential Effects for C Aquifer 
 Water-Supply System1 ................................................................................................3-106 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

xiv

Table of Contents

Table 3-23 Table 3-24 Table 3-25 Table 3-26 Table 3-27 Table 3-28 Table 3-29 Table 3-30 Table 3-31 Table 3-32 Table 3-33 Table 3-34 Table 3-35 Table 3-36 Table 3-37 Table 3-38 Table 3-39 Table 3-40 Table 3-41 Table 3-42 Table 3-43 Table 3-44 Table 3-45 Table 3-46 Table 3-47 Table 3-48 Table 3-49 Table 3-50 Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4-3 Table 4-4 Table 4-5 Table 4-6 Table 4-7 Table 4-8 Table 4-9 Table 4-10

Traditional Cultural Resources within Area of Potential Effects for WaterSupply Pipeline: Western Route1 ................................................................................3-108 
 Summary of the Cultural Resources Inventory............................................................3-109 
 Population in Arizona Counties Residing on Hopi Reservation, Navajo 
 Reservation, or Off Reservation ..................................................................................3-110 
 Key Population Characteristics – Regional .................................................................3-111 
 Regional and Local Area Labor Force Characteristics ................................................3-112 
 Regional Employment, Percent Share by Industry Sector, 2000 .................................3-113 
 Population and Households in the Local Area of Influence ........................................3-114 
 Local Area Employment: Total and Percent Share by Industry Sector (Census 
 2000) ............................................................................................................................3-116 
 Industry Multipliers .....................................................................................................3-117 
 State of Arizona Taxes Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company..............................3-118 
 Navajo Tribal Taxes Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company 1986 to 2005 
 (Black Mesa Mining Operation)1,2 .............................................................................3-119 
 Coal Royalties and Bonuses Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company (1986 to
 2005)1 ..........................................................................................................................3-119 
 Water Royalties Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company (1986 to 2004)1.............3-120 
 Total Annual Payments to Hopi and Navajo Tribes (1986 to 2005)1,2,3...................3-120 
 Schools (Grades K-12) in the Local Area....................................................................3-122 
 States of Arizona and Nevada Taxes Paid by Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc., in 2004 ......3-123 
 Local Area Population and Households (Pipelines and Well Field)............................3-124 
 Local Area Employment: Percent Share by Industry Sector (Coal-Slurry Pipeline 
 and Project Water Supply)1 .........................................................................................3-126 
 Race and Ethnicity – Regional Level1,2,3...................................................................3-128 
 Race and Ethnicity – Local Level1,2 ...........................................................................3-129 
 Regional Income Characteristics .................................................................................3-131 
 Local Income Characteristics.......................................................................................3-132 
 Trends in Percentage of People in Poverty by State and County, 1999 to 2002.........3-132 
 Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments..............................3-136 
 Source Noise Used for Estimating Existing Noise Levels1.........................................3-137 
 Distance Zone Definitions ...........................................................................................3-143 
 Primary Transportation Corridors................................................................................3-150 
 Average Annual Number of Permits Issued by Arizona Game and Fish 
 Department Between 2000 and 2005...........................................................................3-158 
 Black Mesa Complex Right-of-Entry Acreages ..............................................................4-3 
 Black Mesa Complex Permit and Disturbance Acreages ................................................4-3 
 Black Mesa Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing and Proposed Rights-of-way Acreages........4-4 
 C Aquifer Water-Supply System Proposed Rights-of-way Acreages..............................4-4 
 Pumping Rate Subalternatives .......................................................................................4-25 
 Projected Baseflow Diminution in Upper East Clear Creek, Lower Clear Creek, 
 and Lower Chevelon Creek ...........................................................................................4-29 
 N Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative A, Supplemental Use of N Aquifer 
 Water, 2005 to 2025.......................................................................................................4-31 
 Projected Groundwater Discharge Diminution of Black Mesa (N-Aquifer) 
 Streams, Alternative A, Supplemental N-Aquifer Use, 2005 to 2025 ...........................4-33 
 N Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative A, Use of N Aquifer Water During 
 Outages of C Aquifer Well Field (2,000 af/yr), 2005 to 2025.......................................4-34 
 Projected Groundwater Discharge Diminution to Black Mesa (N Aquifer) 
 Streams, in af/yr, Alternative A, 2,000 af/yr N Aquifer Use, 2005 to 2025 ..................4-35 

xv Table of Contents

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

Table 4-11 Table 4-12 Table 4-13 Table 4-14 Table 4-15 Table 4-16 Table 4-17 Table 4-18 Table 4-19 Table 4-20 Table 4-21 Table 4-22 Table 4-23 Table 4-24 Table 4-25 Table 4-26 Table 4-27 Table 4-28 Table 4-29 Table 4-30 Table 4-31 Table 4-32 Table 4-33 Table 4-34 Table 4-35 Table 4-36 Table 4-37 Table 4-38

N Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative A, Maximum Use of N Aquifer Well Field (6,000 af/yr), 2005 to 2025 ...................................................................................4-36 
 Projected Groundwater Discharge Diminution to Black Mesa (N Aquifer) 
 Streams, in af/yr, Alternative A, 6,000 af/yr N Aquifer Use, 2005 to 2025 ..................4-37 
 N Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative B, Use of N Aquifer Water for Kayenta 
 Mine and Reclamation of Black Mesa Mine, 2005 to 2025 ..........................................4-38 
 Projected Groundwater Discharge Diminution to Black Mesa (N Aquifer) 
 Streams, in af/yr, Alternative B, Approval of LOM without Black Mesa, Coal Slurry or C Aquifer Water Supply, 2005 to 2025 ..........................................................4-39 
 Equipment List for Typical Construction of Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Water-
 Supply Pipeline ..............................................................................................................4-50 
 Annual Fugitive PM10 Emissions from Black Mesa Complex Operations...................4-51 
 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resulting from Operations at the Black 
 Mesa Complex Expressed as CO2 Equivalent (tons per year) ......................................4-52 
 Air-Pollutant Emissions from Vehicle and Equipment Exhaust at Black Mesa 
 Complex 1......................................................................................................................4-53 
 Particulate-Matter Emissions Associated with Earthmoving Activity During 
 Construction of Coal-Slurry and Water-Supply Pipelines (Alternative A only) ...........4-54 
 Air Pollutant Emissions from Construction Vehicles and Equipment - 
 Coal-Slurry Pipeline (Alternative A) .............................................................................4-56 
 Air-Pollutant Emissions from Construction Vehicles and Equipment – 
 Water-Supply Pipeline (Eastern and Western Routes) ..................................................4-57 
 PM10 Emissions from Portable Rock-Crushing Plant 1 .................................................4-58 
 PM10 Emissions from Portable Concrete Batch Plant 1.................................................4-59 
 Annual Emissions From Construction of Water-Supply Pipeline (Alternative A)........4-60 
 Maximum Annual Controlled PM10 Emissions During and After Pipeline 
 Construction (Alternative A) .........................................................................................4-60 
 Assessment of NAAQS Conformance for Black Mesa Complex..................................4-62 
 Assessment of Impacts From Black Mesa Complex on Local Sensitive Receptors......4-62 
 Class I and Class II Increments and Significance Thresholds Applicable to PSD 
 Permitting Projects.........................................................................................................4-63 
 Nitric Acid (HNO3) Deposition Contributions From Black Mesa Complex .................4-72 
 Approximate Acres of Vegetation Types Potentially Affected by 2008 to 2026 
 Mining Operations .........................................................................................................4-75 
 Acres of Vegetation Types Potentially Affected — Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing 
 Route..............................................................................................................................4-78 
 Acres of Vegetation Types Potentially Affected – Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing 
 Route with Realignments...............................................................................................4-81 
 Estimated Acres of Potential Impact on Plains and Great Basin Grassland or 
 Great Basin Desertscrub from C-Aquifer Pumping .......................................................4-82 
 Estimated Acres of Vegetation Types Potentially Affected – Water-Supply 
 Pipeline: Eastern Route..................................................................................................4-83 
 Acres of Vegetation Types Potentially Affected – Water-Supply Pipeline: 
 Western Route................................................................................................................4-84 
 Potential Adverse Effects on Archaeological and Historical Sites within the Coal-
 Haul Road Corridor1 ...................................................................................................4-109 
 Potential Adverse Effects on Archaeological and Historical Sites along the 
 Existing Coal-Slurry Pipeline Route1..........................................................................4-109 
 Potential Impacts on Traditional Cultural Resources along the Existing 
 Coal-Slurry Pipeline1 ..................................................................................................4-111 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

xvi

Table of Contents

Table 4-39 Table 4-40 Table 4-41 Table 4-42 Table 4-43 Table 4-44 Table 4-45 Table 4-46 Table 4-47 Table 4-48 Table 4-49 Table 4-50 Table 4-51 Table 4-52 Table 4-53 Table 4-54 Table 4-55 Table 4-56 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Table 5-4 Table 5-5 Table 5-6 Table 5-7 Table 5-8 Table 5-9

Potential Impacts on Archaeological and Historical Sites along the Coal-Slurry Pipeline Realignments1 ...............................................................................................4-112 
 Potential Impacts on Archaeological and Historical Sites within the C-Aquifer 
 Well Field1 ..................................................................................................................4-113 
 Potential Impacts on Traditional Cultural Resources within the C-Aquifer Well 
 Field and Related Surface Water1 ...............................................................................4-115 
 Potential Impacts on Archaeological and Historical Sites along the C Aquifer 
 Water-Supply Pipeline and Related Facilities: Eastern Route1...................................4-115 
 Potential Adverse Effects on Traditional Cultural Resources along the C Aquifer 
 Water-Supply Pipeline and Related Facilities: Eastern Route1...................................4-118 
 Potential Adverse Effects on Traditional Cultural Resources along the 
 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline and Related Facilities: Western Route1 ................4-119 
 Acres of Right-of-Way per Reservation ......................................................................4-132 
 Contrast Types Defined ...............................................................................................4-138 
 Proposed Capital Conservation Projects to Offset Impacts on Federally Listed 
 Fish Species .................................................................................................................4-150 
 Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Program, C Aquifer Well Field and Vicinity......4-175 
 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources............................................4-178 
 Mohave Generating Station Criteria Pollutant Emissions ...........................................4-180 
 Background Point Source Annual PM10 Emissions 1 ..................................................4-184 
 Summary of Highest Annual PM10 Increases Over Regional Point Source 
 Emissions for All Three Alternatives ..........................................................................4-185 
 Estimated Nonproject C-Aquifer Pumpage, 1950 to 2060, in acre-feet per year ........4-191 
 Major Industrial Users .................................................................................................4-192 
 Municipal and Industrial N-Aquifer Annual Usage from 1965 to 2003.....................4-195 
 Municipal and Industrial N-Aquifer Usage from 1965to2003.....................................4-196 
 Government-to-Government Consultation Meetings.......................................................5-2 
 Information Provided by Agency or Tribe Regarding Listed Species in the 
 Project Area .....................................................................................................................5-3 
 Summary of Meetings Related to Federally Listed Species on the Black Mesa
 Project ..............................................................................................................................5-4 
 Newspapers and Dates of Publications ............................................................................5-7 
 Public Scoping Meeting Dates, Locations, Attendance, and Number of Speakers 
 (2005)...............................................................................................................................5-8 
 Summary of Legal Notice Publications and Radio Announcements ...............................5-9 
 Public Meeting Locations (2007)...................................................................................5-10 
 Public Meeting Attendance and Comments...................................................................5-11 
 Summary of Legal Notice Publications, Radio Announcements, and Press 
 Releases (2008)..............................................................................................................5-12 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

xvii

Table of Contents

LIST OF ACRONYMS
°C °F 2-D 3-D μg/L μg/m3 μS/cm A&Wc A&We ACEC af/yr ADEQ ADOR ADOT ADWR af/yr AGFD AgI AgL AIRFA Alk AMA AML ANSI/AWS API APP APS ARPA ARS As ASLD ASME ASU AUM AWQS AWWA AZPDES BACT bgs BIA BIOME BLM BMPI BNSF degrees Centigrade degrees Fahrenheit two dimensional three dimensional micrograms per liter micrograms per cubic meter microSiemens per centimeter Aquatic and Wildlife – Cold Water Fishery Aquatic and Wildlife – Ephemeral areas of critical environmental concern acre-feet per year (1 acre-foot is equal to 325,851 gallons) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Revenue Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Water Resources acre-feet per year Arizona Game and Fish Department agricultural irrigation agricultural livestock watering American Indian Religious Freedom Act alkalinity Aquifer Management Area Abandoned Mine Land American National Standards Institute/American Welding Society American Petroleum Institute Aquifer Protection Program Arizona Public Service Company Archaeological Resources Protection Act Arizona Revised Statutes Arsenic Arizona State Land Department American Society of Mechanical Engineers Arizona State University animal unit month Aquifer Water Quality Standards American Water Works Association Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System best achievable control technology below ground surface Bureau of Indian Affairs BIOME Ecological and Wildlife Research Bureau of Land Management Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. Burlington Northern Santa Fe

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

xviii

Table of Contents

BOR BTCA Btu C aquifer Ca CAA CAP CaSO4 CAWCD CBM CCDAQEM CDP CEQ CERCLA CFR cfs CHIA Cl CML CO CO2 CPO CRPA CSP CWA D aquifer dB dBA DWS EIS EPA EPC ESA FAA FBC FC FHWA FIRE Fl FLPMA FOIA Forest Service ft/bgs ft/day ft2/day FWS

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation best technology currently available British thermal unit Coconino aquifer calcium Clean Air Act Central Arizona Project gypsum (calcium sulfate) Central Arizona Water Conservation District coal bed methane Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management Census Designated Places Council on Environmental Quality Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Code of Federal Regulations cubic feet per second Comprehensive Hydrologic Impact Assessment chloride cement-mortar lined carbon monoxide carbon dioxide Cultural Preservation Office Cultural Resource Protection Act coal-slurry pipeline Clean Water Act Dakota aquifer decibel A-weighted decibels domestic water source Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Protection Agency engineering, procurement, and construction Endangered Species Act Federal Aviation Administration full-body contact fish consumption Federal Highway Administration Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate fluorine Federal Land Policy and Management Act Freedom of Information Act U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service feet below ground surface feet per day square feet per day U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

xix

Table of Contents

gpd/ft g/VMT GMU gpm HCO3 HCPO HIS HTHA HUD Hz I-40 ICP IMPROVE km kV kVA Ldn Leq LOM m/s Mg mg/L ml MSHA MSL N aquifer N41 Na NAAQS NACE NAGPRA National Register NDEP NDOH NEPA NHA NHPA NNC NNEPA NNHSD NO2 NO3 NOX NPDES NRC

gallons per day per foot Grams emitted per vehicle mile traveled Game Management Units gallons per minute bicarbonate Hopi Cultural Preservation Office Indian Health Services Hopi Tribal Housing Authority Housing and Urban Development hertz Interstate 40 inductively coupled plasma spectrometry Integrated Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments kilometer kilovolt kilovolt amperes day-night average sound level equivalent noise level life-of-mine meters per second magnesium milligrams per liter milliliter Mine Health and Safety Administration mean sea level Navajo aquifer Navajo Route 41 sodium National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Association of Corrosion Engineers Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act National Register of Historic Places Nevada Department of Environmental Protection Navajo Division of Health National Environmental Policy Act Navajo Housing Authority National Historic Preservation Act Navajo Nation Council or Navajo Nation Code Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency Navajo Nation Housing Services Department nitrogen dioxide nitrate Nitrogen oxides National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
xx Table of Contents

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

NRCS NSR NTU NTUA O3 OHV OSM Pb PBC Peabody pH PM PM10 PM2.5 ppm PSD R aquifer RAWS RCRA Reclamation RFRA RUSLE SAIPE SAR SCAQMD SCE SCS SHPO SLUD SMCRA SO2 SO4 SPCC SPLP SRP SSPA STATSGO SWPPP TDS THPO TMDL tons/acre/yr U.S. 160 U.S. 89 UMTRCA

Natural Resource Conservation Service New Source Review Nephelometric turbidity unit Navajo Tribal Utility Authority ozone off-highway vehicle Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement lead partial body contact Peabody Western Coal Company measure of acidity particulate matter particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter parts per million Prevention of Significant Deterioration Redwall aquifer remote automatic weather station Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Bureau of Reclamation Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates sodium adsorption ratio South Coast Air Quality Management District Southern California Edison Company Soil Conservation Service State Historic Preservation Officer Strategic Land Use and Development Plan Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 sulfur dioxide sulfate Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure Salt River Project S.S. Papadopulos and Associates State Soil Geographic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan total dissolved solids Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Total Maximum Daily Load tons per acre per year U.S. Highway 160 U.S. Highway 89 Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978
xxi Table of Contents

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

URS USACE U.S.C. USDA USDI USDOE USEPA USGS U.S. 89 U.S. 160 VRM WQARF WQMP WRCC WSP WWTP

URS Corporation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers United States Code U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Highway 89 U.S. Highway 160 Visual Resource Management Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Water Quality Management Plan Western Regional Climate Center water-supply pipeline Waste Water Treatment Plant

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

xxii

Table of Contents

c pe 1 ha t r

i r u ton nt od c i

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

This environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in order to analyze and disclose the probable effects of the Black Mesa Project in northern Arizona. The purpose of and need for the Black Mesa Project is to continue the supply of coal from Peabody Western Coal Company’s (Peabody’s) Kayenta mining operation to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona (Map 1-1). The action proposed by Peabody is to revise the life-ofmine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for its permitted Kayenta mining operation and, as a part of this revision, to incorporate into these plans the initial program area surface facilities and coal-resource areas of its adjacent Black Mesa mining operations, which previously supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada. This EIS collectively refers to the area occupied by the Kayenta mining operation and Black Mesa mining operation as the Black Mesa Complex. 1.1.1 Changes to the Purpose and Need from the Draft EIS

Since the Draft EIS was published in November 2006, the purpose of and need for the Black Mesa Project to supply coal to the Mohave Generating Station no longer exists. With this change, Peabody amended its permit revision application, thus causing the change in the statement of purpose and need and reducing the scope of the proposed action. Some of Peabody’s LOM revisions and three of the four original proposed actions are no longer proposed. •	 As a part of its LOM revisions, Peabody no longer proposes a new coal-haul road, construction of a new coal-washing facility, coal production from the Black Mesa mining operation for the Mohave Generating Station, and water for slurry transportation of coal and coal washing. •	 Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. (BMPI) no longer proposes to continue to operate the Black Mesa coalslurry preparation plant. •	 BMPI also no longer proposes to reconstruct the 273-mile-long coal-delivery slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station. •	 The co-owners of the Mohave Generating Station1 no longer propose to construct a new watersupply system, including a 108-mile-long water-supply pipeline and a well field near Leupp,

1

Operation of the Mohave Generating Station—owned jointly by Southern California Edison Company (SCE), Salt River Project (SRP), Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Nevada Power Company—was suspended on December 31, 2005. After a comprehensive reassessment of efforts required to return the power plant to operation, SCE, the operator and majority owner of the Mohave Generating Station, announced on June 19, 2006, that it would not continue to pursue resumed operation of the power plant. Two other owners, Nevada Power Company and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, made similar announcements. The fourth owner, SRP, announced that it was continuing to assess the situation and might pursue resumed operation of the power plant with new partners, but not as sole owner. In September 2006, SRP announced that it was accelerating efforts to return the plant to service, and requested that the environmental impact statement process resume while it attempted to form a new ownership group. With SCE’s concurrence, SRP committed to replace SCE as the principal applicant for those aspects of the Black Mesa Project that SCE had initiated. On February 6, 2007, SRP announced that it would no longer pursue resumption of the coal operations at the Mohave Generating Station and no longer continue as the project proponent for completion of the Black Mesa Project EIS. On February 7, 2007, SCE resumed responsibility for completion of the EIS and, on May 18, 2007, SCE announced that work on the Black Mesa Project EIS was suspended. In letters dated February 25 and April 30, 2008, Peabody Western Coal Company notified the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement of its intention to amend the pending life-of-mine permit-revision application for the Black Mesa Complex to remove proposed plans and activities that supported supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station because it believed that reopening the Mohave Generating Station for operation is unlikely.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

1-1

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

Arizona, to obtain water from the Coconino aquifer (C aquifer) and to convey the water to the Black Mesa Complex for use in the coal slurry and other mine-related purposes. Although these actions are no longer proposed and not part of the preferred alternative, they still could occur under certain circumstances. Alternative A addresses supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station, which remains permitted for operation. Even though operation was suspended in December 2005, it has not been decommissioned. Although it appears that implementing Alternative A is unlikely, Peabody wishes to proceed in revising its permit to incorporate the surface facilities in the initial program area and coal-resource areas of its adjacent Black Mesa mining operation; that is, Alternative B. Because Alternative A is still possible, albeit unlikely, this EIS continues to analyze its effects2. The Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation also proposed that the C aquifer water-supply system could be expanded to provide an additional 5,600 acre-feet per year (af/yr) of water for tribal domestic, municipal, industrial, and commercial uses. Both tribes indicated that upsizing the pipeline and expanding the system’s well field would fulfill the needs of both tribes to significantly expand and improve tribal water supplies at a relatively modest cost. This EIS analyzes the tribes’ potential withdrawals of C-aquifer water from the proposed well field, which would be interrelated with the sizing of the currently proposed watersupply pipeline and well field and the total amount of C-aquifer water ultimately withdrawn from the well field. The construction of tribal water-distribution systems was never proposed as a part of the Black Mesa Project; therefore, it is not analyzed in this EIS. The Kayenta mining operation delivers 8.5 million tons of coal per year from the Black Mesa Complex to the Navajo Generating Station, a distance of 83 miles, by the Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad. The LOM revisions would improve or enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the mine plan for the Kayenta mining operation. However, no changes to this coal-delivery system or to the generating station are proposed. The United States Department of the Interior (USDI), Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), is the lead agency responsible for preparing this EIS. Other Federal agencies and tribal governments cooperating with OSM in the preparation of the EIS include the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, and City of Kingman, Arizona. 1.2 BACKGROUND

The Black Mesa Complex has operated as two separate surface-mining operations (Kayenta mining operation and Black Mesa mining operation) since the early 1970s and is an area composed of three contiguous leases and several surface rights-of-way and easements granted to Peabody from the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. The Black Mesa Complex comprises approximately 24,858 acres of land where the surface and mineral interests are held exclusively by the Navajo Nation (Navajo Exclusive Lease Area, Lease 14-20-0603-8580), and approximately 40,000 acres of land are located in the former Hopi and Navajo Joint Minerals Ownership Lease Area (Joint Lease Area, Leases 14-20-0603-9910 and 14-20-0450-5743) (Map 1-2). The tribes have joint and equal interest in the minerals that underlie the Joint Lease Area; however, the surface has been partitioned and is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribes to which the surface is partitioned (6,137 acres partitioned to the Hopi Tribe and 33,863 acres
2

As described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Section 1.2, under Alternative A, other agencies would have authorities and actions to take regarding the coal-slurry preparation plant, coal-slurry pipeline, and/or C aquifer water-supply system.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

1-2

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_1_1_Alignments.pdf(par)

Nevada

Utah

Lincoln County

Washington County

Kane County

Map 1-1
San Juan County

Utah
Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation

Arizona
Page

Project Area
Black Mesa Project EIS

LEGEND
NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d

Blac k

Kayenta Tsegi

Project Features
Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline

Me s

Nevada

Arizona

a
an

Clark County

La ke

0 13

Thief Rock PS
Ra
ilr o

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Existing Route
 Realignment
 Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route
Apache County

0 12

we Po
ll

Clark

lor Co

er Riv ado

a d 10 0

PS #1
10
0 10

110

MP 91 PS
90
30

Havasupai
 Indian
 o Reservati
 n

Subalternative along Eastern Route Western Pipeline Route PS = Pump Station

20
90

Tuba City Moenkopi
50

40

80

Moenkopi
 Wash
 Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Surface Management
Bureau of Land Management U.S. Forest Service

Ra ilwa

Mohave County

Hualapai Indian Reservation

Tusayan
y

60

70

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2
80

70
60

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

National Park Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge Bureau of Reclamation American Indian Reservation Military Reservation State Trust County, Park and Outdoor Recreation Area

50

90

ny

on

50

Ca

Valle
100
40
40

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110
120

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
0 23

Grand

30

Tolani Lake PS

Private

130

140

30

150

Tolani Lake PS Leupp Navajo County
20

PS #4 Seligman
170
0 24

General Features
River
 Lake
 Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary State Boundary

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

270

0 25

10

180

190

200

da a va ni Ne ifor l Ca
Fort Mohave Indian Reservation

210

Kingman
20

220

260

Bullhead City

10

Kingman Area
 Reroute


Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow

Little Colorad o River

County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad

Holbrook

SOURCES:
 URS Corporation 2005, 2006
 Arizona State Land Department 2005
 Teal Data Center 2000


n ifor Ca l
San Bernardino County

Colorado River Indian Reservation

Ariz ona
La Paz County Yavapai County

Camp Verde
 Indian Reservati
 on

ia

November 2008
0 20 Miles 40

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Reservation

Prepared By:
Gila County

Fort Apache Indian Reservation

Map 1-2

Lease Area

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

1-4

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

partitioned to the Navajo Nation). The coal-mining leases with the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation provide Peabody the right to produce up to 290 million tons of coal from the Navajo Exclusive Lease Area and up to 380 million tons of coal from the Hopi and Navajo Joint Lease Area for a combined total of 670 million tons. The coal-mining leases approved by the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation provide Peabody with the rights to prospect, mine, and strip leased lands to produce coal and kindred products, including other minerals that may be found, except for oil and gas. Peabody also is given the right to construct support facilities such as buildings, pipelines, tanks, plants, and other structures; make excavations, stockpiles, ditches, drains, roads, spur tracks, electric power lines, and other improvements; and to place machinery and other equipment and fixtures and do all other things on the leased lands necessary to carry on mining operations, including rights of ingress and egress, and to develop and use water for the mining operations, including the transportation by slurry pipeline of coal mined from the leases. A complete coal-removal, -preparation, and -transportation system is in place and, though separate operations, the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations have historically shared some facilities and structures (e.g., offices, shops, coal-handling facilities, roads, etc.). Several grants of rights-of-way and easements on Hopi and Navajo Nation land allow Peabody access to and use of land outside the existing coal-lease areas. These rights-of-way and easements include an overland conveyor; a coal-loading site; two parcels of land providing access for utilities, haul roads, maintenance roads, sediment-control ponds, and a rock-borrow area; and an electrical transmission line. A more detailed description of the mine facilities is provided in Appendix A-1. Peabody has been supplying coal from the Kayenta mining operation to the Navajo Generating Station since 1973. The Kayenta mining operation, the northernmost and eastern portion of the lease area, currently produces coal and reclaims land under OSM Permit AZ-0001D, originally issued in 1990 under OSM’s permanent Indian lands program. The Kayenta mining operation is permitted to mine coal reserves that would last through 2026 at current production rates. The Kayenta mining operation is the sole coal supplier for the Navajo Generating Station, and the Navajo Generating Station is its sole customer. The Black Mesa mining operation, the southwestern portion of the lease area, supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station from 1970 to December 2005. Until the latter date, the Black Mesa mining operation was the sole supplier of coal to the Mohave Generating Station, and the Mohave Generating Station was its sole customer. After the effective date (December 13, 1977) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), Title 30, United States Code, Section 1201 et seq. (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), the operation produced coal and reclaimed land under OSM’s initial regulatory program.3 Although Peabody is authorized to mine coal from the Black Mesa mining operation until such time that OSM makes a decision on the LOM revision, Peabody has not produced coal at the Black Mesa mining operation for the Mohave Generation Station since suspension of operations at the power plant in December 2005.
3

Between 1990 and 2005, the Black Mesa operation mined coal under the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) initial regulatory program. Since 2005, Peabody Western Coal Company (Peabody) has continued to use surface facilities at the Black Mesa mining operation under the initial regulatory program for both its reclamation activities at the Black Mesa mining operation and in conjunction with its Kayenta mining operation. Prior to 1990, Peabody had submitted a permanent program permit application to OSM for both the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. In 1990, OSM approved and issued a permit for the Kayenta operation. Under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, OSM administratively delayed its decision on the Black Mesa operation owing to concerns of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation regarding use of Navajo-aquifer water for coal slurry and mine-related purposes. Under this administrative delay, Peabody conducted the Black Mesa operation until December 2005, when mining operations ceased due to suspension of operations at the Mohave Generating Station.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

1-5

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

On February 17, 2004, Peabody filed an LOM permit revision application with OSM proposing several revisions to the LOM plans of the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. OSM reviewed the application and found it administratively complete. However, in letters dated February 25, 2008, and April 3, 2008, Peabody notified OSM of its intention to amend the pending mine permit revision application for the Black Mesa Complex to remove proposed plans and activities that supported supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station because Peabody believed that reopening the Mohave Generating Station for operation as a coal-fired power plant is unlikely. Peabody submitted an amended application on July 2, 2008, which is consistent with its letters omitting components to supply coal to the Mohave Generating Station and the haul road. At this time, Peabody has not indicated that new customers are being considered for the coal from the Black Mesa mining operation. Although, under Alternative B, the unmined coal-resource areas would be incorporated into the permanent program permit area, mining of these resources would not be authorized until Peabody proposed that these resources be mined and BLM and OSM approved this mining. Without knowing a new customer’s purpose and need for purchasing and using the coal, the amount and quality of coal needed per year, and a plan for mining and transporting the coal, impacts associated with the potential transaction cannot be projected. If and when there is such a proposal, associated actions (e.g., mining plan revision, development and construction of a means of transportation of the coal to its destination) will need to be reviewed under NEPA. Under the SMCRA, OSM may approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the LOM revision application for the Black Mesa Complex. If requirements of SMCRA are met, OSM must approve the application. In making its decision, OSM will consider the concerns of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation associated with use of water from the Navajo aquifer (N aquifer); However, OSM has no authority under SMCRA to adjudicate water rights or to conditionally permit to prohibit or limit the use of N-aquifer water allowed by the leases, Other Federal agencies (i.e., BLM, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], USEPA, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS]) have authorities and/or actions (decisions) to perform for the various proposals related to the mining operation. These authorities and actions are summarized below and are described in more detail in Section 2.3, Table 2-6. •	 OSM approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of Peabody’s LOM revision; •	 BLM approval of changes to Peabody’s mining plan; •	 USACE approval of modification of Peabody’s Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit and USEPA (Hopi lands) and Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA) (Navajo lands) issuance of CWA Section 401 water-quality certification; •	 USEPA and NNEPA approval of modifications of Peabody’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit; •	 USEPA approval of Peabody’s notice of intent for coverage under the 2006 Multi-Sector General NPDES Permit for Storm Water; and •	 FWS review of OSM’s biological assessment and, if OSM and FWS enter into formal consultation, issuance of a biological opinion related to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Also, through the conditions of the existing mine permit, OSM will require Peabody’s continued compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), Section 106, (16 U.S.C. 470

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

1-6

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

et seq.), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) ( 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013), and laws, regulations, and policies of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION

The Black Mesa Complex (which includes the areas of the Kayenta mining operation and Black Mesa mining operation) is located on about 64,585 acres of land leased within the boundaries of the Hopi and Navajo Indian Reservations near Kayenta in Navajo County in northern Arizona (about 125 miles northeast of Flagstaff, Arizona) (refer to Map 1-1). Coal from the Kayenta mining operation is delivered by electric railroad 83 miles northwest to the Navajo Generating Station near Page in northern Coconino County in northern Arizona. The components associated with Alternative A (coal-slurry preparation plant, coal-slurry pipeline, and C aquifer water-supply system) are or would be located in Navajo, Coconino, Yavapai, and Mohave Counties in northern Arizona, and a small part in the extreme southern tip of Nevada in Clark County (refer to Map 1-1). Until December 2005, coal from the Black Mesa mining operation was delivered via the 273-mile-long coal-slurry pipeline southwest to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada. Under Alternative A, the well field for the proposed new C aquifer water-supply system would be located in the area of Canyon Diablo, south of Leupp in Coconino County, Arizona, on both the Navajo Indian Reservation and land owned by the Hopi Tribe. The C aquifer is a large aquifer system that encompasses more than 27,000 square miles in northern Arizona and extends into northwestern New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado. A proposed new 108-mile-long pipeline would convey water from the well field northeast from the Diablo Canyon through Coconino and Navajo Counties and the Hopi and Navajo Indian Reservations to the Black Mesa Complex. The part of the N aquifer that historically has supplied the water for the coal slurry and continues to supply water for mine-related and domestic purposes is part of a larger area that encompasses an approximately 12,000-square-mile area and three hydrologic sub-basins. 1.4 1.4.1 RELATION TO OTHER DEVELOPMENT Navajo Generating Station

The Navajo Generating Station is a coal-fired, steam electric-generating power plant with a generating capacity of 2,250 megawatts from three 750-megawatt units. The first unit began producing electricity in 1974, and commercial operation of the other units began in 1975 and 1976. The power plant consumes 8.5 million tons of coal annually. The Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad, a 50,000-volt electric railroad, is a rail line dedicated to transporting the coal 83 miles from the Black Mesa Complex to the Navajo Generating Station. The co-owners of the Navajo Generating Station are Salt River Project (SRP) (21.7 percent share and plant operator), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) (24.3 percent share), Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (21.2 percent share), Arizona Public Service Company (APS) (14.0 percent share), Nevada Power Company (11.3 percent share), and Tucson Electric Power (7.5 percent share). The electrical power produced by the Navajo Generating Station is used to serve residential, commercial, and industrial customers in Arizona, Nevada, and California. The power supply from the Navajo Generating Station also is used to pump water through the Central Arizona Project, a 336-mile-long system that conveys water from the Colorado River to central Arizona for agricultural, commercial, and residential uses. The generating station has been important to the co-owners of the facility because of its dependability as a base source of power to the region and because it is fueled with coal, which is less expensive than natural gas.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

1-7

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

There are no proposals to modify the facilities or operation of either the Navajo Generating Station or the Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad that would require Federal approval. Moreover, any proposals to modify the Navajo Generating Station are beyond OSM’s decision-making authority. Therefore, potential modifications to facilities or operation of the Navajo Generating Station are not part of the Black Mesa Project considered in this EIS. However, because approval by OSM of the LOM revision would enable the Navajo Generating Station potentially to use coal from additional coal-resource areas within the Black Mesa Complex, a summary description of the cumulative impacts that would occur with the continued operation of the Navajo Generating Station is included in this EIS. 1.4.2 Mohave Generating Station

The Mohave Generating Station is a coal-fired, steam electric-generating power plant that produced electricity from 1970 until December 2005, when operation of the power plant was suspended. This facility, which has a generating capacity of 1,580 megawatts, was operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and is jointly owned by SCE (56 percent share), SRP (20 percent share), Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (10 percent share), and Nevada Power Company (14 percent share). The generating station has been important to the co-owners of the facility because of its dependability as a baseload source of power to the region and because it is fueled with coal, which is less expensive than natural gas. In response to a lawsuit concerning air quality, the co-owners entered into a consent decree in 1999 with the environmental organizations that filed the lawsuit. Under the consent decree, for the Mohave Generating Station to operate on coal beyond 2005, the co-owners would need to install new airpollution-control technology on the plant (sulfur dioxide scrubbers, baghouses, and low nitrogen oxide burners). Under the terms of the consent decree, operation of the power plant was suspended on December 31, 2005, because the air-pollution-control technology had not been installed. Installation costs of the new pollution-control technology would have exceeded $1 billion. This cost included the purchase and installation of the new pollution-control and related equipment; reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline; and the development of an alternative water supply to replace the use of N-aquifer water for the slurry prepared at the coal-slurry preparation plant, for mine-related uses, and for the new coal-washing facility. Construction activities at the Mohave Generating Station associated with the emission-control improvements would not require any Federal approvals. Environmental regulatory and statutory requirements affecting the Mohave Generating Station would result in no requirement for Federal environmental review under NEPA. The decision on whether or not the Mohave Generating Station should resume operations and continue to operate is beyond the scope of OSM’s and the cooperating agencies’ decision-making authority and therefore is not considered in this EIS. Any resumed operations prior to 2010 using the current coalsupply system under existing permits also is beyond the scope of OSM’s and the cooperating agencies’ decision-making authority and therefore was not considered in this EIS. However, since the Mohave Generating Station would operate as a coal-fired facility in the future only if OSM were to approve the LOM revision and the other agencies were to approve the other components as described under Alternative A, Section 4.23 includes, where appropriate, summary information about the impacts associated with resumed operation of the Mohave Generating Station in January 2010. Information on such impacts also is included in the Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Mohave Generating Station Continued Operation Potential Project, prepared as directed by the California Public Utilities Commission Administrative Law Judge (Commission Proceedings A.02-05-046).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

1-8

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

1.5 1.5.1

ISSUES IDENTIFIED THROUGH SCOPING Scoping

OSM has a regulatory responsibility to solicit comments from the public regarding the proposed project and to consult with relevant Federal and State agencies, local governments, and affected federally recognized American Indian tribes. Scoping is a process that invites public input on the proposed project early in the NEPA process to help determine the scope of issues to be addressed and identify the significant issues related to the proposed action. OSM concurrently carried out the NEPA scoping process and administrative public participation process for Peabody’s LOM revision pursuant to the SMCRA. For the convenience of the public, which has an interest in both processes, OSM held public meetings with the dual purposes of obtaining comments that would help define the scope of the EIS and holding informal conferences on Peabody’s revision application. Accordingly, OSM considered the comments made by members of the public during the meetings and in writing to be relevant to both the EIS and the permit application processes. OSM’s notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2004. This marked the beginning of the scoping period for the Black Mesa Project EIS. The notice of intent indicated that the scoping period, required to be a minimum of 30 days, would end on January 21, 2005. OSM solicited comments from relevant agencies and the public and held eight scoping meetings in January 2005. At the request of the public, OSM extended the scoping period and held two additional scoping meetings in February 2005. A second notice was published in the Federal Register on February 4, 2005, announcing the additional meetings and the extension of the scoping period to March 4, 2005. Comments received during the scoping period were analyzed and documented in the Black Mesa Project Scoping Summary Report issued in April 2005. By the end of the scoping comment period, OSM had received 237 statements made by speakers at public meetings and 351 written or electronically mailed submissions. In addition to these, more than 2,000 form letters regarding the LOM revision were received. 1.5.2 Summary of Issues

The comments received during scoping (December 2004 to March 2005) from agencies and the public generally were related to one of three major topics—actions and alternatives, environmental impacts, and process concerns. A summary of the comments received during scoping, organized by the three major topics and subsidiary issue categories, is provided below. The summary is followed by Table 1-1, which is a list of issues derived from the scoping comments and that indicates where each issue is addressed in the EIS. 1.5.2.1 Actions and Alternatives

Concerns about a potentially diminishing water supply were expressed in many of the comments received from the public regarding the Black Mesa Project, and reflected a broader concern that the project may cause irreparable injury to “Mother Earth.” The project’s perceived effects on the natural balance of the area is seen by some as a challenge to traditional American Indian culture, and viewed by some as further evidence of the perceived insensitivity of the dominant culture towards traditional lifeways. The scarcity of water in a desert environment, coupled with this concern, generated public interest in investigating alternatives to the current method of transporting coal from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station. Operation of the coal-slurry pipeline is viewed by some as an unnecessary use of water resources and as having potential repercussions for other water users and future generations. This concern was raised by some local community members who claim—by tradition and belief— attachment to the land and the ecosystem and feel the need to exercise vigilance regarding local water

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

1-9

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

resources that have supported Hopi and Navajo communities for generations. Suggested alternatives regarding water use fell into two major categories: (1) discontinue use of the coal-slurry pipeline and use alternate methods, such as railway or trucks for coal transportation; and (2) use an alternative medium to water for coal slurry or a source of water other than the N aquifer. The C aquifer had been identified as a possible alternative water source. Some commenters raised similar questions about use of the C aquifer, including a concern about potential impacts on local wells drawing from the C aquifer. In a letter from the Hopi Tribe, preference was expressed to use C-aquifer water if this alternative source proved to be viable. As a solution to the impacts (undetermined at the time of scoping) on the area’s groundwater sources, the use of energy sources other than coal at Mohave Generating Station also was suggested. Alternative energy was a solution encouraged by those who were concerned about the prospect of a changing environment. Many believe that use of the C aquifer and/or the N aquifer would turn out to be unsustainable, and promoted use of alternative methods of coal delivery. In consideration that rail or truck transport may be found preferable, other issues were raised, such as potential impacts on property rights and public safety associated with overland truck and rail routes. Potential impacts on land uses were also a concern regarding both reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline and the water-supply pipeline route (from the C-aquifer well field to the Black Mesa Complex). Others voiced concern about the potential loss of the local community water supply currently provided by the N aquifer wells within Peabody’s lease area, should use of N aquifer water be discontinued. Potential installation of a new C aquifer water-supply system raises the potential for use of that system to expand the current use of C-aquifer water to local tribal communities for municipal and industrial purposes. Some recommended upsizing the pipeline and installing lateral pipelines for that purpose. 1.5.2.2 Environmental Issues

The environment and the human community within that natural environment were of particular concern to the Hopi and Navajo communities, where traditional lifestyles, for many in the community, are closely linked to the natural world. The issue of water—especially the use of groundwater for the coal-slurry pipeline and the proposed coal-washing facility—dominated public discussion about the natural environment. Water-quantity concerns in part derive from decreasing water levels in wells in recent years and from the belief of some commenters that sinkholes are being caused by decreasing groundwater levels. Water-quality concerns derive from fears regarding potential pollution from mining. Commenters also expressed concerns about the competing user demands on the N and C aquifers and whether the aquifers can support domestic, agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses, as well as Black Mesa coalmining and -delivery operations. Drought adds to these concerns. Several commenters were concerned about the design and implementation of hydrologic studies to be conducted on the C aquifer. Another concern was raised about the adequacy of previous assumptions and groundwater modeling of the area, especially with the prospect of long-term drought. Surface water was also a concern. Some believe that the flow in the Moenkopi Wash has fallen from historically higher levels, and some suggest the impoundments created by Peabody to control sediment were the cause. Additional hydrologic study on impoundment effects was recommended. Potential interference in all water sources was a concern regarding impacts on local endangered species and riparian habitats. Comments reflected deep respect for water as a source of life and a corresponding apprehension that the project would cause profound, hidden damage to local water sources, and thus to local culture. Water is essential to the culture of the Hopi and Navajo people. Traditional occupations such as farming and livestock raising depend on water. Free-flowing springs play a prominent role in various religious practices by both tribes and support the habitat of certain native plants used for medicinal and ceremonial

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

1-10

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

purposes. Commenters expressed concern that interference with a traditional way of life would not be well tolerated by some people in the local communities and would cause distress to those people. The perception of industrial facilities as “a blight” on the landscape and incompatible with the indigenous culture is a view shared by some community members. At the same time, however, others, including government entities, welcome the economic benefits the mine operations bring to the community and expressed concern about the prolonged or permanent loss of jobs and other basic benefits such as heating and potable water supply should the mining operations be interrupted or not resume. The skill involved in difficult and often dangerous mining jobs is also a source of pride for some and therefore a component of local culture. The prospect of the separation of family members as the potentially unemployed mine workers seek employment elsewhere is a worry for some, and the potential permanent closure of the mining operations is viewed as a danger to community cohesion. The effect of a loss of coal royalties on area schools and other educational programs is a related concern. Opinions are divided about traditional lifestyles versus acceptance of “mainstream” lifestyles and economic pursuits—the mining operations seem to be at the center of this debate. A few residents living within the mine lease area who have chosen not to relocate or are living close to the Black Mesa mining operation say they have poor health as a result of asthma and black lung disease, and consider it to be the result of air pollution from coal mining. Some urged that health care studies be a part of the EIS, and others promoted the use of alternative energy sources that would have less potential of affecting health. Concern about air quality extends to the project’s potential effects on global warming. Skepticism about the cost/benefit ratio of the Black Mesa Project for the local community grew out of a perception of past injustices. Health issues, issues of environmental justice, and issues of violated trust are concerns of some members of the community who expressed wariness about information offered in this EIS. There is a corresponding call to keep elders in the discussion and to make every effort to address issues important to local Hopi and Navajo communities adequately. 1.5.2.3 Process Concerns

The issue of fairness was frequently at the center of process concerns. Many felt that, to accomplish equitable decisions about the proposed project, the local community should be more involved in the decision-making process. Suggestions included the extension of the scoping period (which was subsequently extended to March 4, 2005), a repeat of a scoping meeting at the Forest Lake Chapter that had limited attendance due to bad weather (which was done), larger meeting facilities for the Flagstaff meetings, broader notification of meetings, expansion of both the quality and quantity of available information, and translations of project materials and reports into the Hopi and Navajo languages. Effective collaboration and communication among stakeholders was also a theme—the desire to find common ground among stakeholders with different objectives. Navajo members of the Leupp Chapter expressed frustration that the Chapter’s resolution against use of the C aquifer had not been accepted by the Navajo Nation Tribal Council. This frustration, for some, extends to other positions taken by its tribal council. A number of residents of the Black Mesa area object to the practice of depositing the coal royalty and lease payments into the tribal general fund without due consideration of the disproportionate impact burden they bear as direct neighbors of the mine. They feel they should receive more compensation.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

1-11

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

Table 1-1

Issues Raised by the Public and by Government Agencies During Scoping
Issues Section(s) of the EIS Where Addressed1 2.4.4.1, Appendix D 2.4.4.2, Appendix E 2.2.1.2.3 2.4.4.3 2.2.1.2.2.1.2, 3.0, 4.0 2.2.1.2.3.1.2, 3.0, 4.0 2.2.1.2.3.1.2, 3.0, 4.0 2.4.6 3.4, 4.4, 4.4.1.3, Appendix H 4.7.1.3 3.10, 4.10, 4.10.1.3 4.4.1.3, Appendix H 4.4.1.1.2, 4.4.1.3, 4.4.1.4 4.4.1.1.2, 4.4.1.3 4.4.1.3 4.4.1.1.1 4.4.1.1.1 4.4 4.4 4.4.1.1.1 4.24

Actions and Alternatives Consider use of trucks to transport coal from the Black Mesa Complex to the Mohave Generating Station. Consider use of rail to transport coal from the Black Mesa Complex to the Mohave Generating Station. Consider use of the Coconino aquifer (C aquifer) instead of the Navajo aquifer (N aquifer) for water supply. Consider a medium other than water as a coal-slurry medium. Consider an alternative coal-slurry pipeline alignment to the south of Kingman, instead of building in the existing right-of-way. Consider a C aquifer water-supply pipeline alignment that traverses only Navajo lands. Consider a C aquifer water-supply pipeline alignment that avoids the developed Kykotsmovi area. Use alternative fuel sources, such as solar energy, instead of continuing operation of Mohave Generating Station. Conduct comprehensive hydrologic studies of aquifers relative to the proposed use. Water Resources Impacts of groundwater withdrawals on springs, in the context of biological resources. Impacts of groundwater withdrawals on springs, as related to ceremonial, sacred, and religious resources. Impacts of groundwater withdrawals on land subsidence and sinkhole creation. Impacts of groundwater withdrawals on wells. Impacts of groundwater withdrawals on availability of water for agriculture and grazing. Impacts of C-aquifer groundwater withdrawals on water supplies for future northern Arizona municipal and industrial use. Impacts of surface-water impoundments on availability of water for agriculture and grazing. Impacts of surface-water impoundments on downstream flows. Impacts of the project on water rights. Impacts on water quality, as it relates to human consumption of groundwater supplies. Impacts of surface-water impoundments on water quality. Cumulative impacts of the project on groundwater and surface-water supplies, including the effects of the current drought. Biological Resources Impacts on threatened and endangered species. Impacts on native plants used for ceremonial reasons. Impacts of the project, and of reclamation plans, on livestock grazing. Air Quality Impacts of mining on air quality. Impacts of Mohave Generating Station on air quality. Impacts of Mohave Generating Station on global climate change (cumulative air-quality effects). Land Use Impacts of mining on local land uses. Impacts of existing coal-slurry pipeline alignment on land development opportunities in the Kingman area. Impacts of C-aquifer water pipeline on land uses along the alignment. Impacts of mined land reclamation on future land uses. Aesthetics Impacts of mining on the visual (and spiritual) landscape. Public Health and Safety Impacts of mining on health of local residents. Impacts of operations on mine worker health and safety. Impacts of mining on soil selenium levels.

3.7, 3.8, 4.7, 4.8 3.7.1.4, 3.7.2.1.5, 4.7, 4.8 3.9, 4.9 3.6, 4.6 4.23 4.23.3, 4.24.1.1 3.9.1, 4.9 3.9.2, 4.9.1.2 2.2.1.2.3.1.2, 3.9.3.2, 4.9.1.3.2 3.9.1, 4.9.1 3.15, 4.15 3.11,4.6.6 3.11.2.7, 4.6.6, 4.11.1.1 3.3.1

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

1-12

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

Table 1-1

Issues Raised by the Public and by Government Agencies During Scoping
Issues Section(s) of the EIS Where Addressed1 3.11, 3.12, 4.11, 4.12 3.11, 3.12, 4.11, 4.12 3.11, 3.12, 4.11, 4.12 3.11, 3.12, 4.11 3.9.1, 4.9.1.1, 4.9.2, 4.9.3 , 4.11.1.1, 4.11.2.1, 4.11.3, 4.12.1.1, 4.12.2, 4.12.3 3.11, 3.12, 4.11, 4.12 3.11, 4.11 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.10 3.4, 4.4 1.5.2.2, 3.10, 3.10.4, 4.10 3.9, 3.10, 4.9, 4.10 3.11, 3.12, 4.11, 4.12 3.10, 4.10 3.10, 4.10

Social and Economic Conditions Impacts of continuing or discontinuing mining on tribal income. Impacts of continuing or discontinuing mining, pipeline, and power plant operations on jobs and employment. Impacts of discontinuing mining on local benefits and support provided by Peabody Western Coal Company (Peabody). Impacts of discontinuing mining on tribal scholarships and educational programs currently supported by Peabody and mining income. Impacts of relocations of local residents to accommodate mining operations in expanded mine area.

Environmental Justice Impacts of the project on American Indian lands and people. Concern about proper and fair compensation for resources used. Concern about fairness of using tribal resources for convenience of nontribal communities. Community Values and Traditional Knowledge, Cultural Resources Impacts of the project on natural resources (Mother Earth). Concern about the inherent value of water to human existence. Impacts on religious, sacred, and ceremonial resources such as water and native plants.

Impacts on the American Indian traditional way of life, including agriculture (Hopi) and grazing (Navajo). Impacts on the availability of jobs, which provide dignity, a future for one’s children, and a means of remaining near one’s family. Impacts on archaeological and historical resources. Impacts on traditional cultural properties. EIS Process Concerns Should hold meetings in many locations. 1.4, 5.4, 5.5 Should provide project-related materials in American Indian languages. 5.4,5.5 Should undertake and continue government-to-government relations with tribes. 5.0 Should make sure that the effort is collaborative, bringing everyone together for discussions and decisions. 5.0 Should consult with tribal elders in conducting data collection and impact assessments. 5.0 NOTES: 1 Sections that provide background information that assist in understanding the issues, concerns, and/or impacts are listed. EIS = environmental impact statement

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

1-13

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

c pe 2 ha t r

a t r tv s l e na i e

2.0 ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter presents the alternatives to the proposed project that are considered in this EIS, the process by which these alternatives were developed, and the alternatives that were considered initially but have been eliminated from detailed study in this EIS. Section 2.1 provides a description of the Black Mesa Project as proposed by Peabody. Section 2.2 provides a description of the alternatives that are being considered and evaluated in this EIS. Section 2.3 provides a summary of potential decisions or actions that are required by various Federal agencies before the proposed project can be implemented. Section 2.4 provides a description of the alternatives that were considered initially but eliminated from detailed study in this EIS. 2.1 PROPOSED BLACK MESA PROJECT

Peabody proposes to revise the LOM operation and reclamation plans for its Kayenta mining operation and to incorporate plans for the initial Indian Lands Program area of its adjacent Black Mesa mining operation (surface facilities and coal resource areas within existing coal leases). This EIS refers to the area collectively occupied by the Kayenta mining operation and the Black Mesa mining operation as the Black Mesa Complex. The Kayenta mining operation is authorized under a permanent Indian Lands Program permit originally issued by OSM in 1990 (OSM Permanent Program Permit AZ-0001D). The Permanent Program Permit AZ-0001D is an LOM permit renewable at five-year intervals and has been renewed on three occasions: 1995, 2000, and 2005. The current Kayenta permit area is 44,073 acres (Map 2-1). The Kayenta mining operation produces about 8.5 million tons of coal per year, all of which are delivered to the Navajo Generating Station. Until December 2005, the Black Mesa mining operation was conducted in accordance with OSM’s Initial Program1 under an administrative delay of OSM’s permanent Indian Lands Program permitting decision instituted in 1990 by the Secretary of the Interior (refer to Chapter 1 footnote 3). If OSM approves the LOM revision for the Black Mesa Complex, the 18,857-acre initial program area for the Black Mesa mining operation, including surface facilities and coal reserves, would be added to the 44,073 acres in the existing OSM permanent permit area, bringing the total acres of the permanent permit area to 62,930. If approved, the permanent permit area would not distinguish between the Kayenta mining operation and Black Mesa mining operation; they would be considered one operation for the purpose of regulation by OSM. The current rate of coal production, 8.5 million tons per year, would not change. The LOM permit would continue to be renewable at five-year intervals. Approval of the LOM revision application would not authorize mining of unmined reserves in the Black Mesa mining operations area; however, those areas could be mined in the future upon submission of a new LOM revision application. The LOM revision would not change currently-approved mining and reclamation plans for the Kayenta mining operation. From 1970 until December 2005, the Black Mesa and Kayenta mining operations used N-aquifer water at a rate of about 4,400 acre-feet per year for mine-related and domestic uses and coal
SMCRA provides for a two-phase program to regulate surface coal mining operations on Indian lands: an initial regulatory program and a permanent regulatory program. The permanent regulatory program contains a more comprehensive set of performance and reclamation standards than the initial regulatory program. Both the Black Mesa and Kayenta mining operations at first operated under the initial regulatory program. The Kayenta mining operation operated under the initial program until it was permitted under the permanent program in 1990. The Black Mesa mining operation continues to operate under the initial regulatory program owing to the administrative delay of OSM’s permanent program permitting decision. Incorporating the Black Mesa mining operation into the permanent program permit area would extend the more comprehensive standards of the permanent program to this operation. Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 2-1 Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives
1

slurry use during the operation of the Mohave Generating Station. Starting in 2006 after the Mohave Generating Station suspended operations, the Black Mesa Complex has used about 1,200 af/yr of N-aquifer water for domestic and mine-related purposes. The Complex would continue to withdraw N-aquifer water, on average 1,236 af/yr, through mid-2026. The LOM revision would not change the existing mining methods or the average annual production rate of the Kayenta mining operation. Mine plan areas are shown on Map 2-2. Table 2-1 is a list of coal resource areas and their status as it pertains to mining and reclamation. Coal-mining techniques and mine reclamation are described in Appendix A-1. Table 2-1
Coal Resource Area N-01 N-02 N-06 Total Acres2 350 650 2,890

Coal Resource Areas and Mining Status1

Mining and Reclamation Status Mined and reclaimed3 Mined and reclaimed3 Active mining and reclamation in 780 acres, 2,060 acres reclaimed, 50 acres proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future3 N-7/8 940 Mined and reclaimed3 N-09 2,170 Active mining and reclamation on 375 acres, no acres reclaimed, 1,795 acres to be mined and reclaimed in the future4 N-10 1,790 Active mining and reclamation in temporary cessation; 55 acres disturbed, 130 acres reclaimed, 1,605 acres to be mined and reclaimed in the future4 N-11 800 Mined and being reclaimed, 295 acres reclaimed, 505 acres in reclamation, no additional areas to be mined in the future3 N-14 1,650 Mined and reclaimed5 N-99 3,880 Undisturbed, to be mined and reclaimed in the future6 J-01 480 Mined and reclaimed J-02 900 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future6 J-03 100 Mined and reclaimed J-04 520 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future6 J-06 1,220 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future6 J-07 1,040 Mined and reclaimed J-08 730 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future6 J-09 470 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future6 J-10 430 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future6 J-14 950 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future6 J-15 730 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future6 J-16 1,350 Mined and reclaimed J-19 3,910 Active mining and reclamation in 2,080 acres, 1,060 acres reclaimed, 770 acres to be mined and reclaimed in the future4 J-21 5,280 Active mining and reclamation in 980 acres, 2,630 acres reclaimed, 1,670 acres to be mined and reclaimed in the future4 J-23 2,500 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future6 J-27 70 Mined and reclaimed J-28 1,440 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future SOURCE: Peabody Western Coal Company 2008 NOTES: 1 In addition to the coal resource areas, about 3,270 acres are disturbed by actively used long-term support facilities including haul roads, other primary roads, coal-handling areas, conveyors, railroad-loading facilities, storage areas, shops, offices, and other structures and facilities. 2 Approximate acres subject to Office of Surface Mining (OSM) regulation—areas mined before the 
 effective date of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (December 13, 1977), totaling 
 approximately 2,760 acres, are not included. 
 3 OSM has terminated its jurisdiction over this area under the initial program.
 4 Approximate acres as of January 1, 2008. 
 5 Phase I bond release approved by OSM. 

6

Mining in this coal-resource area would not be authorized if the life-of-mine revision is 
 approved.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-2

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Map 2-1

Black Mesa Complex: OSM’s Initial and Permanent Programs
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-3

Map 2-2

Mine Plan Areas

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-4

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\PLOTS\Map_2_3_Mine_Facility.pdf(BLC10OCT08)

Map 2-3

Welding Shop Tire Shop Bathhouse Proposed CoalWashing Facility Tipple Maintenance Shop Open Water Tank Black Mesa Pipeline Company Private Buildings Coal-Sampling Tower Coal-Slurry Pump Station 1
14-20-0603-8580 (N)

Black Mesa Mine Complex and Facilities
Electrical Shop Coal Laboratory Hopper Breaker Building Control Building Live-Coal Storage Proposed Beltlines
Black Mesa Project EIS

LEGEND
14-20

Peabody Lease Area and Number Kayenta Mining Operation Area (permanent permit) Black Mesa Mining Operation Area (currently unpermited) Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. Lease Area

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route

Coal-Slurry Preparation Rod Mills

COAL-SLURRY PREPARATION FACILITIES (SEE INSET) COAL-SLURRY PREPARATION FACILITIES

General Features
Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation, Chapter Boundary

SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005, 2006 Peabody Energy 2006 DigitalGlobe Incorporated 2003

14-20-0450-5743 (H) 14-20-0603-9910 (N) 14-20-0450-5743 (H) 14-20-0603-9910 (N)
0

November 2008
1 Miles 2

Prepared By:

2.2

ALTERNATIVES

Based on the description of the project proposed in December 2004 by Peabody, the co-owners of the Mohave Generating Station, BMPI, and the tribes, and the issues derived from public comments received during the scoping process in early 2005, a list of alternatives to the applicants’ proposals was developed. All the alternatives were screened to determine whether they would meet the purpose of and need for the Black Mesa Project and were reasonable and feasible. Factors considered in evaluating whether alternatives were technically or economically feasible or practical, and whether they would meet the purpose and need for any of the actions of the Black Mesa Project included legal issues; environmental issues; design and/or engineering issues; economics of the tribes and others: and capital cost, operating cost, and funding. Those alternatives that satisfy the criteria and achieve the purpose of and need for the Black Mesa Project have been studied and analyzed and are described in Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3. Other alternatives that did not satisfy the criteria and/or did not achieve the purpose of and need for the Black Mesa Project were eliminated from detailed study. These are described in Section 2.4. The three alternatives addressed in this EIS are as follows: •	 Alternative A – approval of the LOM revision and all components associated with coal supply to the Mohave Generating Station •	 Alternative B (preferred alternative) – approval of the LOM revision •	 Alternative C – disapproval of the LOM revision Figure 2-1 provides illustrations and summaries of the alternatives. Each of these action alternatives is described in more detail below. 2.2.1	 Alternative A – Approval of the 2004 LOM Revision and All Components Associated with Coal Supply to the Mohave Generating Station

If Alternative A were selected, Peabody’s February 2004 application for the LOM permit revision and mine plan changes would be approved as would all the components associated with supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Alternative A was identified as the agencies’ preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. Although the components associated with supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station are no longer proposed, they still could occur. Mohave Generating Station remains permitted for operation, although operation was suspended in December 2005; it has not been decommissioned. Although implementing Alternative A appears unlikely, Alternative A is still viable and this EIS continues to analyze its effects. 2.2.1.1 LOM Revision and Mine Plan Changes

Under Alternative A, Peabody’s February 2004 application for the LOM permit revision would be approved and a Federal permit would be issued to continue surface-coal-mining and reclamation operations at the Black Mesa Complex. OSM’s existing permanent Indian Lands Program permit area (the 44,073 acres within the current permit area for the Kayenta mining operation) would be expanded to incorporate the initial Indian Lands Program parts of the existing lease area (the 18,984 acres associated with the Black Mesa mining operation; refer to Figure 2-1) and existing and proposed rights-of-way (including 127 acres for a new coal-haul road described below). The Black Mesa Complex would continue operations through 2026.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-6

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Peabody would obtain a separate and additional off-lease right-of-way from the Hopi Tribe to construct a new coal-haul road, between the southern portions of Peabody’s Joint Lease Area, as a support facility for continued Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. The road would be 500 feet wide and approximately 1.6 miles long; approximately 127 acres would be required. Until its suspension in December 2005, the Black Mesa mining operation produced about 4.8 million tons of coal annually, all of which were delivered to the Mohave Generating Station. Approval of the 2004 LOM permit revision would allow the Black Mesa mining operation to continue to supply coal to the Mohave Generating Station through 2026 under a permanent Indian Lands Program permit. The LOM revision did not propose to change the Black Mesa mining methods, but would increase the average annual production rate of the Black Mesa mining operation from 4.8 million tons to about 6.35 million tons if the Mohave Generating Station continued operations. Under Alternative A, a new coal-washing facility (refer to Map 2-3) would be constructed adjacent to the existing Black Mesa coal-preparation facilities to meet the anticipated future coal-quality requirements of the Mohave Generating Station. The purpose of the coal-washing facility would be to remove out-of-seam rock and mineral impurities, commonly referred to as refuse, from the coal, which results in less ash production when the coal is burned. The coal-washing facility would use about 500 af/yr of C-aquifer water and would remove about 0.95 million tons per year of coal-processing refuse (earth material), resulting in about 5.4 million tons per year of washed coal being crushed and mixed with water at the coal-slurry preparation plant and transported to the Mohave Generating Station through the coal-slurry pipeline. The estimated 0.95 million tons per year of coal-processing refuse would be returned by enddump trucks to designated mine pits (N-06 and J-23) for disposal. Peabody would develop (and would be required to submit for regulatory approval) a refuse sampling and disposal plan that would be incorporated in the mining permit. No refuse piles or coal-mine-waste impoundments are proposed. The coal-washing process, preparation process and facilities, potential fugitive dust emissions, and refuse disposal are described in Appendix A-1. Peabody’s February 2004 application for the LOM revision proposed actions to minimize the use of N-aquifer water, the use of which resulted in the administrative delay in issuing a permanent Indian lands program permit for the Black Mesa mining operation and the Black Mesa coal-slurry preparation plant. Under Alternative A, water for the coal-slurry pipeline would be supplied by the C aquifer About 672 af/yr of water from the C aquifer water-supply system would be used to replace much of the N-aquifer water used by the Black Mesa (nonslurry) mining operation, and 500 af/yr of C-aquifer water also would be used for washing coal. The proposed C aquifer water-supply system is described in more detail in Section 2.2.1.2.3.1. Up to 500 af/yr of water from the N aquifer would continue to be pumped to maintain operation of the N-aquifer wells. This water also would be used in mining operations, principally dust suppression as required by Federal regulations, and to provide water to local residents. 2.2.1.2 Components Associated with Coal Supply to the Mohave Generating Station

In addition to approval of the 2004 LOM permit application, the components associated with supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station would be approved; that is, the coal-slurry preparation plant permit, reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline, and construction of a new water-supply system. Alternatives (or subalternatives) for each of these are described in the following sections and illustrated in Figure 2-2.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-7

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

B

Conveyor: onv or:
 Coal loading site
 site

OSM Permanent Program Permit AZ-0001D Permanent Pr gram Permit

Powerline erline Coal-slurry
 oal-slurr preparation
 preparation facilities facilities


Proposed coal-haul road oposed coal-haul road

Eastern Water-Supply Pipeline

Alternative A – Approval of the Life-of-Mine Revision and All Components Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station:
n Approval of Peabody’s life-of-mine permit revision for the Black Mesa Mine Complex (Black Mesa and Kayenta mining operations), including mining of coal to supply the Mohave Generating Station, a new coalwash plant and associated coal-waste disposal; and construction, use, and maintenance of a new haul road between mine areas on the southern ends of Peabody’s coal leases; n n Approval of BMPI’s existing coal-slurry preparation plant and rebuilding the 273-mile-long coal-slurry pipeline to the Mohave Generating Station; and Approval of a new aquifer water-supply system, including a 108-milelong pipeline to convey the water to the mine complex.

B

Conveyor: onv or:
 Coal loading site
 site

B

Conveyor: onv or:
 Coal loading site
 site

OSM Permit AZ-0001D Permit

OSM Permanent Program Permanent Pr gram Permit AZ-0001D ermit

Powerline erline Coal-slurry oal-slurr prepara preparation facilities lease

Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative):
n n n n n Approval of Peabody’s life-of-mine permit revision, including incorporation of the Black Mesa mining operation surface facilities and coal deposits into the Kayenta mining operation permit area; No coal mining at the Black Mesa mining operation to supply the Mohave Generating Station; No construction, use, and maintenance of a new haul road between mine areas on the southern ends of Peabody’s coal leases; No proposed reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline; and No proposed construction of the C aquifer water-supply system.

Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action):
n Disapproval of Peabody’s life-of-mine permit revision. – No proposed coal mining at the Black Mesa mining operation to supply the Mohave Generating Station but continued coal mining at the Kayenta mining operation to supply coal to the Navajo Generating Station, because Peabody already has an approved permit for this mine and has the right of successive permit renewals; – No incorporation of Black Mesa mining operation surface facilities and coal deposits into the Kayenta mining operation permit area; No proposed reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline; and No proposed construction of the C aquifer water-supply system.

n n

Figure 2-1 Alternatives Evaluated

Figure 2-2

Alternative A Subalternatives

2.2.1.2.1

Coal-Slurry Preparation-Plant Permit

Until December 2005, the coal from the Black Mesa mining operation was prepared (i.e., crushed and mixed with water) at the coal-slurry preparation plant for transportation through the coal-slurry pipeline to the Mohave Generating Station (refer to Map 2-3). The slurry was a mix of 50 percent coal fines and 50 percent water. Under Alternative A, approximately 3,700 af/yr of C-aquifer water would be used to transport about 5.4 million tons of coal to the Mohave Generating Station. BMPI, owner and operator of the coal-slurry preparation plant and coal-slurry pipeline, leases a 40-acre parcel of land within the initial Indian Lands Program area from both the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation (two leases) upon which the coal-slurry preparation plant was constructed in 1969. The land is located in Section 15, Township 32 North, Range 18 East and is about 6,470 feet in elevation (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 7.5-minute quadrangle, Great Springs, Arizona 1972, photorevised 1982). The preparation plant and associated facilities are located at the coal-slurry pipeline portal, directly southwest of Peabody’s Black Mesa coal stockpiles and coal-handling facilities. BMPI’s facilities consist of several small buildings and shops, a power substation, a sewage-treatment plant, and the main coal-slurry facilities and pumps. Directly south of the aboveground structures are several constructed ponds and catchments for waste water. BMPI submitted a permanent Indian Lands Program permit application (preparation-plant permit application) to OSM in 1988 for operation of the plant. Like the Black Mesa mining operation, OSM’s decision on the preparation-plant permit application was delayed due to issues associated with the use of N-aquifer water. On January 3, 2005, BMPI submitted a revised permit application to OSM, which was determined to be administratively complete. Only minor modifications, if any, to the current configuration
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 2-9 Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

of the coal-slurry preparation plant would be needed to handle the increase from 4.8 to 5.4 million tons of coal per year. 2.2.1.2.2 Reconstruction of the Coal-Slurry Pipeline

Coal from the Black Mesa mining operation was transported by BMPI via a coal-slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa Complex to the Mohave Generating Station, a distance of approximately 273 miles (refer to Map 1-1). The pipeline passes through five Arizona counties—Navajo (approximately 25 miles), Coconino (approximately 145 miles), Yavapai (approximately 26 miles), and Mohave (approximately 76 miles)—crosses under the Colorado River, and terminates at the Mohave Generating Station in Clark County, Nevada (approximately 1.5 miles). The pipeline crosses the Hopi and Navajo Reservations, as well as Federal, State, local government, and private lands (Table 2-2). Table 2-2 Approximate Miles Crossed by the Existing 
 Coal-Slurry Pipeline, by Surface Manager or Owner 

Surface Management or Ownership Miles Hopi 35 Navajo 61 Bureau of Land Management 14 U.S. Forest Service – Kaibab National Forest 5 Arizona State Trust 66 Private (including county and municipal lands) 92 SOURCES: Arizona Land Resource Information System 2002; Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. 2005

The coal-slurry pipeline is buried. The pipeline, constructed in the late 1960s and operated since the early 1970s, has reached its 35-year design life. Pipeline reconstruction would involve burying a new pipeline adjacent to the existing pipeline. A temporary right-of-way width of about 15 feet would be needed, in addition to the existing 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, for construction activities. Appendix A-2 provides a description of typical construction techniques and reclamation. The reconstructed pipeline would pass under the Little Colorado River east of Cameron, Arizona, and under the Colorado River at Laughlin, Nevada. At the crossing of the Little Colorado River the existing pipeline is underground. During the reconstruction, the Little Colorado River would be crossed by directionally drilling under the river. It is anticipated that the Colorado River would be crossed by horizontally boring under the river. All other water bodies, where crossed, are dry during much of the year and would be crossed using conventional open-trench cutting during the dry season. The pipe would be buried deep enough in the water channels and banks to avoid potential future scouring and/or erosion. The current alignment crosses the City of Kingman in areas that were undeveloped when the pipeline was constructed originally. Because these areas now contain major residential and commercial developments, this segment would be abandoned and a new segment would be constructed around the city. Existing booster-pump stations (one at the coal-slurry preparation plant and three along the coal-slurry pipeline (CSP) at Mileposts 81.5, 123.5, and 176.5) would require only minor modification, if any. Each station is on 10 to 20 acres of land; the principal structures at each site include a main pump building of steel-sided construction, residential trailers for employees, an aboveground earthen water-storage reservoir, a slurry settling and retention pond, pipeline fixtures including valves and piping, and an electrical substation. Reconstruction work at the pump stations would include equipment modifications, building modifications, and replacement of above- and belowground pipe and conduits. The layout of the facilities would not change and no acreage would be added.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-10

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

2.2.1.2.2.1 Coal-Slurry-Pipeline Route Subalternatives For the coal-slurry pipeline, two alternative routes are addressed: (1) the existing route and (2) the existing route with realignments along the Moenkopi Wash and around the Kingman area. Estimated costs for construction, operation, and maintenance of the coal-slurry pipeline are shown in Appendix B. 2.2.1.2.2.1.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route The 273-mile-long coal-slurry pipeline would be reconstructed by burying a new pipeline adjacent and parallel to (about 5 feet from) the centerline of the existing pipeline in the existing right-of-way. In a very limited number of narrow areas (e.g., rugged terrain, rocky areas) that could not accommodate the two parallel pipelines, the segment of existing pipeline would be removed and replaced with the new segment. The locations of these segments of pipeline would be identified during final engineering and design. A permanent access road exists along the majority of the pipeline route within the right-of-way. The existing pipeline would be abandoned and, for the most part, left in place underground. 2.2.1.2.2.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments The alternative to the above is to reconstruct the coal-slurry pipeline along most of the existing route. Two realignments are being considered—a realignment along Moenkopi Wash and a Kingman area reroute. Along the Moenkopi Wash, segments of the pipeline would be realigned between CSP Mileposts 2 and 22. The existing alignment is beneath and parallel to the Moenkopi Wash in proximity to the active channel in the wash. BMPI would realign the pipeline where needed, up to 200 feet on either side of the existing pipeline. The pipeline still would be located within the outer boundaries of the wash, but out of the active water-flow channel (Map 2-4a). The specific segments of pipeline that would be realigned have not yet been identified. However, along the 20 miles identified on Map 2-4a, it is anticipated that the segments to be realigned would cumulatively add to approximately 1 mile. The Kingman area reroute would be south of Kingman, Arizona. The existing pipeline route crosses through Kingman in areas that were undeveloped when the pipeline originally was constructed. BMPI proposes to reroute the pipeline to the south of Kingman, from CSP Mileposts 228 to 255 (27 miles along the existing route and 28.5 miles of new Kingman reroute), to avoid construction in these areas that are now residential and commercial developments (refer to Map 1-1; Map 2-4b). The Kingman reroute would cross approximately 9 miles of land administered by the BLM, 3 miles of Arizona State Trust Land, and 16.5 miles of privately owned land. 2.2.1.2.3 Water Supply

Under Alternative A, water for the project would come primarily from the C aquifer with supplemental use of the N aquiferThe C aquifer water-supply system would provide up to 6,000 af/yr of water for coalslurry transportation and mine-related use (see Section 2.2.1.2.3.1). The existing N aquifer water-supply system would continue to supply up to 500 af/yr of water for mine-related and domestic uses, and also would be a contingency standby source to be used in case of interruptions or curtailments of the C-aquifer water supply for an extended period of time (see Section 2.2.1.2.3.2.1).
Use of the existing N aquifer water-supply system as the sole water supply for the proposed project also is an alternative analyzed under Alternative A (i.e., the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed). Under this alternative, the existing N aquifer water-supply system would provide up to 6,000 af/yr of water for coal-slurry transportation and mine-related use (see Section 2.2.1.2.3.2.2).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-11

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

2.2.1.2.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System Under Alternative A, water use for the Black Mesa Complex and coal slurry would total an average of 6,000 af/yr (Table 2-3). The water from the C aquifer would be supplied from a well field that would be located near Leupp, Arizona, and conveyed via pipeline to the Black Mesa Complex. Table 2-3 Alternative A Water Use
Use Coal washing Coal slurry Mine-related and domestic purposes Contingency Total Acre-Feet per Year 500 3,700 1,600 200 6,000

The components of the C aquifer water-supply system are described below. Appendix A-3 provides a description of typical construction techniques for the well field, water-supply pipeline, and associated facilities. •	 A well field in the southwestern part of the Navajo Reservation (located south of Leupp, Arizona) including 12 wells and associated facilities (e.g., well yards, collector pipelines, access roads, power lines) •	 An approximately 108-mile-long main pipeline with a capacity of 6,000 af/yr from the well field north-northeast to the Black Mesa Complex following, to the extent practicable, existing roads •	 An estimated two pump stations and associated facilities (e.g., access roads, electrical 
 transmission lines) 
 Under Alternative A, the C aquifer water-supply system would replace the N-aquifer water supply as the primary water source for mine operations, although some use of N-aquifer water would continue (see Section 2.2.1.2.3.2). Additionally, the development of a water-supply system from the C aquifer provides an opportunity to enhance water availability to the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation for municipal, industrial, and commercial uses by expanding the system capacity. Ownership of the system had not been determined at the time the Draft EIS was published. Two different water-withdrawal scenarios and two water-supply pipeline alternative routes are considered in this EIS (Section 2.2.1.2.3.1.1). Estimated costs for construction and operation and maintenance of the water-supply system are given in Appendix B. 2.2.1.2.3.1.1 Water Withdrawal and Supply Two water-withdrawal scenarios and pipeline capacities were considered as described below. C-Aquifer Water Withdrawal and Supply: 6,000 af/yr
Under this water-withdrawal scenario, up to 6,000 af/yr would be withdrawn from the C aquifer and delivered to the Black Mesa Complex for the life of the project (i.e., 2010 through mid-2026). This is the amount of water that would be needed annually for the coal-delivery system (coal-washing facility [500 af/yr], coal slurry [3,700 af/yr]), other mine-related and domestic uses (1,600 af/yr), and a contingency (200 af/yr). After 2026, the water would no longer be needed for the project and pumping from the C aquifer would cease. Water for reclamation at the Black Mesa Complex would be supplied from the existing N-aquifer wells (see Section 2.2.1.2.3.2).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-12

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map2-4a_Moenkopi_Wash.pdf(par)

Kayenta Chapter

Map 2-4a

Inscription House Chapter Chilchinbito Chapter

Pipeline Realignment in Moenkopi Wash
Black Mesa Project EIS

Navajo Indian Reservation
Shonto Chapter

Black Mesa Complex

LEGEND
Project Features
Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route


Tonalea Chapter

Realignment


2

Alternative A Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Pipeline Route
 Western Pipeline Route
 Alternative A Coal-Haul Road


4

6
Surface Management American Indian Reservation

8

10

Coconino County

Navajo County

12

14
Moenkopi Wash Realignment

General Features
Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation, Chapter Boundary

16

18

County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 Arizona State Land Department 2005

24

22
20

26

Forest Lake Chapter

28

Hopi Indian Reservation
November 2008
Hard Rock Chapter
0 2.5 Miles 5

30

32

Prepared By:
Pinon Chapter

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\Map_2-4b_Kingman_Area.pdf(PAR16June08)

Map 2-4b

Kingman Area Reroute
(Alternative A)
Mohave County

« ? { I
238

Black Mesa Project EIS

LEGEND
Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Reroute

236

234

232
23 0

Surface Management
Bureau of Land Management State Trust County, Park and Outdoor Recreation Area

¸ ?
8 24

246

244
24 2
22 8
240

Private

3 e
2 4

254

252

0 25

256

18

28

8 25

26

24

22

20
8

6

16
Kingman Area Reroute

14

10

12

General Features
Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 Arizona State Land Department 2005

¯

November 2008
0 2 Miles 4

Prepared By:

C-Aquifer Water Withdrawal and Supply: 11,600 af/yr Under this water-withdrawal scenario, the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation would have an option to pay the incremental costs of increasing water production from the C aquifer and increasing the size of the watersupply pipeline in anticipation of the potential use of the system for tribal purposes (e.g., municipal, industrial, and commercial uses). The maximum amount of water that could be delivered would be 11,600 af/yr—6,000 af/yr for project-related purposes and an additional 5,600 af/yr for tribal use (2,000 af/yr for the Hopi Tribe and 3,600 af/yr for the Navajo Nation). Under this scenario, after 2026 when the 6,000 af/yr of water is no longer needed for project-related purposes, the Navajo Nation would use up to 6,000 af/yr of C-aquifer water in addition to the 3,600 af/yr. Pumping up to 11,600 af/yr of C-aquifer water would continue for the estimated 50-year life of the pipeline. Water for reclamation at the Black Mesa Complex would be supplied from the existing N-aquifer wells (see Section 2.2.1.2.3.2). To deliver water from the system to Hopi and Navajo communities, spur lines would need to be constructed; however, the details of the locations and design of the delivery-spur pipelines, timing of construction, and ultimate use of the water are not known at this time. While the consequences of increased and sustained production are considered in the impact section of this EIS, the impacts of developing spur pipelines to tribal villages and use by these communities are not considered in this EIS. Any future Federal actions concerning such spur pipelines would be subject to NEPA analysis at the time of plan development. 2.2.1.2.3.1.2 Infrastructure Well Field The C-aquifer well field would consist of production wells, access roads, an electric-power-distribution system, water-storage tank, and associated piping. Test wells used to quantify well yields ranged from 400 to 745 gallons per minute (Hoffman et al 2005). To produce 6,000 af/yr of water, 12 wells would be developed, and to produce 11,600 af/yr of water, 21 wells would be developed (Reclamation 2006). However, the final well-field design would be determined by pump testing completed project wells that may produce higher yields, potentially reducing the number of wells needed to produce water for the project. To produce the 11,600 af/yr of water, the section of the well field proposed to produce the 6,000 af/yr for the Black Mesa Complex (12 wells) and 3,600 af/yr for the Navajo Nation (5 wells) would be located on the Navajo Reservation in a triangular area bounded approximately by State Route 99, Canyon Diablo, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway just north of Red Gap Ranch and Interstate 40 (I-40). To provide 2,000 af/yr of water to the Hopi Tribe, four wells would be developed in the section of the well field that is within the Hopi Hart Ranch (owned in fee by the Hopi Tribe) in a triangular area bounded approximately by the BNSF Railway, Canyon Diablo, and I-40 (refer to Map 1-1; Map 2-5).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-15

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Proposed use of the C-aquifer water is shown in Table 2-4. Table 2-4
Use Black Mesa Complex Coal washing Coal slurry Mine-related and domestic uses Contingency Subtotal Tribal Hopi Tribe Navajo Nation Subtotal Grand total

Proposed Use of C-Aquifer Water
Acre-Feet per Year into 2026 500 3,700 1,600 200 6,000 2,000 3,600 5,600 11,600 Acre-Feet per Year after 2026 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 9,600 11,600 11,600

The locations of the wells had not been determined at the time of the Draft EIS; however, the wells would be spaced so there is a minimum separation of 1.2 to 1.5 miles between each site. Each well site would require a temporary right-of-way of 200 feet by 200 feet for construction and a permanent right-of-way of approximately 50 feet by 50 feet, which would be surrounded by a security fence. The well yard would be gravel paved and the only aboveground equipment at each well site would be the security fencing, lighting, and electrical-power and control cubicle. The preliminary design of each well is a 1,100-foot­ deep, 24-inch-diameter pilot borehole (with a 1,000-foot-deep, 18-inch-diameter standard casing). Singlelane, unpaved access roads, with turnouts for passing, would be constructed to each site from the existing roads in the area. The travel surface of the roads would be about 10 to 15 feet within a 40-foot-wide temporary right-of-way (25-foot-wide permanent right-of-way). Electric power would be supplied to the well field by a new power-distribution system. Each well site would receive power via a 24.9 kilovolt (kV) line on wood-pole structures. The power lines would be constructed parallel to the access roads within the road right-of-way where possible. One power line is anticipated to bisect the Navajo well field to provide the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA) better access for providing power to local residents. The power supply for the new distribution system would be supplied from either a new substation that would be constructed along an existing 230kV transmission line or a new local substation that would be constructed at approximately Milepost 6 along the route of the water-supply pipeline. It is expected that APS would supply power to the Hopi well field from either an existing substation near Sunrise, Arizona, or from an existing 69kV transmission line in the area. In the latter case, APS would install a new 69/24.9kV tap on the transmission line. APS then would use a steel-pole line and pole-top transformers to provide power to each well site. The details would not be known until Hopi conducts engineering design for its well field and enters into electrical method-of-service discussions with APS. A main collector pipeline would be constructed underground, within a 65-foot-wide temporary right-of­ way (50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way), to convey pumped groundwater to the water-storage tank. The storage tank would require a permanent right-of-way or easement of approximately 215 feet by 215 feet, and would be fenced and lighted for security.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-16

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_2_5_Wat_Alignments.pdf(par)

Map 2-5

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Water-Supply Pipeline Route Alternatives
Black Mesa Project EIS

Apache County

LEGEND
Pump Station #1
Project Features
Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area

Oraibi Pump Station

Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route

Navajo County

Realignment Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route Western Pipeline Route Surface Management

Hard Rock

90

0 10

Tolani Lake Pump Station

Thief Rock Pump Station

10

Moenkopi Wash Realignment (Map 2-2a)

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives (Map 2-3b)

80

Kykotsmovi

70

Tolani Lake Pump Station

50

Hotevilla

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives (Map 2-3a)

40

110

Moenkopi Pump Station

10 0

40

80

30

70

Well Field Navajo Reservation

Leupp

Milepost 91 Pump Station

90

50

60

Coconino County

10

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

50

40

70

MP

80

13 0
0 12
20

Bureau of Land Management U.S. Forest Service National Park Service American Indian Reservation State Trust Private

General Features
Lake Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005, 2006 Arizona State Land Department 2005

30

30

20

November 2008
0 10 Miles 20

60

Prepared By:

C Aquifer Water-Supply-Pipeline Route Alternatives Two major alternative routes for the water-supply pipeline were identified—an eastern route that would cross the Hopi and Navajo Reservations and a western route that would cross the Navajo Reservation only (refer to Map 2-5). A permanent access road would be needed to maintain and repair the pipeline. In areas where the pipeline is adjacent to public roads, the public road would serve as the access road. In areas where there is no existing access road, a permanent road approximately 25 feet wide would be maintained within the pipeline’s permanent right-of-way. C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route. The eastern route for the C aquifer water-supply pipeline would be approximately 108 miles long. The route would cross approximately 54 miles of the Hopi Reservation and approximately 54 miles of the Navajo Reservation. An estimated two pump stations with four pumps each (one pump would be a spare) would be located along the pipeline alignment to lift and move the water to the Black Mesa Complex. The summit elevation along this route is 6,774 feet (the well field is 5,050 feet in elevation). The Tolani Lake Pump Station, located at water-supply pipeline (WSP) Milepost 30, would be approximately 31,350 square feet (0.7 acre) and the Oraibi Pump Station, located at WSP Milepost 73, would be approximately 25,500 square feet (0.6 acre). Permanent rights-of-way or easements to accommodate the two pump stations and access roads to each site would be required. Each site would be enclosed by a security fence, and the pump and other equipment would be enclosed in a building to provide weather protection and security. Electric power to the pump stations would be provided by a 69kV transmission line on steel-pole structures, which would be located along the roadway on the opposite side of the road from the pipeline (east side). Along this route, minor routing alternatives have been identified in two areas—at the crossing of the Little Colorado River and in the Kykotsmovi area. Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives. The water-supply pipeline’s Eastern Route would cross the Little Colorado River between approximately WSP Mileposts 13 and 14. Two alternative crossings were considered (Map 2-5a): •	 Crossing under the river by drilling a horizontal tunnel approximately 50 to 200 feet beneath the river and pulling the pipeline through the tunnel. •	 Crossing over the river on an existing but abandoned bridge. Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives. The water-supply pipeline’s Eastern Route would pass through or in the vicinity of the village of Kykotsmovi. Two minor routing alternatives were considered in the Kykotsmovi area (Map 2-5b): •	 Along the western subalternative, the water-supply pipeline would be buried beneath the main roadway through the village of Kykotsmovi.
•	

Along the eastern subalternative, the water-supply pipeline would be buried in the right-of-way of the road that bypasses Kykotsmovi on its eastern edge.

C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route. This alternative water-supply pipeline route would be approximately 137 miles long and would cross the Navajo Reservation only (refer to Map 1-1 and Map 2-5). It is estimated that four pump stations would be located along the pipeline route to lift and move the water to the Black Mesa Complex. These pump stations would have the same configuration as
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 2-18 Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

those described for the Eastern Route. The summit elevation along this route is higher (7,320 feet in elevation) than the Eastern Route. The four pump stations would be located at the following pump stations and mileposts: Tolani Lake Pump Station at approximately WSP Milepost 27.5; Moenkopi Pump Station at WSP Milepost 67.8; Milepost 91 Pump Station at WSP Milepost 91.0; and Thief Rock Pump Station at WSP Milepost 118.0. 2.2.1.2.3.2 N-Aquifer Water Supply Until December 2005, approximately 4,400 af/yr of water were drawn from the N aquifer within Peabody’s lease area—3,100 af/yr of water for slurry for 4.8 million tons of coal and 1,300 af/yr of water for mine-related and domestic purposes. Both mining operations and local residences accounted for the 1,300 af/yr of water. 2.2.1.2.3.2.1 Supplemental Use of N-Aquifer Water Under Alternative A, 6,000 af/yr of water from the C aquifer would provide the majority of the water needed for the mining operations; use of the N aquifer would continue, but at a reduced rate. The reliability of the C aquifer is difficult to quantify, but reliability would be very high.2 The C-aquifer wells would be capable of supplying water at some level at all times and at least one spare well would be installed initially. Peabody’s N-aquifer well field would be conserved to provide potable water for the public and an emergency back-up supply should the primary C-aquifer supply be interrupted. Under Alternative A, the intent would be to no longer use water from the N aquifer for mine-related or slurry purposes except as noted below. Peabody’s existing leases with the tribes require N-aquifer wells to be transferred to the tribes in operating condition for their use once Peabody successfully completes reclamation and relinquishes the leases. To maintain the N-aquifer well field in an operationally ready state to supply the public and to provide water in case of emergency, the wells must be pumped periodically for extended periods. As a worst case under Alternative A, an estimated average of 2,000 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for (1) public consumption, (2) withdrawal from the N-aquifer wells to maintain their function, (3) emergencies, and (4) the Kayenta mining operation. A conservative approach was used to estimate the average amount of water needed for emergencies because uncertainty exists in the source, supply infrastructure, and operating functions of the watersupply system. The estimate assumed that the C-aquifer water supply would be interrupted for one month or for six month, on alternating basis, at three-year intervals throughout the life of the project. Full use of N-aquifer water was assumed for each interruption. The Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations would cease in 2026, and the mines would be reclaimed. From 2026 to 2028, up to 505 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for reclamation and public use and, from 2029 to 2038, up to 444 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for post reclamation maintenance and public uses. Under this alternative, pumping the N aquifer for project-related uses would cease when the water is no longer needed for those uses (i.e., mine operations, coal delivery, and reclamation). The wells would be transferred to the tribes once Peabody successfully completed reclamation and relinquished the leases.
The reliability of the C aquifer to supply coal shipments from Black Mesa to the Mohave Generating Station is expected to be high because aquifer tests indicate the capacity of the aquifer is more than capable of supplying the required water and because water-distribution-system failure rates are typically low. In addition, the existing waterstorage capacity (e.g., 6-million-gallon water tank) at Black Mesa would be increased to provide back-up water in case of unexpected C-aquifer pipeline outages. The C aquifer would supply water for coal-slurry shipments using a similar system of wells, storage tanks, and pipes as exists for Peabody’s N-aquifer well field, which is known to be reliable. Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 2-19 Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives
2

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_2_2-5a_Luepp_Alt.pdf(par)

16

Map 2-5a

Water-Supply Pipeline:
Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

Litt le
lo Co
ra
do R
ive

r
15

Black Mesa Project EIS

LEGEND
Project Features
Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route

Leupp

North Little Colorado
 River Crossing
 (horizontal bore under river)

14

Subalternative along Eastern Route Existing 230kV Power Line Existing 69/12kV Power Line New 69kV Distribution Line New Substation Site

Other Features
Proposed Substation Site

Gas Pipeline

LEUPP
13

South Little Colorado
 River Subalternative
 (historic highway bridge)

12

SUNRISE

General Features
Leupp

Leupp Chapter Boundary

11

SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 USGS DOQQ 1992-1996 Navajo Tribal Utility Authority 2005

Bird Springs
10

November 2008
Well Field Navajo Reservation
0 0.5 Miles 1

Prepared By:
9

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_2-5b_Kykotsmovi_Alt.pdfpar)

Map 2-5b
62

Water-Supply Pipeline:
Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Black Mesa Project EIS

OLD ORAIBI

KYKOTSMOVI

LEGEND
Project Features
Alternative A Water-Supply System West Kykotsmovi Subalternative
 East Kykotsmovi Subalternative


Other Features
61
2

Phone Line
 69/12kV Power Line
 Water Line
 Waste Water Tap
 Waste Water Line


West Kykotsmovi
 Subalternative


60

East Kykotsmovi Subalternative

O

ra

ib

i W

as

h

1

General Features
Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route
SOURCES:
 URS Corporation 2005
 USGS DOQQ 1992-1996
 Hopi Tribe 2005


Hopi Reservation November 2008
0 0.25 Miles 0.5

59

Prepared By:

2.2.1.2.3.2.2 N Aquifer as the Sole Water Supply Under this scenario (see the N aquifer water-supply system alternative in Figure 2-1), up to 6,000 af/yr would be drawn from the N aquifer within Peabody’s lease area for the expected life of the project (i.e., 2010 through mid-2026). This would be the amount of water needed annually for the coal-delivery system (coal-washing facility [500 af/yr], coal slurry [3,700 af/yr]), other mine-related and domestic purposes (1,600 af/yr), and a contingency (200 af/yr). From 2026 through 2028, 505 af/yr of water would be needed for mine reclamation and public (domestic) uses, and 444 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be needed from 2029 to 2038. After 2038, the water would no longer be needed for the project, and pumping from the N aquifer for project purposes would cease. The wells would be transferred to the tribes once Peabody successfully completed reclamation and relinquished the leases. Under this scenario, the concern leading to the administrative delay of OSM’s permanent Indian Lands Program permitting decision described in Section 2.1 would not be resolved. The delay of permitting decisions for the Black Mesa mining operation and Black Mesa coal-slurry preparation plant stemmed from the concerns of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation regarding use of N-aquifer water for coal-slurry purposes. 2.2.1.3 Costs

Total cost by alternative is shown in Table 2-5. More detailed costs are shown in Appendix B. Table 2-5 Total Costs for Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern and Western Route Alternatives
Agencies' Preferred Alternative 11,600 af/yr ($ million) Annual Operation and Capital Cost1 Maintenance1 Eastern Route C-aquifer well field and pump stations Eastern water-supply pipeline3 42 155 197 0 0 200 397 3.92 0 0 5.4 9.3 24 33.3 Applicants' Proposed Alternative 6,000 af/yr ($ million) Annual Operation and Capital Cost1 Maintenance1 34 145 179 3.22 0 0 5.4 8.6 24 32.6

Construction costs Water costs for Black Mesa Complex4 Annual operation and maintenance costs 0 200 Coal-slurry pipeline5 379 Total estimated costs for coal-delivery system6 Western Route 45 62 C aquifer well field and pump stations 53 6.72 3 Western water-supply pipeline 179 0 169 0 Construction costs 232 214 5.4 5.4 Water costs for Black Mesa Complex4 12.1 11.4 Annual operation and maintenance costs4 200 24 200 24 Coal-slurry pipeline5 Total Estimated Costs for Coal-Delivery System7 432 36.1 414 35.4 SOURCES:	 Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. 2005; Peabody Western Coal Company 2005; Southern California Edison Company 2006 NOTES: 1 2006 dollars. 2 Includes operation and maintenance for pipeline 3 Does not include costs for right-of-way. 4 Annual water royalties to Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. 5 The capital costs do not include right-of-way costs. 6 Includes costs for well field, 108 miles of pipeline (includes West Kykotsmovi and north crossing of the Little Colorado River subalternatives), and two pump stations. 7 Includes costs for well field, 137 miles of pipeline, and four pump stations.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-22

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

2.2.2

Alternative B – Approval of the 2008 LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative)

If Alternative B were selected, Peabody’s February 2004 LOM application, as revised by the July 2008 amendment of the application, (together the “2008 LOM Revision”) would be approved. The Black Mesa mining operation, coal-slurry preparation plant, and coal-slurry pipeline that supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station until the end of 2005 would not resume operation. The coalwashing facility, the 127-acre coal-haul road, and the C aquifer water-supply system, in any configuration, would not be constructed. The preferred alternative includes the use of N-aquifer water to supply amounts averaging 1,236 af/yr for mine-related uses through 2025. If OSM approves the 2008 LOM revision for the Black Mesa Complex, the area previously associated with the Black Mesa operation (18,857 acres), including associated surface facilities, would be added to the 44,073 acres of the existing OSM permanent permit area for the Black Mesa Complex (refer to Figure 2-1), bringing the total acres to 62,930, which would be considered as one operation for the purpose of regulation by OSM. This entire area is within Peabody’s existing coal leases. Areas mined out by the Black Mesa operation by the end of 2005 have already been or are being reclaimed (areas J-01, J-03, J-07, and J-27) (refer to Map 2-2). One coal-resource area that was not completely mined out by the end of 2005 (N-06) is currently producing coal for the Navajo Generating Station. Several coal-resource areas, totaling 5,950 acres, that were never mined by the Black Mesa mining operation (J-02, J-04, J-06, J-08, J-09, J-10, J-14, and J-15) would be incorporated into the permanent permit area for the Black Mesa Complex. If the LOM revision were approved, Peabody would not be authorized to mine these coal-resource areas. However, the unmined coal-resource areas could be mined in the future if applications were submitted to, and approved by, BLM and OSM. Under the existing permit, Peabody has approval to produce coal from the N-09, N-10, N-99, J-19, and J-21, mining areas to supply the Navajo Generating Station through 2026. It is anticipated that Peabody would continue to request that OSM renew its permit every five years until the coal is mined out. Impacts of an extended mining scenario beyond 2026, which could include mining of some or all of the aforementioned eight coal-resource areas, are addressed in the cumulative effects section of the EIS. Through 2026, the Black Mesa operational infrastructure would be used as necessary to facilitate mining and reclamation by the Kayenta mining operation. From 2026 through 2028, 505 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for reclamation and public use, and about 444 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used from 2029 through 2038. The wells would be transferred to the tribes once Peabody successfully completes reclamation and relinquishes the leases. 2.2.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No-Action Alternative)

OSM’s decision under Alternative C to disapprove the LOM revision would have the same effect as OSM’s taking no action on the LOM revision. The Black Mesa mining operation, coal-slurry preparation plant, and coal-slurry pipeline that supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station until the end of 2005 would not resume operation. The coalwashing facility, 127-acre coal-haul road, and the C aquifer water-supply system, in any configuration, would not be constructed. The leased area previously associated with the Black Mesa operation (18,857 acres) would not be incorporated into the permanent program permit area for the Black Mesa Complex (refer to Figure 2-1). The remaining unmined coal-resource areas, totaling 5,950 acres that were within the area of the Black Mesa operation (areas J-02, J-04, J-06, J-08, J-09, J-10, J-14, and J-15) would not be incorporated into the permit area for the Black Mesa Complex if the LOM revision is not

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-23

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

approved. If no action were taken on the LOM revision, those unmined coal-resource areas could not be mined under OSM’s administrative delay rules because Peabody never received a prior authorization to mine those resource areas. However, the unmined coal-resource areas could be mined in the future if a future application were submitted to, and approved by, OSM. If the LOM revision is disapproved or no action is taken on it, the facilities and structures located in the initial program area that historically were shared by the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations would continue to be used by the Kayenta mining operation, but they would have to be permitted separately under a future revision. The 1990 permit issued by OSM “authorizes those surface coal mining and reclamation operations described in the application for this permit approved by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) on July 6, 1990, as it applies to the Kayenta Mine.” If the LOM revision is disapproved, the permit area would need to be revised to include the facilities and structures that were approved for use under the 1990 permit. Under the current permanent Indian Lands Program permit, the Black Mesa Complex’s Kayenta mining operation already has OSM-approved mining, operation, and reclamation plans that allow it to produce all of the coal needed by the Navajo Generating Station through 2026. The Kayenta mining operation would continue to use N-aquifer water in amounts averaging 1,236 af/yr through 2025. Whether no action is taken on the LOM revision or the LOM revision is disapproved, the Kayenta mining operation would continue to operate through 2026, at which time the mine would be reclaimed, similar to Alternative B. From 2026 through 2028, up to 505 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for reclamation and public use. From 2029 through 2038, up to 444 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for postreclamation maintenance and public use. The wells would be transferred to the tribes once Peabody successfully completed reclamation and relinquished the leases. Although it is reasonably foreseeable under Alternative C that Peabody would request future permit revisions to mine all remaining leased coal reserves within the lease area, the cumulative impacts of such foreseeable future permitting already are addressed under Alternative B; thus, for the purpose of evaluating impacts, Alternative C assumes that none of the initial program area coal reserves within the leases would be mined after 2026 (other than those which are currently approved in the existing permit). 2.3 AGENCY AUTHORITY AND ACTIONS

Implementation of any of the alternatives would require certain Federal, State, tribal, and/or local actions or approvals, which are listed in Table 2-6. Brief descriptions of Federal legal authorities and mandates are provided in Appendix C.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-24

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6 Summary of Potential Major Agency Authorities and Actions
Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review FEDERAL Life-of-Mine Revision (Alternatives A, B, and/or C; all alternatives unless otherwise noted) Life-of-mine (LOM) plan revision Office of Surface Mining LOM revision permit approval Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision Proposal Requiring Action Agency Relevant Law and/or Regulation

Right-of-way for transportation corridor (Alternative A only) Modification of a Section 404 permit Effects on species listed or critical habitat designated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Modification of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit Changes to the mining plan

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)1, 2 Western Regional Office and Hopi Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Action agency (agencies) in consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Grant of easement for a right-of-way across American Indian lands Modify permit for discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States Compliance with the ESA

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) (30 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1201 et seq.) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508); OSM Handbook on Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 25 CFR Part 169, Stipulations for Rightsof-way over Indian Land 33 U.S.C. 1344(a); 33 CFR Parts 320, 323, 325 ESA of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); 50 CFR 402; ESA Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342); 40 CFR 124.9 25 CFR 216; 43 CFR 3480

EIS and Record of Decision

Approval

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-25

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6 Summary of Potential Major Agency Authorities and Actions (continued)
Agency All Federal action agencies, Arizona and Nevada State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), Navajo Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), Hopi Cultural Preservation Office (HCPO), and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (if it chooses to participate) Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant (Alternative A only) Surface coal-mining operations OSM (coal-slurry preparation plant) conducted on American Indian reservations C-Aquifer Water-Supply System (Alternative A only) Grant of rights-of way for well field, BIA1, 3, 4 Western Regional Office pipeline-gathering system, waterNavajo Regional Office conveyance pipeline, and other associated facilities Approval of lease or permits for BIA1,3,4 Western Regional Office water supply and related facilities Navajo Regional Office Construction, operation, Federal Highway Administration maintenance, and abandonment of (FHWA) pipeline across or within highway right-of-way Construction sites with greater than 5 acres of land disturbed Construction across water resources USEPA (on American Indian reservations) USACE Proposal Requiring Action Effects on historic properties Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review Consultations with all interested parties to determine whether there will be adverse effects on historic properties, and if so how to take those effects into account; usually means development of a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement Relevant Law and/or Regulation National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106, 16 U.S.C. 470f; 36 CFR 800

Coal-slurry preparation plant permit

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.); 30 CFR 750, 785.21

Rights-of-way grant across American Indian reservations, permit or lease for the water-conveyance pipeline and associated facilities Lease or permits for water supply and related facilities Permits to cross Federal-Aid Highway

25 CFR 169

25 CFR 162

Section 402 NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Sites Section 10 and/or Section 404 permits, for construction of obstructions to navigable capacity of navigable waters or for discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States, respectively

Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. 101, et seq. 23 CFR 1.23 23 CFR 645 23 CFR 771 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342); 40 CFR 122 33 U.S.C. 403, 1344(a); 33 CFR 320, 322, 323, 325

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-26

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6 Summary of Potential Major Agency Authorities and Actions (continued)
Proposal Requiring Action Construction in or modification of floodplains Potential discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States (including wetlands and washes) Discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States (including wetlands and washes) Placement of structures and construction work in navigable waters of the United States Potential pollution discharge during construction, operation, and maintenance Effects on species listed or critical habitat designated under the ESA Effects on historic properties Agency All Federal action agencies Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review Consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in the floodplains Section 404 Permit to discharge dredged or fill material to waters of the United States USEPA authority to “veto” a USACE permit issued under 33 U.S.C. 1344(a) [Clean Water Act Section 404(a)] Section 10 permit for construction of obstructions to navigable capacity of navigable waters Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan Compliance with the ESA Consultations with all interested parties to determine whether there will be adverse effects to historic properties, and if so how to take those effects into account; usually involves development of a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement Permits to excavate Relevant Law and/or Regulation Executive Order 11988; 33 CFR 320.4(l) (USACE) Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1344(a)]; 33 CFR 320, 323, 325

USACE

USEPA (Navajo Nation EPA [NNEPA] on Navajo Reservation) USACE

Clean Water Act Section 404(c) [33 U.S.C. 1344(c)]; 40 CFR 231 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403); 33 CFR 320, 322, 325 Oil Pollution Act of 1990; 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.; 40 CFR 112 ESA of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); 50 CFR 402 NHPA of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f); 36 CFR 800

USEPA

Action agencies in consultation with FWS Lead Federal agency, BIA, Navajo THPO, HCPO, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (if it chooses to participate) BIA1, tribal consents Lead Federal agency and BIA1

Excavation of archaeological sites on tribal lands Potential conflicts with freedom to practice American Indian religions

Consultation with affected American Indians

Disturbance of graves, associated funerary objects, sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony

BIA1, Tribal consents

Consultation with American Indian group regarding treatment of remains and objects

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (16 U.S.C. 470aa to 470mm); 25 CFR 262; 43 CFR 7 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) (42 U.S.C. 1996); Executive Order 13007 (61 Federal Register 26771); Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. 3001); 43 CFR 10

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-27

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6 Summary of Potential Major Agency Authorities and Actions (continued)
Proposal Requiring Action Investigation of cultural and paleontological resources Agency BIA1 Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review Permit for study of historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources Grant of easement for rights-of-way Relevant Law and/or Regulation Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 432­ 433); 36 CFR 296; 43 CFR 3, 7 and 2300; ARPA; 25 CFR 262; 43 CFR 7 25 CFR 169

Coal-Slurry Pipeline (Alternative A only) Rights-of-way for coal-slurry BIA1, 3, 4 pipeline and other associated facilities Right-of-way grants for coal-slurry U.S. Forest Service (Forest pipeline Service) Preconstruction surveys; reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of coal-slurry pipeline on public land; right-of-way extension Construction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of pipeline across or within highway right-of-way Construction sites with greater than 5 acres of land disturbed Construction across water resources BLM

Special use authorization permit or easement Right-of-way grant across public land; temporary use permit; land use plan maintenance Special use authorization permit or easement Permits to cross Federal-Aid Highway

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Title V (43 U.S.C. 1761-1771); 36 CFR 251 FLPMA, Title V (43 U.S.C. 1761-1771) 43 CFR 2800 36 CFR 251 Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. 101, et seq.; 23 CFR 1.23; 23 CFR 645; 23 CFR 771 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342); 40 CFR 122 33 U.S.C. 403, 1344(a); 33 CFR 320, 322, 323, 325

Forest Service FHWA

USEPA (on Indian land)

USACE

Construction in or modification of floodplains Potential discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States (including wetlands and washes)

All Federal action agencies

USACE

Section 402 NPDES permits for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Sites Section 10 and/or Section 404 Permit, for construction of obstructions to navigable capacity of navigable waters or for discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States, respectively Consideration of alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in the floodplains Section 404 permit to discharge dredged or fill material to waters of the United States

Executive Order 11988; 33 CFR 320.4(l) (USACE) Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1344(a)]; 33 CFR 320, 323, 325

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-28

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6 Summary of Potential Major Agency Authorities and Actions (continued)
Proposal Requiring Action Placement of structures and construction work in navigable waters of the United States Potential pollution discharge during construction, operation, and maintenance Effects on species listed or critical habitat designated under the ESA Effects on historic property Agency USACE Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review Section 10 permit for construction of obstructions to navigable capacity of navigable waters SPCC plans for pump stations Relevant Law and/or Regulation Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403); 33 CFR 320, 322, 325 Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.; 40 CFR 112 ESA of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); 50 CFR 402 NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.); 36 CFR 800

USEPA

Excavation of archaeological sites Potential conflicts with freedom to practice American Indian religions

Action agencies in consultation with FWS Federal lead agency, SHPOs, Navajo Nation THPO, HCPO, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (if it chooses to participate) Federal land-managing agency and tribes Federal lead agency, Federal landmanaging agency

Compliance with the ESA Consultations with all interested parties to determine whether there will be adverse effects to historic properties, and if so how to take those effects into account Permits to excavate Consultation with affected American Indians

ARPA (16 U.S.C. 470aa to 470ee) AIRFA (42 U.S.C. 1996); Executive Order 13007 (61 Federal Register 26771); RFRA (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001); 43 CFR 10

Disturbance of graves, associated funerary objects, sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony Investigation of cultural and paleontological resources Investigation of cultural resources

Federal land-managing agency

Affected land-managing agency

Affected land-managing agency

Ground disturbance on Federal land or Federal Aid project

BLM, Forest Service

Consultation with American Indian group regarding treatment of remains and objects Permit for study of historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources Permits to excavate and remove archaeological resources on Federal lands; consultation with American Indian tribes with interest in resources must be consulted prior to issuance of permits Compliance with BLM mitigation and planning standards for paleontological resources on public lands

Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 432­ 433); 36 CFR 296; 43 CFR 3, 7 and 2300; ARPA; 25 CFR 262; 43 CFR 7 ARPA (16 U.S.C. 470aa to 470mm); 43 CFR 7

FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701-1771) Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431­ 433); 7 CFR 3100 (Department of Agriculture, including Forest Service); BLM Manual Section 8270

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-29

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6 Summary of Potential Major Agency Authorities and Actions (continued)
Proposal Requiring Action Hopi Tribe (Alternative A only) Use of Hopi lands and resources Agency Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review TRIBAL Hopi Tribe’s input in planning for reservation development; procedural review and approval of community development plans; approval of well leases, drilling permits, and use of water Protocol for realty Business license; procedures, terms, and conditions of permits and penalties for violation Relevant Law and/or Regulation

Hopi Tribal Planning

Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance 55

Realty action Engagement in the business of investigating, conducting tests, and collecting scientific information/data concerning the natural resources of the Hopi Reservation Engagement in business on the Hopi Reservation Engagement in business on the Hopi Reservation

Hopi Tribal Planning Hopi Office of Revenue Commission Hopi Department of Natural Resources

Hopi Resolution H-55-2000 Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance 14

Hopi Office of Revenue Commission; Hopi Tribal Council Hopi Tribal Council

Possession or use of Hopi land without permission Indian preference provisions for employment Construction of improvements within District 6 of Hopi Reservation Effects on water

Civil Trespass

Tribal Employment Rights Office Hopi Tribal Council

Revenue Commissioner to administer tribal licensing ordinances Nonmember business license; ordinance exemption for sales to tribe; license fees on the privilege of doing business on the reservation; compliance with rules about reservation business and protection of consumers; bonding requirement for nonresidents Compliance with provisions on prohibitions about the possession or use of Hopi land without permission Provisions for American Indian employment Control of new construction on the 1882 reservation outside District 6 Establishment of water quality standards applicable to all water resources; provision of wellhead protection; permits for well drilling and adherence to defined well specifications

Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance 31 Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance 17

Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance 52

Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance 37 Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance 23

Hopi Water Resources Program

Hopi Tribal Resolution H-107-97

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-30

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6 Summary of Potential Major Agency Authorities and Actions (continued)
Proposal Requiring Action Construction debris Preconstruction activities: 1) Historical or scientific research 2) Archaeological surveys and excavations Preconstruction activities – site visit Agency Hopi Environmental Protection Office Hopi Cultural Preservation Office Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review Removal of construction debris via Environmental Protection Plan License authority; tribal approval Relevant Law and/or Regulation Office of Solid Waste, Solid Waste Ordinance No. 44 Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance No. 26

Hopi Tribal Council

Construction in or removal of range improvements Construction in or removal of woodlands Navajo Nation Modification of Title V air quality permit (Alternatives A, B, and C) On-ground investigations for tribal or federally protected species (Alternative A) Preconstruction activities, construction, operation, and maintenance (Alternative A) Wetlands (Alternatives A, B, and C) Permission to survey on Navajo Tribal Trust land for surveying, map legal description, environmental assessment, ethnographic and archaeological studies (Alternative A) Discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States (including wetlands and washes) (Alternatives A, B, And C)

Hopi Office of Range Management Hopi Department of Natural Resources NNEPA Navajo Nation Fish and Wildlife Department Resources Committee of the Navajo Nation Council USEPA Region IX, NNEPA Navajo Nation reviewing departments (*) *Project Review Office

Written permission from Hopi Tribal Council chairman to visit archaeological or historical site Written authorization from Hopi Department of Range Management Permit to harvest woodland products

Hopi Indian Tribe Executive Order 78-1

Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance No. 43 Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance No. 47

Title V permit Biological investigation permit

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7661a); 40 CFR 71 Government Services Committee Resolution SFCF-3-94 2 Navajo Nation Code (NNC) 164

Formal written approval (e.g., well leases, drilling permits, use of water) NPDES permit; Section 401 water quality certification Navajo Nation Council consent letter or permit per Resource Committee

NNC CJA-16-96 2 NNC 695; 25 CFR 169

NNEPA

Section 404 permit

Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1344(a)]; 33 CFR 320, 323, 325

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-31

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6 Summary of Potential Major Agency Authorities and Actions (continued)
Proposal Requiring Action Construction disturbance in areas of sensitive animal and plant species (Alternative A) Construction disturbance in areas of cultural resources (Alternatives A, B, and C) Encroachment on all existing rightsof-way (Alternative A) Construction, operation, and maintenance of right-of-way (Alternative A) Restoration of right-of-way (Alternative A) Cultural resource investigations on Navajo Nation lands (Alternative A) Clearing, transporting, selling, trading, or bartering of any Navajo forest product (Alternative A) Potential effects on the water of Navajo Nation lands (Alternative A) Survey activities for geologic or paleontological resources (Alternative A) Removal of fossil resources for study (Alternative A) Arizona (Alternative A only) Storm-water management from potential discharges associated with industrial activity or construction of sites greater than 5 acres (cumulative) Construction across water resources Agency Navajo Nation Fish and Wildlife Department, *Natural Heritage Program *Historic Preservation Department Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review Review and approval by Navajo Nation Relevant Law and/or Regulation 25 CFR 169.4 to 169.5

Review and approval by Navajo Nation

25 CFR 169.5

Navajo Nation reviewing departments Resource Committee of Navajo Nation Council; BIA agencies or area office NNEPA Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department; BIA, Navajo Regional Office Navajo Nation Forestry Department Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources Navajo Nation Minerals Department Navajo Nation Minerals Department

Navajo Nation consent letter Resource Committee resolution and Navajo Nation consent letter Review and approval Class B inventory permits, Class C excavation permits, ARPA permits for disturbance of archaeological resources Commercial permit

25 CFR 169.3 2 NNC 695(B)(6)

25 CFR 169.5 Navajo Nation Cultural Resource Protection Act (CRPA-19-88); ARPA; 43 CFR 47 Resource Resolution RCJN-69-88; 23 NNC 902 (c); 17 NNC 525; 18 U.S.C. 1850; 18 U.S.C. 1853; 18 U.S.C. 1855 Chapter 7, NNC 254 22 ; NNC 1101 et seq. Government Services Committee Resolution GSCAP-20-94 Government Services Committee Resolution GSCAP-20-94

Water use permit Reconnaissance permit

Collection permit STATE

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) permit

Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 49-255 and Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R18-9-1, 2; A.A.C. R18-11-1

ADEQ

State Water Quality Certification (State review required for all Section 404 permits)

Clean Water Act (33 CFR 320, 322, 323, 325)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-32

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6 Summary of Potential Major Agency Authorities and Actions (continued)
Proposal Requiring Action NPDES permit Agency ADEQ Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review Consistency Review Form to ensure that a proposed facility or use will be consistent with the existing Certified Regional Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Aquifer Protection Permit Compliance with dust control measures and standards Crossing permit, permit for use of rightof-way Relevant Law and/or Regulation Clean Water Act (Section 303, et al.); Federal Water Pollution Control Act Section 208

Construction and operation of sedimentation pond Fugitive dust as a result of project construction Construction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of pipeline across or within state highway right-of-way Encroachment onto State Trust Land Loss of special status plant species Disturbance to or loss of habitat of special status animal species Potential disturbance to cultural resources on State Trust Land

ADEQ ADEQ Arizona Department of Transportation

A.R.S. 49-241 through 49-252; A.A.C. R18-9-101 through R18-9-403 A.A.C: R-18-2-604, R-18-2-605, R-18-2­ 606, R-18-2-607, R-18-2-612 A.R.S. 28-7053; A.A.C. R17-3-501 through 509

Arizona State Land Department Arizona Department of Agriculture Arizona Department of Game and Fish Arizona State Museum SHPO

Right-of-way permit Permit to remove plants Coordination with the FWS/BLM/USACE Permit to investigate Review and approval of use of any State Trust Lands Grant for permission to disturb

A.R.S. 37-461 Native Plant Law (A.R.S. 3-901 through 916) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act A.R.S. 41-841 through 847 A.R.S. 41-861 through 864 A.R.S. 41-865

Potential disturbance to human remains or funerary objects Nevada (Alternative A only) Storm-water management from potential discharges associated with industrial activity or construction of sites greater than 5 acres (cumulative) Construction across water resources

Arizona State Museum

Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP), Bureau of Water Pollution Control

General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (NVR100000)

NRS 445A.300 through 445A.730

NDEP, Bureau of Water Quality Planning NDEP, Bureau of Air Pollution Control

Potential for fugitive dust from project construction

State Water Quality Certification (State review required for all Federal Section 404 permits) Surface Area Disturbance Permit Authority overridden by Clark County

Clean Water Act (33 CFR Parts 320, 322, 323, 325); NRS 445A.010 through 445A.730 NAC 445B.22037

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-33

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6 Summary of Potential Major Agency Authorities and Actions (continued)
Proposal Requiring Action Disturbance or modification of special status plant species or habitat Disturbance to or loss of special status animal species Potential disturbance to human remains or funerary objects Agency Division of Forestry Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review Compliance survey for identification of plant species; permit for lawful take of protected plant Special permit Notification of discoveries, consultation with affiliated groups LOCAL Special use permit Right-of-way use permit Relevant Law and/or Regulation NRS 527.050, 527.270, 527.250

Division of Wildlife Office of Historic Preservation

NAC 503.093 NRS 383.150 to 383.190

Navajo County, Arizona (Alternative A only) Construction of pipeline Department of Public Works, Planning and Zoning Potential encroachment onto county Department of Public Works rights-of-way Coconino County, Arizona (Alternative A only) Construction of pipeline Public Works Department Construction activities Public Works Department Potential encroachment onto county Public Works Department rights-of-way Yavapai County, Arizona (Alternative A only) Construction of pipeline Department of Public Works Potential encroachment onto county Development Services Department rights-of-way Mohave County, Arizona (Alternative A only) Potential encroachment onto county Public Works Department rights-of-way Construction of pipeline Planning and Zoning Office City of Bullhead City, Arizona (Alternative A only) Community Development Construction of pipeline Department Construction of pipeline Community Development Department Potential encroachment onto city Engineering Department rights-of-way City of Kingman, Arizona (Alternative A only) Construction of pipeline Planning and Zoning Division Construction of pipeline Building Department

Zoning ordinance A.R.S. 11-562

Blanket permit Grading and excavation permit Encroachment permit

County ordinance County ordinance County ordinance 94-01; A.R.S. 11-562

Special use permit Right-of-way permit

County ordinance County ordinance 2001-1; A.R.S. 11-562

Right-of-way use permit Special use permit Conditional use permit Grading permit Notification 24 hours in advance of work

A.R.S. 11-562; Mohave County ordinance Zoning ordinance Municipal Code 17.08 Municipal Code 15.40 Municipal Code 12.04.030

Conditional use permit Grading permit

Municipal Code 29.000 Municipal Code 3310

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-34

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6 Summary of Potential Major Agency Authorities and Actions (continued)
Permit, License, Approval, Proposal Requiring Action Agency Compliance, or Review Relevant Law and/or Regulation Potential encroachment onto city Public Works Department Right-of-way permit Streets and Sidewalks Development rights-of-way Rules and Regulations, Division 3, 6 Clark County, Nevada (Alternative A only) Potential for fugitive dust from Air Quality and Environmental Dust control permit Clark County Air Quality Regulations, project construction Management Section 94 Clearing vegetation, rough grading, Comprehensive Planning Grading permit; Land disturbance permit County Ordinance 30.32.040 stockpiling, altering natural ground surface or its elevation Disturbance to or loss of habitat of Comprehensive Planning Incidental take permit County Ordinance 30.32.050 special status animal species Potential encroachment onto county Department of Development Encroachment permit; Improvement plans County Ordinance 30.32.070 rights-of-way Services County Ordinance 30.32.080 Construction of pipeline Comprehensive Planning Conditional use permit County Ordinance 30.44.010 NOTES: 1 Life-of-mine approval implicates other Federal laws that Peabody will be required to comply with. 2 All Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) permits and/or leases require prior Hopi Tribe and/or Navajo Nation concurrences that typically require completed
 environmental assessment document. 3 The J-23 coal resource area is in a portion of the mine that contains both Navajo and Hopi Trust land. The corridor location would need to be clearly identified to establish which BIA Regional Office is responsible for addressing this request (BIA March 11, 2005). 4 The proposed C-aquifer pipeline would require a BIA right-of-way approved by the Navajo Regional Director. These right-of-way permits are administered and processed by the Navajo Regional Office Branch of Real Estate Services (BIA, March 11, 2005). 5 Grazing permit holders should, at a minimum, be consulted if the proposed C-aquifer pipeline crosses their customary use area and if compensation is necessary. At a minimum, provisions should be made for rehabilitation of areas impacted by construction activities and compensation for areas removed from forage production for facilities such as pumping stations, transmission lines, and access roads (BIA, March 11, 2005). At this time, it is not certain whether a permit or lease would be the best means of addressing the proposed C-aquifer well sites (BIA, March 11, 2005). 
 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-35

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

2.4	

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY IN THE EIS

The alternatives described in this section were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis in the EIS as not being reasonable alternatives; i.e., not being technically or economically feasible or practical, and/or not meeting the purpose of and need for the project. 2.4.1	 Approval of the Black Mesa Portion of the 2004 LOM Revision and Disapproval of the Kayenta Portion of the 2004 LOM Revision

During scoping, an alternative was proposed that would result in the approval of the Black Mesa portion of the 2004 LOM revision and disapproval of the Kayenta portion of the 2004 LOM revision. Under this alternative, the Black Mesa mining operation, coal-slurry preparation plant, and coal-slurry pipeline would resume operations as described in Alternative A (refer to Section 2.2.1). The Kayenta mining operation would continue to operate through 2026 (under OSM’s existing permanent Indian Lands Program permit). After 2026, Kayenta mining operation would cease and the mine would be reclaimed. This alternative is not substantively different from the approval alternative (Alternative A). The 2008 LOM revision proposes only the Kayenta mining operation; thus, this alternative is no different from Alternative C. Therefore, this alternative is not considered further. 2.4.2	 Other Water Sources

Many scoping comments suggested the use of an alternative to water as a medium for the coal slurry, or that a source of water other than the N aquifer be considered. While the latter has been considered and the C aquifer has been analyzed in this EIS, a number of other alternative sources of water have been investigated over several years. The following summaries briefly describe investigations of water-supply options from the Colorado River, groundwater basins near the coal-slurry pipeline, groundwater sources near the Black Mesa Complex, and gray water from the City of Flagstaff. 2.4.2.1 Colorado River Water-Supply Options

Between 1990 and 2003, the United States, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, SCE, Peabody, and SRP evaluated various Colorado River water-supply options to see if they could meet the demands for mining operations, the coal slurry, and the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. The evaluations were part of discussions to resolve tribal water-rights claims to the Little Colorado River watershed and to resolve issues related to the Black Mesa mining operation. The process involved detailed studies between 1990 and 2003 of numerous pipeline alignments, a range of water quantities, the law of the Colorado River, and related issues. Representatives of the Federal Government, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, SCE, Peabody, and SRP participated in the process. The representatives concluded that all the Colorado River options were technically infeasible, at least within the time available to develop an assured water supply for the Black Mesa Project. Though considered, the Colorado River water-supply options were eliminated from further study in this EIS (Sommers 2005). One of the most important considerations in any proposal to divert water from the Colorado River is the “Law of the River,” a complex set of laws and regulations governing the use of water from the Colorado River and its tributaries. Moreover, an important component of the Law of the River is the Colorado River Compact of 1922, which divided the Colorado River Basin into an Upper Basin and Lower Basin, with a dividing point at Lees Ferry, just downstream from Lake Powell (Reclamation 2004). Each basin has an annual allocation of water from the Colorado River. The Upper Basin states have an obligation to deliver 7.5 million acre-feet of water to the Lower Basin. The water in each basin is apportioned, by percentage, among the states that use the water. Arizona receives only a small allocation from the Upper Basin (50,000 af/yr), which is largely consumed by existing uses on the Navajo

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-36

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Reservation, the City of Page, and the Navajo Generating Station. Moreover, because the Black Mesa Complex is located in the Lower Basin, new diversions for mining, slurry, and tribal demands would likely have to come from Arizona’s allocation from the Lower Basin (Reclamation 2006; SRP 2002). Several potential sources of Lower Basin water were identified for possible use by the Black Mesa Project; however, changing the point of diversion and location of use of any Colorado River water source would require the approval of the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). In addition, most sources likely would require consent of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) because supplies from the Central Arizona Project likely would be affected. ADWR and CAWCD were reluctant to consent to any use of Colorado River Lower Basin water supplies for use in northern Arizona, outside the three-county Central Arizona Project area, unless there was also some direct benefit to the rest of the state. Thus, progress in identifying a specific source of Colorado River water for the Black Mesa Project was slow (SRP 2002). Lake Powell is the closest point of diversion from the Colorado River for use in the Black Mesa Project and for nearby tribal demands. During the 1990s, a number of Lake Powell diversion alternatives were extensively studied, involving a range of water quantities and different pipeline alignments. The primary diversion point from the lake that was evaluated was a location near the existing pump station for the Navajo Generating Station using a similar pumping scheme. Locating the pump station near the Navajo Generating Station pump station would take advantage of existing infrastructure and minimize environmental impacts. The various evaluated pipeline alignments followed the railroad alignment that transports coal from the Kayenta mining operation to the Navajo Generating Station and/or existing highways and roads, again to minimize environmental impacts. Additional alignments also were evaluated to provide water to nearby Navajo towns and villages. The major stumbling block for the use of water from Lake Powell is the potential legal issue associated with the diversion of water from the Upper Basin for use in the Lower Basin, where the mine complex is located. Such a diversion is not explicitly authorized by the Colorado River Compact of 1922. It is possible that Lake Powell diversion of water for use in the Lower Basin would require, either legally or politically, the consent of the seven Colorado River Basin states, which would likely take a number of years to negotiate and would have an uncertain outcome. Also, the high cost of an extensive network of pipelines to distribute the water was a consideration (Sommers 2005; SRP 2002). To avoid delays associated with resolution of the trans-basin diversion and use issues, a Lower Basin diversion location just downstream of Lees Ferry was investigated—a Marble Canyon diversion at the mouth of Jackass Canyon was evaluated in 2002. The diversion alternative was strongly opposed by environmental groups, especially because of its location at the upper end of the Grand Canyon in or immediately adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park. The diversion location and pipeline alignment also presented engineering challenges and were expected to result in substantial environmental impact within the Grand Canyon and elsewhere. This Lower Basin diversion location was deemed to be technically and economically unacceptable. Another Lower Basin diversion location was evaluated at Bullhead City, where the existing coal-slurry pipeline crosses the Colorado River. The concept was to use the existing coal-slurry pipeline, which was to be retired and replaced as part of the Black Mesa Project, to convey water upstream to the mine using a series of pump stations. Although costs, including pumping costs, were a very serious concern with this option, which would involve pumping the water approximately 273 miles generally uphill over an elevation gain of more than 5,000 feet, the option was never fully evaluated because of increased opposition to using Arizona’s allocation from the Lower Basin for a Nevada-related project.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-37

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Increased opposition to diversion and use of Lower Basin water for mining, coal slurry, and tribal use followed the Navajo Nation’s filing of a lawsuit against USDI in March 2003. The lawsuit alleged that USDI was not adequately asserting and protecting the rights of the Navajo Nation to water from the main stem of the Colorado River in the Lower Basin. In response to the lawsuit, the State of Arizona and central Arizona water users took the position that the claims of the Navajo Nation to water from the Lower Colorado River in the Lower Basin must be resolved before a supply of Colorado River water could be allocated for the Black Mesa Project. Preliminary discussions to resolve the Navajo Nation’s Lower Basin claims revealed that it would likely take many years to settle those claims. As a result, the United States, tribes, and companies concluded that the Colorado River was not a viable source for the immediate future, and turned to the C aquifer as an alternative. 2.4.2.2 Groundwater Basins Near the Coal-Slurry Pipeline

Peabody investigated potential water sources along the coal-slurry pipeline. Again, the concept was to use the existing coal-slurry pipeline, which was to be retired and replaced, to convey water upstream to the mine. At the same time, Peabody evaluated the potential to purchase gray water from the City of Flagstaff. The City of Flagstaff had indicated that a portion of its potential capacity would be available, and with augmentation from groundwater, might supply enough water for the needs of the mines (a discussion of the gray water alternative is provided below). Peabody conducted a preliminary evaluation of the potential areas of groundwater production along the coal-slurry pipeline route for use in (1) augmenting Flagstaff gray water and (2) providing a stand-alone water supply that could be delivered using the existing coal-slurry pipeline after its replacement (URS Corporation 2003a). As part of the investigation, the areas underlying the coal-slurry pipeline were partitioned into six zones. These zones generally, and in many cases specifically, were identified based on known hydrogeologic basins. None of the basins entirely underlie either the Hopi or Navajo Reservations. Certain areas in some of the groundwater basins that were studied exhibited good potential for groundwater development. However, with the exception of one zone, (Zone D), the Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrologic Basin, further investigations were deemed to be unjustified because of Arizona’s present groundwater management code. Article 8, Title 45, of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) governing the transportation of groundwater precludes transportation of groundwater between basins in the State of Arizona, unless approval is granted by the State legislature. There are certain exceptions to this rule, but none apply to the basins included in this evaluation. Although there are provisions to allow other exceptions to the statute, further investigations were abandoned due to the uncertainty associated with a positive outcome in the legislature and the length of time it might take to get the exception. Though considered, a water supply from groundwater basins along the coal-slurry pipeline was determined to be technically infeasible and eliminated from further study. Further investigation of the potential for a well field in Zone D was discontinued for the following reasons: (1) concerns voiced by ADWR about potential surface-water impact from significant additional groundwater development that could interfere with adjudication claims in the Little Colorado River water rights case; (2) questionable water quality and yield in the northern portion of the basin (total dissolved solids [TDS] of about 3,000 parts per million [ppm]); (3) proximity to sensitive springs (Blue Springs) if a well field were to be sited in the northern portion of the basin; (4) interference with existing users if a well field were to be sited in the southern portion of the basin; and (5) relatively high costs per acre-foot for well construction. Peabody also investigated the potential for purchasing water from a source in the vicinity of Drake, Arizona, near enough to the coal-slurry pipeline that Peabody determined further investigations might be warranted. This source is believed to tap the Martin Limestone, an aquifer system known to produce large volumes of water of superior quality. However, this alternative was rejected for the same reasons
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 2-38 Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

previously discussed (trans-basin diversion and use issues), and because potential impacts on flow in the Verde River system were indicated. 2.4.2.3 Groundwater Sources Near the Black Mesa Complex

Peabody reevaluated the feasibility of supplementing water supplies at the Black Mesa Complex using the Dakota aquifer (D aquifer) (GeoTrans, Inc. 2001). Though considered, groundwater sources near the mines were eliminated from further study in this EIS based on the information summarized below. Peabody investigated whether 500 af/yr could be pumped from the D aquifer from five wells. The D aquifer overlies the N aquifer and comprises four geologic formations—Morrison, Cow Springs, Entrada, and Dakota. For purposes of the investigation, all four formations were modeled as one hydrostratigraphic unit. Hydraulic properties were determined from previous studies conducted by Peabody (1999) and Stetson Civil & Consulting Engineers (1966). Pumping was assumed to be continuous at 500 af/yr (62 gallons per minute [gpm] for each of the five wells). The target pumping rate produced about 414 feet of drawdown at the well bore after 30 years of simulation. According to the model, after only two to three years, the wells would begin to interfere with each other. The results indicated that the feasibility of pumping the target volumes is low, due to the large drawdown relative to the available head in the D aquifer. In addition, the quality of D-aquifer water in the Black Mesa area makes it unsuitable for potable and coal-slurry uses due to elevated TDS. It could only be used for certain dust-suppression applications and would require a separate distribution system from the N-aquifer distribution system. Thus, previous conclusions were affirmed that the D aquifer in the vicinity of the Black Mesa Complex could not provide water of sufficient quantity and quality on a sustained basis to replace a significant portion of the current water supply. Nor could it provide the additional water needed for Alternative A (2,000 af/yr) or Alternative B (averaging 1,236 af/yr). Peabody evaluated use of the N aquifer in areas outside of the Black Mesa Basin, under the premise that the aquifer might be used in areas where issues sensitive to the Hopi Tribe could be avoided regarding potential impact on springs and streams located in the Black Mesa Basin. Also, groundwater use by the Navajo Nation is less from the Black Mesa Basin than from other basins. The areas evaluated were the socalled “Northwest N aquifer” and the “Northeast N aquifer.” The Northwest N aquifer is the principal aquifer beneath the Kaibito Plateau. A northeast-trending groundwater divide occurs within the N aquifer along the southeastern margins of the Kaibito Plateau, roughly parallel to U.S. Highway 160 and passing close to Shonto, Arizona. Groundwater entering the N aquifer in this area flows either to the northwest, beneath the Kaibito Plateau and toward Lake Powell, or to the south and east toward the Black Mesa Basin. It is believed that this basin stores about 80 million acre-feet of very good quality water (URS Corporation 2001). The Northeast N aquifer is located north and east of the Black Mesa Complex in the Blanding Hydrologic Basin. A 500-square-mile area of interest located west of Chinle Wash was evaluated. Surface drainage in this area is to the northeast in this area toward Chinle Wash, which ultimately drains to the San Juan River above Lake Powell. The area of interest was on the northeast side of the groundwater divide, north and east of the Black Mesa. Groundwater recharged along the divide flows either northeast toward the Blanding Basin and toward the San Juan River, or southeast toward the Black Mesa Basin. It is estimated that about 25 million acre-feet of very good quality water is stored in the area of interest (URS Corporation 2001). Preliminary evaluations of water supplies from these two sources were performed, including estimating costs to develop delivery systems to the mines (URS Corporation 2001). The Northwest N- and Northeast N-aquifer alternatives were rejected primarily because preliminary feedback from the tribes indicated that they were uncomfortable using these portions of the N aquifer for mining uses at any location, regardless
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 2-39 Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

of the potential impact on tribal water supplies, springs, and streams. Furthermore, a review of potential conflicts associated with Colorado River water rights indicated potential issues that could preclude development of a well field in either the Northwest N or the Northeast N aquifers. Both of these potential water sources are located in the Upper Colorado River Basin (URS Corporation 2002). Well fields developed in the Upper Basin that could be hydraulically connected to surface water could not be constructed unless the user demonstrated that the well field would not interfere with the existing appropriation of surface water for Arizona. Given the proximity of the Northwest N-aquifer study area to Lake Powell and the perennial reaches of Navajo and Kaibito Creeks, it is very possible that technical information would show that operation of a well field would consume groundwater that is tributary to the Colorado River, and the groundwater would have to be considered part of Arizona’s 50,000 acre-foot allocation from the Upper Colorado River Basin. It is known that Lake Powell’s waters recharge the N aquifer in the area in question, so hydraulic communication is documented. Arizona’s allocation of Upper Colorado River Basin water is already consumed, so the portion of a new well field that removes surface water could not be authorized. The same situation applies, although to a lesser extent and probability, to the Northeast N aquifer via connectivity to perennial reaches of Chinle Wash. 2.4.2.4 Gray-Water Alternatives

Peabody evaluated the use of reclaimed sanitary wastewater from Flagstaff, Arizona, to supply at least a portion of the supply needed by the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. Conceptual engineering and capital-cost analyses for this alternative were performed (URS Corporation 2003b). This alternative consisted of a new pipeline to deliver gray water from Flagstaff’s Wildcat Hill Treatment Plant to the existing coal-slurry pipeline near Gray Mountain, Arizona, following U.S. Highway 89N. Reclaimed water used for the coal-slurry system must meet “A+ Reclaimed Water” requirements as specified by the Arizona Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 11, Article 3 (A.A.C. R 18-11-309). At the time this alternative was evaluated, Flagstaff was in the process of designing improvements to one of its wastewater treatment plants to bring the plant’s effluent to this standard, and to another of its treatment plants to improve efficiency. The scope and cost of the improvements were not included in the report. However, Flagstaff had indicated that to obtain the water, the user would have to commit to financing the upgrades, including a pipeline between two of the treatment plants to accumulate the desired volume of water needed. The cost of the treatment plant upgrades was estimated to exceed $20 million. The pipeline that would have linked the city’s two major treatment plants was estimated at another $2 to $3 million. Initially, Flagstaff indicated that 4,388 acre-feet of gray water that was being discharged into the Rio del Flag would be available for use. By the time the report was prepared, the city revised its estimate of available water to 3,095 af/yr. This amount was based on treatment plant average monthly output in 2002, adjusted for existing and future use commitments the city had made (primarily for irrigation at local golf courses, schools, and parks). This amount assumed increases in future flow from the Flagstaff treatment systems attributable to growth. Removal of the future flow increase from the estimate resulted in approximately 2,552 af/yr available, based on 2002 output from the plants. Thus, the Flagstaff gray-water alternative had the potential to provide about 64 percent of Peabody’s existing water requirement (4,000 af/yr) and about 43 percent of the future water requirement (6,000 af/yr) for Alternative A. In either case, it was insufficient to replace all of the water needed for coal transportation. Ultimately, Flagstaff committed a significant portion of the remaining available water to other users, rendering this alternative not viable. Gray water from Tuba City and Kayenta also was examined briefly as a supplement to Flagstaff water; however, the available quantities were small, and the total water available was insufficient to meet the water needs for the Black Mesa Project.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-40

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Gray water was not considered as an alternative water source for the Black Mesa Project under Alternative B or C. Of the total volume of water needed for Alternatives B and C (average of 1,236 af/yr), up to 731 af/yr of water would be needed for mine-related purposes and supplemented with up to 500 af/yr of water from the N aquifer (maintenance of well field). Considering the relatively small volume of water that would be needed under Alternative B or C (731 af/yr) compared to Alternative C (6,000 af/yr) and the high cost of and environmental impacts associated with constructing the water-conveyance system, the construction of such a system is unwarranted. 2.4.3 Water-Return Pipeline

Construction of a pipeline to return the slurry water to the mine once the water is separated from the coal at the Mohave Generating Station also was suggested as an option during scoping. However, about half the water in the coal slurry can be reclaimed and used for cooling and other purposes at the power plant, which reduces the plant’s requirements for Colorado River water. Construction of a return pipeline would be very costly, and it still would be necessary to obtain additional water from another source, greatly increasing the cost of this option. For this reason, implementing the use of a water-return pipeline was determined to be economically infeasible and eliminated from further study in this EIS. 2.4.4 Alternative Coal Delivery Methods

In response to public comments, OSM evaluated alternative means of transporting the coal from the Black Mesa Mine to the Mohave Generating Station, including truck and rail delivery, and alternatives to water as a medium for the slurry. 2.4.4.1 Truck Transportation

As an alternative to transporting coal from the Black Mesa mining operation via slurry pipeline, OSM examined the feasibility of trucking the coal over existing roads and highways. Based on the analysis of a conceptual operations plan, trucking as an option was determined to be economically and technically impractical, as summarized below. Costs for this alternative were estimated based on an examination of the year-round over-the-road operations that would be necessary to haul 5.4 million tons of coal from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station; the route considered included U.S. Highway 89, I-40, and State Highway 68. It was determined that the operations would require 592 truckloads of coal to be transported to the generating station (including 592 return trips) over those roads per day. This would be the equivalent of adding about one truck almost every minute for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in addition to the traffic that currently travels that route. Although the examination did not exhaustively investigate all conceivable costs involved, it did consider the potential impacts on communities along the route. The truck volume that would be added to existing highways by the coal-haul operation was added to existing truck volumes to determine impacts on traffic (available from the 2003 Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Highway Performance Monitoring System). A comparison of the percentage of existing traffic volumes to the percentage of traffic volumes with the trucking operation is presented in Map 2-6.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-41

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Map 2-6 Percentages of Existing Traffic Volumes, and Traffic Volumes with Trucking Operation The comparison reveals that volumes would increase dramatically, especially on the two-lane highways at both ends of the route where percentages would increase by 25 percent to more than 100 percent. These increases would significantly alter the operational patterns of these highways, impacting public safety, road maintenance, and overall congestion. Capital costs for the truck alternative, including upgrades to existing infrastructure and the acquisition of new equipment, would be approximately $2,737.2 million. Annual operating costs were estimated at approximately $271 million, and the annualized cost per ton of coal was estimated to be $103.86 (URS Corporation 2005a). A comparison of the estimated costs of trucking with the estimated costs for reconstruction of the coalslurry pipeline reveals that the capital costs and the annual operation and maintenance costs for trucking would be significantly greater, as shown in Table 2-7. The estimated costs of the trucking alternative include those associated with making substantial changes to the Mohave Generating Station in order to accept, handle, and burn dry coal rather than wet coal. However, use of dry coal at the Mohave Generating Station would require the facility to undergo a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) applicability determination that could result in the facility undergoing New Source Review under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This could result in a change of operations or the installation of additional airpollution-control equipment to meet best available control technology (BACT) emission standards. The costs of any such additional air-pollution-control equipment or changes in operations required by airpermitting activities have not been included in the cost estimates cited above. Financing costs also were not included.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-42

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-7 Comparison of Estimated Costs for Transporting Coal by Truck and by Coal Slurry
Type of Cost Capital cost ($ millions) Power plant facilities conversion2 ($ millions) Annual operation and maintenance ($ millions) Annualized cost per ton of coal4 Trucking 2,737.2 216.5 271.0 103.86 Coal Slurry1 379.0 to 414.0 NA 27.18 to 30.03 13.47 to 14.673

SOURCES: Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. 2005; Southern California Edison Company 2005; URS Corporation 2005a NOTES: 1 Includes reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline and development of the C-aquifer well field and water-supply pipeline. The range of costs represents the 108-mile-long eastern route (and two pump stations) and 137-mile­ long western route (and four pump stations) for the water-supply pipeline, and the 6,000 af/yr and 11,600 af/yr alternatives. 2 Conversion of the Mohave Generating Station facilities to accept and burn dry coal. 3 Includes cost of the coal-slurry pipeline ($24 million), annual water royalties to the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation ($5.4 million in 2006 dollars), and water-supply pipeline $3.18 to $6 million, based on the pipeline size and alternative route selected. 4 The annualized cost per ton of coal is calculated from the annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs divided by the annual coal tonnage. NA = not applicable

Finally, it should be recognized that, although not analyzed in detail, implementation of this alternative would entail serious adverse impacts such as disruption of local traffic patterns, traffic congestion particularly in commercial areas along the two-lane highways (U.S. Highways 160 and 89) and in the Laughlin area, public safety issues, noise from diesel engines and engine braking systems, and emissions from diesel engines and fugitive coal dust that would affect local air quality near roadways. 2.4.4.2 Rail Transportation

Over more than a decade, a number of studies have addressed the feasibility of using rail to transport coal from the Black Mesa Complex to the Mohave Generating Station (OSM 1990; USDI 1992, 1993; SCE 1994; Peabody 1997, 2003). The feasibility of delivering 5.4 million tons of coal from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station by a common-carrier railroad system—the BNSF Railway, the nearest major east-west rail line in the United States—was examined further for this EIS (Appendix E, URS Corporation 2005b). This potential option was found to be economically and technically impractical and was eliminated from further consideration as discussed below. To reach the BNSF main line from the Black Mesa mining operations, a 164-mile-long rail spur would have to be constructed south to Winslow, Arizona. The spur would run southwest along U.S. Highway 160, pass south of Tuba City, then follow the Little Colorado River southeast to Winslow. To reach the Mohave Generating Station from the BNSF main line also would require the construction of a rail spur north from the main line. Two options were analyzed: (1) an eastern approach of 35 miles from Franconia, Arizona, and (2) a western approach of 23 miles from west of Needles, California. The study identified and developed conceptual railroad-spur alignments based on previous studies with revisions as needed (Map 2-7). Capital costs for the railroad alternative include rail improvements, rail construction, rolling stock (i.e., locomotives, coal cars, etc.), and loading/unloading facilities at both ends of the rail line. Needed improvements to the BNSF’s 267-mile-long main line from Winslow to the eastern approach at Franconia would include 30 miles of new third main line track, side tracks, control points, interlockings, bridges, grade crossings, culverts, land for rights-of-way, etc., which were estimated to cost $141.0 million. For the western approach (from the main line west of Needles), an additional cost of $9.7 million would be added to the main line improvement costs.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-43

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Map 2-7 Conceptual Railroad Spur Alignments Capital construction costs for new spurs are estimated to be $821.1 million for the new spur from the Black Mesa to Winslow, $230.1 million for the eastern-approach spur from Franconia to the Mohave Generating Station, and $156.6 million for the western-approach spur from west of Needles to the Mohave Generating Station. New facilities needed at Black Mesa would include a new conveyor system from the mine to a new loadout facility that would include a new coal-storage silo, new loop track, and a new unit train loading facility. New facilities at the Mohave Generating Station would include new unloading facilities, trainservicing facilities, and the Mohave Generating Station would need to be converted to enable burning of dry coal. The new cost of Black Mesa and Mohave Generating Station facilities would total $397.3 million, including the plant conversion. The alternative would require substantial changes to the Mohave Generating Station in order to accept, handle, and burn dry coal rather than wet coal. As a result, use of dry coal at the Mohave Generating Station would require the facility to undergo a PSD applicability determination that could result in the facility undergoing New Source Review under the CAA. This could result in a change of operations or the installation of additional air-pollution-control equipment to meet BACT emission standards. The cost of any such additional air-pollution-control equipment or changes in operations required by air-permitting activities have not been included in the cost estimates cited above. Other capital start-up costs would include $67.5 million for four train sets (based on volume of coal transported, current train technology, and terrain encountered) plus spares consisting of 19 diesel locomotives and 550 gondola coal cars. The total capital cost would be $1,636.5 million and for the eastern approach to the Mohave Generating Station is $1,636.5 million and $1,572.7 million for the western approach. Estimates of the annual operating and maintenance cost for each of the alternative approaches were based on (1) an annual operating expense of $0.015 per revenue ton-mile, (2) annual operating revenue to BNSF of $0.0032 per revenue ton-mile (operating revenue of $0.0185 per ton-mile minus operating expense of $0.0153 per ton-mile) (based on cost data from the Association of American Railroads Railroad Facts,

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-44

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

2004 Edition). The total cost for operation and maintenance of the alternative from the Black Mesa Complex to Mohave Generating Station from the east via Franconia is estimated at $43.1 million, and for the alternative approach from the west is estimated at $45.0 million. The annualized cost per ton of coal, calculated from the annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs divided by the annual coal tonnage of 5.4 million tons, is estimated at $40.07 for the Black Mesa Complex to Mohave Generating Station approach from the east via Franconia and $39.18 for the alternative approach from the west. A comparison of the estimated costs of delivering coal by rail with the estimated costs for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline reveals that the costs for the rail option (without consideration of financing costs) are significantly greater, as shown in Table 2-8. Table 2-8 Comparison of Estimated Costs for Transporting Coal by 
 Rail and by Coal Slurry 

Type of Cost ($ millions) Capital cost Slurry pipeline reconstruction1 Water-supply system construction2 BNSF mainline improvements New spur from Black Mesa to Winslow New spur to Mohave Generating Station Unit train equipment (four train sets and spares) New facilities at load out and power plant including dry coal conversion Total capital cost Annual operation and maintenance Annualized cost per ton of coal3 Western Approach Railroad NA NA 150.7 821.1 156.6 67.5 397.3 1,572.7 45.0 40.07 Eastern Approach Railroad NA NA 141.0 821.1 230.1 67.5 397.3 1,636.5 43.1 39.18 Coal Slurry 200.0 179.0 to 214.0 NA NA NA NA NA 379.0 to 414.0 27.18 to 30.02 13.47 to 14.672

SOURCE: URS Corporation 2005b NOTES: 1 Includes coal-slurry pipeline ($24 million), annual water royalties to the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation ($5.4 million), and water-supply system $3.18 to $6 million, based on the pipeline size and alternative route selected. 2	 Includes well field, and the range represents the 108-mile-long eastern route (and two pump stations) and 137-mile­ long western route alternative (and four pump stations) water-supply pipeline routes, and the 6,000 af/yr and 11,600 af/yr alternatives. 3	 The annualized cost per ton of coal was calculated from the annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs divided by the annual coal tonnage. 
 BNSF -= BNSF Railway
 NA = not applicable 


The examination of the railroad option also revealed technical challenges. For example, in several locations, the maximum railroad gradient would exceed the 1.5 percent maximum specified in the design criteria. This would present challenges that might or might not be resolved with engineering. Population growth around Laughlin and Bullhead City has resulted in substantial residential and commercial development, and more development is planned. This would present challenges in acquiring rights-of-way for the rail spur to the power plant. With these unknowns, this option was deemed to be technically infeasible as well. Although not analyzed in detail, implementation of this alternative also would entail serious adverse impacts including impacts on safety, residential and commercial developments in the Laughlin and Bullhead City area, and nearby recreation areas, as well as impacts from noise and increased diesel-

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-45

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

engine emissions and fugitive coal dust. Other issues associated with construction and operation of the rail spurs would include potential impacts on cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties, wetlands, special status species, big game, and visual resources. 2.4.4.3 Other Media for Slurry

The use of methanol as a medium to transport coal to the Mohave Generating Station was suggested as an alternative to using water in the slurry. In a previous study, methanol, methane (CH4), and carbon dioxide (CO2) were considered for this purpose (USDI 1992). Transporting coal mixed with any one of these has not been studied in detail, and the technology remains unproven. For this reason, the use of methanol, CH4, or carbon dioxide was determined to be technically infeasible at this time and was eliminated from further study in this EIS. No commercial pipelines employ these technologies, nor have tests of these technologies been conducted. A test project would have to be constructed and operated before any of these media could be considered as a replacement for the coal-slurry. Tests would be required to provide the operating and cost data needed to design these commercial facilities and estimate their costs with an accuracy acceptable to an investor. Even without the benefit of tests, several issues make methanol, CH4, and CO2 operationally difficult and costly alternatives to water. Methanol could be produced at the mine by combining coal and water; however, making methanol would require more water than the coal-slurry pipeline would use (USDI 1992). Particulate pollution and the potential for explosion are other drawbacks to this option. Transporting the coal using CH4 or CO2 would require that coal be ground into even finer particles than it would be for the slurry. Methane and CO2 both would require special handling—coal preparation might have to be completed in an inert atmosphere, and similar handling could be required at the Mohave Generating Station. Also, the coal combined with CH4 could potentially cause combustion or explosion. The use of water eliminates the potential for particulates, combustion, or explosion. In addition, these three alternatives to water would require substantial modifications in coal preparation, pumping, pipeline design, dewatering, and power plant facilities. They would require construction and operation of production and storage facilities at the mine. The pipeline would have to be designed to contain the pressure required for CO2. Provisions would have to be made for venting or selling CO2, a greenhouse gas, once that gas was separated from the coal at the power plant. Finally, Mohave Generating Station’s fuel-handling equipment and boilers, at a minimum, would require substantial modification to burn coal conveyed by methanol, CH4, or carbon dioxide. Transporting coal with any type of gas would require substantially higher velocities than it does with water. As a result, the erosiveness of the coal-and-gas mixture could present a potential risk of pipeline failure. The high velocities in the pipeline also could “grind” the coal into finer particles making the ash after combustion more difficult to capture. Thus, there could be greater potential emissions of particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). 2.4.5 No Coal-Washing Facility

Comments received during scoping suggested that washing the coal before it is mixed into slurry is a waste of water and the coal-washing facility therefore should not be constructed. Under Alternative A, Peabody would build a coal-washing facility to clean the coal mined from the Black Mesa mining operation to remove rock and mineral matter in order to meet coal-quality requirements for the Mohave Generating Station. Originally, the boilers at the Mohave Generating Station were designed to accept coal with 8.9 percent ash content. As the ash content increases, plant downtime and maintenance

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-46

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

increase, resulting in decreased plant efficiency. For the past 19 years, the power plant has burned coal with an ash content averaging 10.1 percent (an annual high of 10.43 percent and an annual low of 9.79 percent). The average ash content for the first 16 years of the LOM revision is projected to increase to 11.75 percent. For the power plant to operate in a manner that is efficient and economically feasible, the coal must be washed to maintain a 9 percent or less ash to conform to the plant’s boiler specifications (Lehn 2005). Replacing the boilers to enable them to burn efficiently also would entail replacing all the associated equipment such as pulverizers, air preheaters, etc. Also, the ash handling, ash disposal, foundations, etc., would have to be changed or modified to handle the high ash content. Thus, the cost for this alternative probably would be in the range of $800 million to $1 billion. The water recovered after washing the coal would be reused. Since the coal-ash content would be reduced by the coal-washing process, the quantity of water required for delivering 9-percent-ash coal to the Mohave Generating Station would be less than the volume needed to deliver an equivalent quality of 11.75 percent ash coal in terms of British thermal units (BTUs). Moving the equivalent in a decreased usage of water estimated at about 100 to 150 af/yr of water. After washing, the water remaining on the recovered coal and refuse must be removed to reduce handling problems and recover the water for conservation and reuse in the preparation plant. Initial start-up of the preparation plant would require approximately 330 acre-feet. Thereafter, on an annual basis, water entering the plant as surface moisture on the 6.35 million tons of run-of-mine coal would be approximately 47 acre-feet. Water leaving the plant as surface moisture on the product coal (5.4 million tons) would amount to approximately 140 af/yr as surface moisture at 3.5 percent. Water leaving the plant as surface moisture on the coarse refuse (7.0 percent) and fine refuse (40.0 percent) would amount to approximately 226 af/yr. Due to more water leaving the preparation plant (processed coal and refuse) than entering (run-of-mine coal), this would result in a deficit of about 319 acre-feet of water. Therefore, make-up water demand on an annual basis for the preparation plant would be about 319 acre-feet plus an additional 5 acre-feet to offset losses due to evaporation, totaling 324 af/yr. In summary, some of this water would be lost to the atmosphere due to evaporation. However, the water not lost to evaporation would mean less water would be needed for the slurry. An annual water use of 500 af/yr for the coalwashing facility was estimated for the purpose of developing conservative water-use scenarios associated with groundwater modeling and impact projections. 2.4.6 Alternative Energy Sources and Energy Efficiency

Some participants in the Black Mesa Project scoping process pressed for consideration of energy conservation and development of alternative energy sources. Because this EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex to develop its coal leases, these concerns are outside the scope of OSM’s and the cooperating agencies’ authority and the scope of this EIS. However, the concerns have been addressed in a separate study conducted in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission Decision 04-12-016, issued on December 2, 2004. The study evaluates potential alternatives to, or complementary energy resources for, the Mohave Generating Station. The Final Study Report, issued by SCE in February 2006, considered the following generation resources: (1) integrated coal gasification/combined cycle (with CO2 capture and storage), (2) reflective solar dish, (3) wind, (4) natural-gas-fired combined cycle, and (5) other renewable resources (e.g., biomass or photovoltaics). Energy efficiency also was considered as an option. The report is available from SCE. 2.4.7 Construction of the C Aquifer Water-Supply System

Construction and operation of the C aquifer water-supply system was considered for Alternatives B and C. The C aquifer water-supply system would be constructed and up to 6,331 af/yr of C-aquifer water

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-47

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

would be withdrawn: up to 731 af/yr of water for mine-related purposes and up to 5,600 af/yr for tribal use (2,000 af/yr for the Hopi Tribe and 3,600 af/yr for the Navajo Nation). As in Alternative A, a minimum of 12 wells would be developed in the well field near Leupp, Arizona, to produce the 6,331 af/yr of C-aquifer water. The N aquifer would continue to supply up to 500 af/yr of water for minerelated and public uses and also would serve as an emergency standby source in case of interruptions or curtailments of the C-aquifer water supply for an extended period of time. When no longer needed for mine-related purposes, the 731 af/yr of water would be used by the Navajo Nation. Pumping the C aquifer by the tribes would continue for an estimated 50-year life of the pipeline (until 2060). The cost to construct, operate, and maintain a C aquifer water-supply system to supply 731 af/yr of water to the Black Mesa Complex would be very expensive. As discussed in Section 2.2.1.3, the cost of a C aquifer water-supply system under Alternative A to supply 6,000 af/yr of water to the Black Mesa Complex would range from $187.6 to $225.4 million. Although the cost of constructing a 731-af/yr water-supply system would be somewhat lower that the cost of constructing a 6,000 af/yr water-supply system, the cost would still be very high. Considering the relatively small amount of C-aquifer water that would be needed under Alternatives B and C (731 af/yr) and the expense of the system, the construction, operation, and maintenance of a C aquifer water-supply system under Alternatives B and C would be economically infeasible. 2.4.8 Reduced-Mining Alternative

Comments on the Draft EIS requested that OSM analyze a Reduced-Mining Alternative under which coal production would be reduced, and the water needed for the project would be obtained from alternative water sources other than the N aquifer, such as the Colorado River, groundwater basins near the coalslurry pipeline, and gray water from Flagstaff and Phoenix. The amount of coal produced under Alternatives B and C (8.5 million tons per year) would be less than what would be produced under Alternative A (a total of 14.85 tons per year) and therefore would require less water. Production of 8.5 million tons per year cannot be reduced, as this is the amount that is needed for the Navajo Generating Station to operate efficiently. Producing less than 8.5 million tons of coal per year would not meet the purpose and need of the project to supply coal to the Navajo Generating Station. The Kayenta mining operation is the sole supplier for the Navajo Generating Station, and the Navajo Generating Station is its sole customer. 2.4.9 Hybrid Water Alternative

Comments on the Draft EIS requested that OSM analyze a Hybrid-Water Alternative that would combine portions of various water sources, such as gray water from Tuba City, Flagstaff, or Phoenix supplemented by D-aquifer water. This alternative would overcome the shortfall of gray water from Flagstaff and water from the D aquifer alone, instead of combining the two to sufficiently provided water for coal-slurrying purposes. In addition, the commenters noted that OSM did not consider alternatives that adopt reclamation technologies to reduce the total amount of water needed, regardless of the source. The construction of a multisource gray and nongray water system would be prohibitively expensive. For reclaiming areas disturbed by mining activities, Peabody uses arid-land revegetation techniques and native vegetation species for revegetation because they are adapted to the semidesert environment at the Black Mesa Complex. Peabody takes advantage of natural precipitation by executing seeding and mulching operations immediately prior to the monsoon rain season; no supplemental irrigation or additional water is required or used during the seeding, planting, and mulching operations.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-48

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

2.4.10 No Mining Alternative Comments on the Draft EIS indicated that OSM did not address an alternative that disallows mining at the Black Mesa Complex. Ending mining at the Black Mesa Complex is not an option at this time. As stated under Alternative C, the disapproval alternative, the Kayenta mining operation has OSM-approved mining, operation, and reclamation plans that allow it to produce all of the coal needed by the Navajo Generating Station through 2026. Contractually, the Kayenta mining operation is the sole supplier of coal for the Navajo Generating Station, and the Navajo Generating Station is its sole customer. 2.4.11 New Customer for Black Mesa Coal Alternative Comments on the Draft EIS requested that OSM assess the impact of supplying the coal (6.35 million tons per year), planned for delivery to the Mohave Generating Station under Alternative A, to an alternative customer. At this time, Peabody has not indicated that new customers are being considered for the coal from the Black Mesa mining operation. Although, under Alternative B, the unmined coal resources would be incorporated into the permanent program permit area, mining of these coal resources would not be authorized until Peabody proposed that these resources be mined and BLM and OSM approved this mining. Without knowing a new customer’s purpose and need for purchasing and using the coal, the amount and quality of coal needed per year, and a plan for mining and transporting the coal, impacts associated with the potential transaction cannot be projected. If and when there is such a proposal, associated actions (e.g., BLM and OSM review of mining plan and mine operation and reclamation plan revisions, development and construction of a means of transportation of the coal to its destination) will require review under NEPA. 2.4.12 No-Sacred-Springs-or-Sites Alternative Comments on the Draft EIS recommended that OSM consider an alternative that permits mining only in areas that do not destroy or deface springs and sites that are sacred to tribal communities. The 20-year Black Mesa Archaeological Project, conducted between 1967 and 1986, fulfilled OSM’s obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA for the Black Mesa Project. Pursuant to terms and conditions of the current LOM Permit AZ-0001D that OSM renewed on July 6, 2005, Peabody continues to take into account any sacred and ceremonial sites brought to the attention of Peabody by local residents, clans, or tribal government representatives of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation (Special Condition 1). Because impacts on any sacred springs and seeps are being addressed pursuant to that permit condition, development of another alternative is unwarranted. 2.4.13 Lower-Emissions Coal Power Generation Alternative Comments on the Draft EIS suggested that there is lack of analysis of an alternative requiring that Black Mesa coal be burned in a “clean coal plant,” “which the Navajo Generating Station clearly is not.” Contractually, the Kayenta mining operation is the sole supplier of coal for the Navajo Generating Station, and the Navajo Generating Station is its sole customer. The Kayenta mining operation has OSMapproved mining, operation, and maintenance plans that allow it to produce all of the coal needed by the Navajo Generating Station through 2026. There are no decisions to be made regarding the Navajo Generating Station. Therefore, an alternative to address lower-emissions coal power generation is outside the scope of this EIS.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-49

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

2.4.14 No-Relocation Alternative Comments on the Draft EIS suggested that OSM consider an alternative that would allow mining in areas that would not require relocation of Navajo households. Under Alternative A, 17 residences (households) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled through 2026. Under Alternative B, 5 residences would be relocated through 2026 and, if mining continues beyond 2026, an 11 additional residences would be relocated through approximately 2040 when Peabody would reach the 670-million-ton total specified in the lease agreement. These residences are all within the leased area. The lease agreement is between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when the need to resettle residences due to mining activities becomes necessary, Peabody coordinates with the Navajo Nation. These households have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation outside of Black Mesa; or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. OSM has no authority over the coal-mining leases and, therefore, has no decision authority over resettling residences. 2.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 2-9, at the end of this chapter, is a summary of selected issues and concerns identified through the scoping process for the EIS and the magnitude of impacts that would occur under the three alternative actions. Given an understanding of the project actions proposed (see description of the project in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 and Appendix A) and the inventoried resource information reflecting the existing environment (Chapter 3), each resource was assessed to determine the impacts that could result from the project (Chapter 4). The levels of impacts summarized in Table 2-9 (and in Chapter 4) reflect the incorporation of measures that render the impacts less intense or severe. These measures include best management practices, conservation measures, and other mitigating measures the applicants commit to employ; are part of the project description and are described in Chapter 4 (see Section 4.18) and Appendix A. 2.6 AGENCIES’ PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The lead and cooperating agencies’ preferred alternative is Alternative B, approval of Peabody’s 2008 LOM revision, which includes adding 18,857 acres to the permanent permit area, revising the operation and reclamation plan, approving changes to the mining plan for the Hopi and Navajo coal leases, and using an average of 1,236 af/yr of N-aquifer water. Coal would no longer be supplied to the Mohave Generating Station from the Black Mesa Complex. Approval of the LOM revision would incorporate the unmined coal-resource areas from the initial Indian Lands Program area into the permanent permit area; however, approval of the LOM revision would not authorize mining of those coal-resource areas.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-50

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Landforms and Topography Impact on landforms and Black Mesa topographic diversity Complex

Summary of Impacts by Alternative
Alternative A Alternative B Permanent impact for 6,942 acres, but the disturbance is mitigated by site restoration because of the new landscape constructed; minor longterm impact. NA Alternative C Same as Alternative B.

Permanent impact for 12,409 acres, but the disturbance is mitigated by site restoration because of the new landscape constructed; minor long-term impact. No short- or long-term impact anticipated where reconstruction would be in existing right-of-way; negligible to no short- or long-term impact along the Moenkopi Wash realignments and Kingman reroute. Negligible to no short- or long-term impact anticipated along the eastern route; minor short- and long-term impact along the western route where more topographic relief would be crossed (e.g., Red Rock Cliffs, Ward Terrace, Coal Mine Canyon). Existing geology in upper 250 feet of mined areas (12,409 acres) would be disturbed permanently, but the disturbance is mitigated by site restoration because of the new landscape constructed; minor longterm impact. No impact on geological resources anticipated (either route). No impact on geological resources anticipated (either route). Coal: Coal resources in the Wepo Formation would be produced for economic purposes; no impact on coal resources below 250 feet (Toreva and Dakota Sandstone formations). Other minerals: No impact on other mineral of economic value anticipated.

Coal-slurry pipeline

NA

Water-supply system

NA

NA

Geology and Minerals Impacts on geological resources

Black Mesa Complex

Permanent impact for 6,942 acres in the upper 250 feet of mined area; minor long-term impact.

Same as Alternative B.

Impacts on mineral resources of economic value (coal, uranium and vanadium, oil and gas)

Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex

NA NA

NA NA

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area.

Same as Alternative B.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-51

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) Impacts on paleontological Black Mesa resources Complex Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) Soils Impacts on soil productivity Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) Water Resources (Hydrology) Degradation of surface Black Mesa water quality from Complex discharges and sediment Coal-slurry contribution pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative B NA NA NA NA Alternative C

Alternative A No impact anticipated (either route). No impact anticipated (either route).

No impact on unique and important fossil specimens anticipated. No impact on unique and important fossil specimens anticipated (either route). No impact on unique and important fossil specimens anticipated (either route).

No impact on unique and important fossil specimens anticipated. NA NA

No impact on unique and important fossil specimens anticipated. NA NA

Permanent for 13,529 acres, improved productivity long term. Minor impact anticipated in the short and long term (either route). Minor impact anticipated in the short and long term (either route).

Permanent for 8,062 acres, improved productivity long term. NA NA

Same as Alternative B. NA NA

Changes in stream-channel morphology

Coal-slurry pipeline

Negligible; impacts would be infrequent and small magnitude. Negligible to no impact anticipated in the short term; no impact in the long term (either route). Negligible to no impact anticipated in the short term; no impact in the long term (either route). Negligible; impacts of the mine drainage system on the natural stream patterns would be mostly temporary and confined to the Black Mesa Complex. Negligible impact anticipated in the short term; no impact in the long term.

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area. NA

Same as Alternative B. NA

NA

NA

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area.

Same as Alternative B.

NA

NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-52

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Water-supply system (infrastructure) Impacts on volume of Black Mesa stream flow Complex

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative B NA NA Alternative C

Alternative A Negligible impact anticipated in the short term; no impact long term. The change in stream flow is so small that it would be difficult to measure, leading to the conclusion that there would be negligible impact from surface-water diversion, impoundments, and sediment ponds on the Black Mesa Complex. No impact anticipated in the short and long term. No impact anticipated in the short and long term.

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area.

Same as Alternative B.

Impacts on the Wepo and alluvial aquifer levels and water quality

Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex

NA NA

NA NA

• Some minor impact on local
groundwater levels in coal seam and shallow alluvial aquifers anticipated during mining; however, the impact would lessen after reclamation is complete. Impact on shallow groundwater due to mine dewatering would be negligible. Reduction in recharge would be immeasurable; therefore, negligible to no impact anticipated on the quantity of recharge on alluvial aquifers. Chemical reaction of groundwater with spoil material could result in moderate to minor water-quality impacts on local wells, increasing levels of salinity and trace elements to a level that decrease usability. Peabody would be required to provide alternative water supplies to any wells rendered unusable. Any poor-quality water discharges into streams would be diluted to negligible levels since streams generally flow only

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area.

Same as Alternative B.

• •

•

•

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-53

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative B Alternative C

Impacts of groundwater pumping

Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) C aquifer

Alternative A after precipitation events. • Negligible to no impact from infiltration of surface-water runoff; runoff from mine facilities using petroleum products and hazardous materials treated with stormwater pollution prevention structures (and SPCC plan in place) are not allowed to infiltrate groundwater. Negligible to no impact anticipated in the short and long term. Negligible to no impact anticipated in the short and long term. Pumping costs (6,000 af/yr): Negligible impact anticipated in the short and long term. Pumping costs (11,600 af/yr): Negligible impact anticipated in the short and long term. Reduction in aquifer thickness (6,000 af/yr): Negligible impact anticipated during mining; no impact after mining. Reduction in aquifer thickness (11,600 af/yr): Negligible impact anticipated during and after mining. Streams and springs (6,000 af/yr): Negligible impact anticipated during mining; no impact after mining. Streams and springs (11,600 af/yr): Negligible impact anticipated during mining; negligible after mining. Water quality (6,000 af/yr): No impact anticipated during or after mining. Water quality (11,600 af/yr): No impact anticipated during mining; negligible after mining.

NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-54

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern N aquifer

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative B Negligible impact anticipated in the short term; no impact in the long term. Alternative C Same as Alternative B.

Alternative A Pumping costs: Negligible impact anticipated during mining; no impact after mining for 505-af/yr and 2,000-af/yr pumping scenarios. Minor impact anticipated during mining, no impact anticipated after mining for 6,000-af/yr pumping scenario. Streams and springs: Negligible impact anticipated during mining; no impact after mining. Water quality: No impact anticipated during mining for 505 af/yr and 2,000-af/yr pumping scenarios. Minor impact anticipated during mining; no impact in the long term for 6,000-af/yr pumping scenario. Negligible impact anticipated in the short term. Minor impact anticipated locally; negligible regionally.

Negligible impact anticipated in the short term, no impact in the long term. No impact anticipated in the short and long term.

Same as Alternative B.

Same as Alternative B.

Climate Impacts on macroclimate and microclimate Air Impacts of particulate matter (PM10) from mining activity; PM10, criteria and hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicle and equipment exhaust Impacts of particulate matter from mining activity; PM10, criteria and hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicle and equipment exhaust

Region

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Black Mesa Complex

No increase in emissions.

No increase in emissions.

Coal-slurry pipeline and water-supply system

Minor impact anticipated locally and negligible regionally during construction (two years); negligible to no impact in the long term.

NA

NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-55

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Vegetation Impacts on vegetation Black Mesa structure and composition Complex Coal-slurry pipeline

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative A Alternative B Similar to Alternative A, but for asmaller area. NA Alternative C Same as Alternative B.

Water-supply system

Impacts on species diversity

Impacts on culturally important species

Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex

Major impact anticipated in the short and long term; generally beneficial impacts result from reclamation. Major impact anticipated in the short term; minor in the long term; moderate in the long term for piñon/juniper woodland (either route). C-aquifer well field: Moderate to minor impact anticipated in the short term; minor in the long term. Other C aquifer water-supply system infrastructure: Major impact in the short term; minor in the long term (either route). Minor impact anticipated in the short and long term. Minor to negligible impact anticipated in the short and long term. Minor to negligible impact anticipated in the short and long term. Moderate impact anticipated during operations; minor to moderate impact anticipated (depending on how easily species reestablish) following reclamation. Minor impact anticipated in the short and long term. Minor impact anticipated in the short and long term. Minor impact anticipated in the short term; negligible in the long term. Negligible short and long term (either route). C-aquifer pumping (6,000 af/yr): No impact. C-aquifer pumping (11,600 af/yr): No

NA

NA

NA

Similar to Alternative A, but for smaller area. NA NA

Same as Alternative B. NA NA

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area.

Same as Alternative B.

Impacts on riparian vegetation

Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline Water supply

NA NA

NA NA

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area. NA NA

Same as Alternative B. NA NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-56

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative B Alternative C

Impacts of noxious weeds and invasive species

Impacts on threatened, endangered, and special status species

Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply

Alternative A impact anticipated in the short term; minor in the long term N-aquifer pumping: Minor impact anticipated in the short and long term. C-aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either route): Negligible impact anticipated in the short and long term. Minor impact anticipated in the short and long term. Minor impact anticipated in the short and long term (either route). Moderate to minor impact anticipated in the short and long term (either route). No impact. Minor to negligible short and long term (either route). C aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either route); Minor to no impact short and long term (either route). N-aquifer pumping: Minor to negligible impact on Navajo sedge Woodland: Major during operations, moderate following reclamation. Nonwoodland: Major short term, moderate and beneficial long term. Rock outcrop: Major short term, moderate to minor long term. Major impact anticipated in the short term; moderate impact anticipated in the long term (either route). Major impact anticipated in the short term, moderate long term (either route).

Same as Alternative A. NA

Same as Alternative A. NA

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area. NA NA

Same as Alternative B. NA NA

No impact. NA NA

No impact. NA NA

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Fish and Wildlife Impacts on terrestrial habitats and wildlife

Black Mesa Complex

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area.

Same as Alternative B.

Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure)

NA

NA

NA

NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-57

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Impacts on game species Black Mesa and burros Complex Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex No impact.

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative A NA NA Alternative B NA NA Alternative C

Moderate to minor impact anticipated in the short term; negligible in the long term (either route). No impact.

NA

NA

Impacts on bighorn sheep

NA Major to moderate impact anticipated in the short term; minor to negligible in the long term (either route). NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Impacts on raptors

Impacts on riparian habitats and species

Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure)

Woodland: Minor impact anticipated in the short term; moderate to minor impact in the long term. Open country: Minor impact anticipated in the short term; moderate and beneficial in the long term. Minor impact anticipated in the short and long term (either route). Minor impact anticipated in the short term and negligible in the long term (either route). Minor to negligible impact anticipated in the short term. Negligible to no impact anticipated in the short and long term (either route). Negligible to no impact anticipated in the short and long term (either route).

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area.

Same as Alternative B.

NA NA

NA NA

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area. NA NA

Same as Alternative B. NA NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-58

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Impacts on aquatic Black Mesa habitats and species Complex (including impoundments on Black Mesa Complex) Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply System (infrastructure) Impacts on threatened and Black Mesa endangered Complex Coal-slurry pipeline Water supply

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative B Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area. NA NA Alternative C Same as Alternative B.

Alternative A Beneficial short and long term due to development of impoundments and planting vegetation at impoundments.. Minor to negligible short term, no impact long term (either route). Minor short term, negligible long term (either pipeline route) Minor to no impact short and long term; Minor to negligible impact on Mexican spotted owl. Minor to no impact short and long term (either route). C-aquifer pumping (6,000 af/yr): No impact. C-aquifer pumping (11,600 af/yr): No impacts anticipated in the short term; minor to moderate in the long term on Little Colorado River spinedace and roundtail chub; minor to negligible impact anticipated on Southwest willow flycatcher. N-aquifer pumping: No impact anticipated in the short term; minor in the long term. C-aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either route): No impact. Minor to negligible impact anticipated in the short and long term. Moderate to no impact anticipated in the short term; negligible to no impact anticipated in the long term (either route). Moderate to no impact anticipated in the short term; negligible to no impact anticipated in the long term (either route).

NA NA

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area. NA NA

Same as Alternative B.

NA NA

Impacts on other special status species

Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure)

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area. NA

Same as Alternative B. NA

NA

NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-59

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Land Use Impacts on residential uses Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative A Alternative B Impacts from relocation of five residences (households) have potential to be major. NA Alternative C Same as Alternative B.

Impacts from relocation of 17 residences (households) have potential to be major. Existing route: Level of impact varies depending on population density. During construction, structures (residences or outbuildings) would be avoided, but temporarily impeded access and ground disturbance of properties could result in minor to no impacts. Route passes through dense land uses in Kingman and Laughlin areas. Negligible to no impact anticipated in the long term. Existing route with realignments: Impacts would be similar to the existing route except the Kingman reroute would avoid higher-density residential areas. The reroute would pass adjacent to three low- to moderate-density residential areas. Minor to no impacts anticipated in the short term. Negligible to no impact anticipated in the long term. Eastern route: Minor to negligible impact anticipated in the short term; no impact in the long term. The subalternative that passes through Kykotsmovi would affect an area of greater density than the subalternative that bypasses Kykotsmovi. Western route: Generally the same as the eastern route. Moderate impacts anticipated due torelocation of 17 residences (households) during mining activities and reclamation. Livestock grazing improved after reclamation.

NA

Water-supply system (infrastructure)

NA

NA

Impacts on livestock grazing and agriculture

Black Mesa Complex

Similar to Alternative A, but relocation of five residences (households) and less land would be mined and reclaimed (loss of opportunity for improved livestock grazing).

Same as Alternative B.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-60

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Coal-slurry pipeline

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative B NA NA Alternative C

Water-supply system (infrastructure)

Impacts on commercial and industrial uses

Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline

Alternative A Minor to negligible impacts would result from impeded access and property disturbance during construction. Negligible to no impact in the long term (either route). Eastern route: Minor impact anticipated in the short term. Negligible to no impact in the long term. Western route: Impacts would be similar to eastern route, but because the route is longer, more forage would be removed during construction. Minor impact anticipated in the short term; no impacts in the long term. No impact. Existing route: Minor to negligible impact would result from impeded access and property disturbance during construction; negligible to no impact in the long term. Existing route with realignments: Shortterm impacts would be similar to existing route; negligible to no impacts in the long term. No impact.

NA

NA

Same as Alternative A. NA

Same as Alternative A. NA

Impacts on archaeological and historical resources

Water-supply system (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system

NA

NA

Minor impact anticipated. Moderate impact anticipated (either route). Continued use of N aquifer (any volume): No impact. C-aquifer well field: Minor impact anticipated. Other C aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either route): Moderate impact anticipated.

No impact. NA Continued use of N aquifer (any volume): No impact. C-aquifer well field: No impact. Other C aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either route): Moderate impact anticipated. No impact.

No impact. .NA Same as Alternative B.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-61

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Impacts on traditional Black Mesa cultural resources Complex (including human burials) Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative B Same as Alternative A. NA Continued use of N aquifer (any volume): No impact. C-aquifer well field: No impact. Other C aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either alternative route): No impact. Alternative C Same as Alternative A. NA Same as Alternative B.

Alternative A Coal mining: Moderate impact anticipated. Coal-haul road: No impact. Moderate impact anticipated (either alternative route). Continued use of N aquifer (any volume): No impact. C-aquifer well field: Minor impact anticipated. Other C aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either alternative route): Moderate impact anticipated.

Social and Economic Conditions Black Mesa Impacts on employment Complex and income

• Major beneficial short term (resumption • • • •
of Black Mesa mining operation). Major adverse long term (upon cessation of all mining, which would occur regardless of the proposed action). Both short term and long term, other jobs and income that result from multiplier effects would be affected. Minor beneficial, temporary (2 years), during the coal-washing facility construction phase. Minor beneficial income effect from improved grazing forage yields on reclaimed land.

• Major adverse, long-term
impact anticipated (upon cessation of mining – Kayenta mining operation only, which would occur regardless of the proposed action). • Both short- and long-term impact anticipated, other jobs and income that result from multiplier effects would be affected. • Minor beneficial (less than Alternative A) income effect from improved grazing forage yields on reclaimed land. NA

Same as Alternative B.

Coal-slurry pipeline

Water-supply system (infrastructure)

Beneficial, short-term (two years) impact anticipated during construction. Major impact anticipated in the local area; moderate in the region. If C aquifer water-supply system constructed, beneficial, short-term (two years) impact anticipated during construction. Major impact anticipated in the local area (either route); moderate in the region.

NA

NA

NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-62

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative B Alternative C

Impacts on revenue to governmental entities

Black Mesa Complex

Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system (infrastructure) Impacts on economic development Black Mesa Complex

Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system

Alternative A If C aquifer water-supply system constructed, minor short-term impact anticipated during operations. • Major beneficial impact anticipated in the short term (resumption of Black Mesa mining operation). • Major adverse impact anticipated in the long term (upon cessation of mining, which would occur regardless of the proposed action), especially to Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. Beneficial, short-term (two years) impact anticipated during construction. Major impact, especially sales tax receipts. If C aquifer water-supply system is constructed, minor impact anticipated in the short term; right-of-way tax revenue during operations. In the short term, the mining revenues and other jobs and income in local support services would have a minor beneficial effect on economic development. In the long term, those services might support industries other than mining; a potential minor beneficial effect. No impact. If C aquifer water-supply system is con­ structed, major beneficial impact anticipated; such as less concern that Naquifer water withdrawals for miningrelated purposes would interfere with water use for tribal economic development. Minor benefit anticipated from associated road improvements. If maximum N-aquifer water supply used, major adverse impact anticipated;

Major adverse impact anticipated in the long term (upon cessation of mining – Kayenta operation only, which would occur regardless of the proposed action).

Same as Alternative B.

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA NA

NA NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-63

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative A continuation of concern that water withdrawals for mining-related purposes interfere with water use for tribal economic development. Moderate adverse impact on residents in or near mining complex who live a traditional lifestyle; continued mining (including Black Mesa operation) now permitted continues adverse effects.

Environmental Justice Black Mesa Complex Minor benefit to residents in or near the Black Mesa Complex who live a traditional lifestyle; mining of coal-resource areas in the initial Indian Lands Program area (Black Mesa mining operation area) would not occur under the LOM revision; surface facilities would continue to be used. NA Moderate benefit to residents in or near Black Mesa Complex who live a traditional lifestyle; shutdown of mining within the initial Indian Lands Program area Black Mesa operation ends its adverse effects. NA

Coal-slurry pipeline

Water-supply system Noise and Vibration Impacts from noise Black Mesa Complex

Negligible adverse short-term effect of construction on traditional economy and plants and animals important to Hopi and Navajo culture. Minor beneficial effect of associated road improvements. Moderate to minor impact anticipated; depending on distance to mining operations.

NA

NA

Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system

Moderate impact anticipated, but very short term for a small number of residences (during construction). C-aquifer well field: Negligible to minor impact anticipated during construction; negligible for life of the mining operations. Other C aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either route): Negligible to minor impact anticipated during construction; negligible for life of the mining operations.

Moderate to minor impact anticipated; depending on distance to mining operations. Fewer persons affected than for Alternative A. NA

Same as Alternative B.

NA

NA

NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-64

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Impacts from vibration Black Mesa Complex

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative B Moderate to minor temporary impact anticipated for a smaller number of residences than in Alternative A. NA Alternative C Moderate to minor temporary impact anticipated for a smaller number of residences than in Alternative A or B. NA

Alternative A Moderate to minor temporary impact anticipated, for a small number of residences.

Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system

Negligible to no impact anticipated during construction; residences far enough away to prevent greater impacts. C-aquifer well field: Negligible to no impact anticipated in the short and long term. Other C-aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either route): Major temporary impact if blasting is required during construction. Moderate to minor short term, negligible to no impact long term. Moderate to negligible for residential views during construction and reclamation. Negligible (except minor in small amount of Class A landscape area) long term. C-aquifer well field: Minor to negligible impact anticipated except moderate where view of water-storage tank detracts. Other C aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either route): Moderate long-term impact where views of pump stations detract. Minor to no impact anticipated elsewhere. Negligible impact anticipated in the short and long term. Minor to no impact anticipated during construction.

NA

NA

Visual Resources Impacts on scenic quality

Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline

Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area. NA

Same as Alternative B. NA

Water-supply system

NA

NA

Transportation Impacts on traffic and transportation

Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline

Same as Alternative A. NA

Same as Alternative A. NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-65

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Water-supply system Recreation Impacts on recreation

Summary of Impacts by Alternative (continued)
Alternative B NA NA Alternative C

Alternative A Minor to no impact anticipated during construction. Minor to negligible beneficial effects from new roads. Negligible impact anticipated in the short and long term. Negligible impact anticipated in the short and long term. Negligible impact anticipated in the short and long term.

Black Mesa Complex Coal-slurry pipeline Water-supply system

Negligible impact anticipated in the short and long term. NA NA

Negligible impact anticipated in the short and long term. NA NA

NOTES: NA = not applicable. In Alternatives B and C, the Black Mesa mining operation, coal-slurry preparation plant, and coal-slurry pipeline that supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station until the end of 2005 would not resume. The coal-washing facility, the 127-acre coal-haul road, and water-supply system, in any configuration, would not be constructed. Levels of impact intensity are negligible (at lower levels of detection), minor (detectable, but slight), moderate (readily apparent environmental effects), and major (severe adverse or exceptional beneficial environmental effects. Unless otherwise stated as a “beneficial” impact, the impacts described would be adverse. af/yr = acre-feet per year Short term = For the Black Mesa Complex, the local short-term impacts are those that would occur from the beginning of mining through reclamation when vegetation is re-established; for the coal-slurry pipeline and C aquifer water-supply system, 5 years (construction and reclamation). Long term = For the Black Mesa Complex, impacts that would persist beyond or occur after reclamation; for the coal-slurry pipeline and C aquifer water-supply system, beyond 5 years. The terms major, moderate, minor, negligible, or none that follow, consider the anticipated magnitude, or importance, of impacts, including those on the human environment. Major: Impacts that potentially could cause irretrievable loss of a resource; significant depletion, change, or stress to resources; or stress within the social, cultural, and economic realm. Degradation of a resource defined by laws, regulations, and/or policy. Moderate: Impacts that potentially could cause some change or stress (ranging between significant and insignificant) to an environmental resource or use; readily apparent effects. Minor: Impacts that potentially could be detectable but slight. Negligible: Impacts in the lower limit of detection that potentially could cause an insignificant change or stress to an environmental resource or use. None: No discernible or measurable impacts. 	

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

2-66

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

c pe 3 ha t r

a f c e e i onme fe t d nv r nt

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

In accordance with NEPA regulations codified at 40 CFR 1502.15, this chapter presents a summary of the existing conditions of the human and natural environments in the areas that potentially could be affected. This information serves as the baseline to assess the impacts that are anticipated to result from implementing the proposed Black Mesa Project or alternatives. The affected environment is characterized for the following resources, land uses, and social and economic conditions: 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 Landforms and Topography Geology and Mineral Resources Soil Resources Water Resources (Hydrology) Climate Air Quality Vegetation Fish and Wildlife Land Use Cultural Resources 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 Social and Economic Conditions Environmental Justice Indian Trust Assets Noise and Vibration Visual Resources Transportation Recreation Health and Safety

These topics were selected based on Federal regulatory requirements and policies, concerns of the lead and cooperating agencies, and/or issues expressed by agencies and the public during scoping. The existing conditions of the environment are described based on recent available data—primarily literature, published and unpublished reports, and agency databases. Field reconnaissance verified data gathered for land use, visual resources, vegetation, and fish and wildlife. Intensive field surveys were conducted to inventory cultural resources along the coal-slurry and water-supply pipeline routes. Field visits and interviews were conducted to identify traditional Hopi, Hualapai, and Navajo lifeways and traditional cultural resources. The areas where different project components are or would be located were examined with varying degrees of scrutiny and at different scales for each resource. For example, air quality or socioeconomic conditions are analyzed over broad areas, while other analyses focus on more specific resource areas, such as a stream, a view, or an archaeological site. In areas of broader focus, specific project components are not necessarily addressed, or are addressed as a group.

3.1

LANDFORMS AND TOPOGRAPHY

The project study area is located within two areas having distinct topographic and geological characteristics—the Colorado Plateau and the Basin and Range physiographic provinces. The provinces are separated by a transition zone that has some of the characteristics of both provinces (Map 3-1). The Colorado Plateau is defined by an abrupt change in elevation, coincident with uplifted and gently folded sedimentary layers internal to the plateau, and steep-sided valleys that incise the plateau’s perimeter. The Colorado Plateau province is higher in elevation than surrounding provinces, with elevations generally between 5,000 and 7,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The Arizona part of the province is drained by the Little Colorado River. West and southwest of the study area the Colorado Plateau descends to the Basin and Range province, an area characterized by lower elevations and steeper relief. The steep mountains are formed by faultblocked and tilted basement rocks and sedimentary formations. The intermontane valleys are deep
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-1 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

sedimentary basins filled with alluvial deposits. Mountain elevations range from 4,000 to 5,000 feet above MSL, while the valleys range from 3,000 to a low of 500 feet above MSL at Davis Dam on the Colorado River. The Colorado Plateau and the Basin and Range provinces are separated by a transition zone that has intermediate physiographic and geologic properties. The transition zone is not a formal province, but an area where the steep drop-off in elevation is concentrated. In the study area, the transition zone first becomes obvious at the Aubrey Cliffs near Seligman, Arizona. The western boundary of the transition zone might be defined by the Grand Wash Cliffs and the adjacent Hualapai Valley, northeast of Kingman. This is reflected in the change of elevation between Seligman (at 5,250 feet above MSL) and Kingman (at 3,336 feet above MSL). 3.1.1 Black Mesa Complex

Black Mesa is a massive highland in northeastern Arizona within the Colorado Plateau that covers approximately 2.1 million acres. It rises abruptly in a 1,200- to 2,000-foot-high uneven wall along its northern boundary, then slopes southwestward through gently rolling hills toward the Little Colorado River. The maximum elevation at the northern rim of the mesa is approximately 8,200 feet above MSL. The Black Mesa Complex is located on the northern portion of Black Mesa, south of Kayenta. Elevations of the Black Mesa Complex range from about 7,200 feet above MSL on the northeast to 6,100 feet above MSL on the southwest. The topography is characterized by gently rolling hills on a relatively flat mesa that slopes to the southwest at a gradient of about 70 feet per mile. Four major steep-sided, deep washes cut the Black Mesa Complex from the northeast to the southwest and direct surface drainage to the southwest: Yellow Water Canyon and Coal Mine Wash on the north, Moenkopi Wash in the center, and Dinnebito Wash to the south. The steep canyons cut by the washes are narrow, with several small terraces developed only in the wider portions of the washes in the southwestern part of the Black Mesa Complex. There is generally minor accumulation of alluvial material in those washes. Coal exposed on the steep sides of those washes in several locations has burned in place to form outcrops of massive baked shale and sandstone that is called clinker or scoria and is resistant to erosion. Weathering of the less resistant surrounding rock has formed steep rounded buttes of hard shale and sandstone outcrops and clinker material in the area of the Black Mesa Complex. In the coal-mining areas within the Black Mesa Complex, surface mining of overburden and subsurface coal resources has removed up to 250 feet of rock and effectively destroyed the structure and sedimentary layers, to near the base of the Wepo Formation. Mining also has altered topographic features, such as slope gradient and surface-drainage patterns. Through 2007, approximately 16,741 acres had been disturbed by the Kayenta mining operation and 7,067 acres had been disturbed by the Black Mesa mining operation. Restoration of mining sites to the approximate original contour is required by SMCRA. Mined areas are backfilled and graded to approximate the original topographic relief. The approximate original contour restoration is designed to reestablish the drainage pattern to approximate original conditions and to blend in with the surrounding unmined areas. Restored areas generally have smoother contours with less topographic relief than the original topography, and no pronounced landforms (e.g., no cliffs, steep buttes, or narrow canyons).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-2

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-1_Geology_Resources.pdf(par)

Nevada

Utah

Lincoln Geologic Formations and Ages County

Washington County

Kane County

Map 3-1 Map 2-1
San Juan County

Q Qy Qo

Quaternary alluvium Quaternary younger alluvium Quaternary older alluvium

Jm Js Jgc Trc Trcs Trm

Jurassic Morrison Formation Jurassic San Rafael Group Jurassic Glen Canyon Group Triassic Chinle Formation Triassic Shinarump Triassic Moenkopi Formation Permian Rocks Pennsylvanian rocks Mississippian-Cambrian rocks Middle Preterozoic granites Early Preterozoic granites Early Proterozoic metamorphic rocks
Blac k

Geology
Black Mesa Project EIS

Utah Arizona
Page

QTb Quaternary-Tertiary basalt QTv Tb Tby Tg Tsy Tsm Tso Tv Tvy TKg Quaternary-Tertiary volcanics Tertiary basalts

Nevada

Tertiary basalts Tertiary granite

P

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d

Kayenta Tsegi

LEGEND
Geology
Jm Physiographic Province

Me s

Arizona

a

PP MC Yg Xg Xm

an

Tertiary younger sedimentary rocks Clark County Tertiary middle sedimentary rocks Tertiary older sedimentary rocks Tertiary Volcanics Tertiary Volcanics Cretaceous-Tertiary granites

La ke

Js

0 13

Thief Rock PS

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Project Features
Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area

0 12

Clark

Xms Early Proterozoic metamorphic rocks Xmv Early Proterozoic metavolcanics YXg Early-Middle Proterozoic granites

90
30

Apache County

lo Co

rad

r ive oR

a d 10

Km v

MP 91 PS

we Po
ll

Ra

ilr o

0

PS #1 Black Mesa
 n Basi


110

Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route
 Realignment
 Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route

10

0 10

Kmv Cretaceous Mesaverde Group Ks Cretaceous sedimentary rocks

COLORADO
 PLATEAU


20
90

Tuba City Moenkopi
50

40
80

Moenkopi
 Wash
 Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Ra ilwa

Mohave County Coconino County

Tusayan
y

60

70

Subalternative along Eastern Route Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives Western Pipeline Route PS = Pump Station

Ks
50

Cameron PS #2
80

70

Hotevilla
60

Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi

s Trc
50

Trc

on

ny

Ca

Valle
100

90

Jgc

General Features
40

Peach Springs Cenozoic Sedimentary Basin
tM Cerba

PS #3
110

Truxton
160

Tso P
Grand

b QT

40

River Lake
Tolani Lake PS

120

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
270

PP Xm Xmv
23 0

Tvy
150

30

140

30

130

TKg

MC

QTv

Tolani Lake PS Leupp
20

Qy
Holbrook
 n Basi
 Navajo County

Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary State Boundary County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad

PS #4 Seligman
170

Q
0 25

Laughlin

240

nts.

Tby
Ash Fork Williams

Qo
Yg
220

YXg

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Flagstaff

10

180

190

0 20

Kingman Bullhead City Tg
260
20

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

Tv

da a va ni Ne ifor l Ca

Xg

Xms

Ts m

10

Kingman Area Reroute Tsy

Tb
Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Trm
Winslow

Little Colorad o River

SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 Arizona Geologic Survey 2003

TRANSITION
 ZONE
n ifor Ca l
San Bernardino County

Holbrook

Ariz ona

BASI
 N
 AND RANGE

La Paz County

Yavapai
 County

0

November 2008
20 Miles 40

ia

Prepared By:
Gila County

3.1.2 3.1.2.1

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route

The existing pipeline route traverses the widely diverse topography of the Colorado Plateau and Basin and Range provinces, as described above. Beginning in the Black Mesa Complex, the existing pipeline route passes through the gently rolling hills of Black Mesa. At about CSP Milepost 4, it enters the steepsided, 250-foot-deep Moenkopi Wash—the wash cuts through the mesa in a northeast to southwest direction, directing surface drainage to the southwest. Small terraces appear in the wider portions of the wash. There is generally minor development of alluvial material in the wash, and the massive shale outcroppings described above discourage erosion at several wash locations. The pipeline exits Moenkopi Wash at Black Mesa Wash near CSP Milepost 19 and traverses the mesa downslope to the west. Elevations range from about 6,900 feet above MSL at the Black Mesa Complex to 5,700 feet above MSL at the southwestern edge of the mesa. Leaving Black Mesa south of Tonalea, the pipeline route turns southwest and crosses Moenkopi Plateau. The topography of the Moenkopi Plateau region consists of low mesas up to 300 feet high, incised by dry washes and separated by relatively flat alluvial plains with localized sand dunes. Near Cameron, the pipeline route crosses the flat plain of the Painted Desert and the Little Colorado River drainage at about 4,100 feet above MSL, then climbs westward onto the Coconino Plateau. Along the route, the Colorado Plateau is at about 6,000 feet above MSL in elevation and characterized by generally flat terrain covered with lava flows and abundant volcanic cinder cones. Near CSP Milepost 169 and Seligman, the existing route drops off the Colorado Plateau into the transition zone, an elevation change of about 1,000 feet. Elevations in the transition zone range from about 6,000 feet above MSL in the Juniper and Cottonwood Mountains to about 4,000 feet above MSL at the base of the Cottonwood Cliffs near CSP Milepost 208. In the transition zone, the existing route traverses rolling hills separated by nearly flat alluvial plains at lower elevations. The route crosses the Basin and Range province from about CSP Milepost 208 to the Colorado River. Elevations range from highs of about 6,900 feet above MSL in the Cerbat Mountains near Kingman and the Black Mountains east of Bullhead City to lows of 2,600 feet in the Sacramento Valley and 300 feet above MSL at the river. In the mountains, the pipeline is buried in rugged mountainous topography separated by nearly level alluvial plains in the valleys. 3.1.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments

The pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash would be within the wash but outside the active channel, generally within 200 feet of the existing pipeline route. The Kingman reroute would depart the existing pipeline route near CSP Milepost 228 in the Hualapai Valley and continue southwest across a gently northward sloping alluvial plain. It then would cross the Hualapai Mountains, and then turn west to traverse the flat Sacramento Valley alluvial plain before meeting the existing pipeline route near CSP Milepost 255. The elevation range is almost the same as for the existing route. This reroute would traverse rugged mountains and nearly level alluvial plains of the Basin and Range province.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-4

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.1.3 3.1.3.1

Water Supply C Aquifer Water-Supply System Well Field

3.1.3.1.1

The site for the proposed C-aquifer well field is located in a flat area within the Colorado Plateau province and Little Colorado River drainage. Few landform features are found in this area that gently slopes to the northeast and the Little Colorado River. Elevations range from about 5,300 feet above MSL at the west end to 4,800 feet above MSL at the east end. 3.1.3.1.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline

Both the Eastern and Western routes of the C aquifer water-supply pipeline would cross the Little Colorado River and continue northeast through the western Painted Desert. The western Painted Desert is an area of multicolored hills and escarpments that should not be confused with the eastern Painted Desert located in and around Petrified Forest National Park 60 miles east of Leupp, Arizona. Elevations range from about 4,700 feet above MSL at the Little Colorado River up to 5,100 feet above MSL on Newberry Mesa. This area slopes southwest toward the Little Colorado River and generally has low relief until it reaches the low escarpment of Newberry Mesa. The Eastern and Western routes separate near WSP Milepost 27. 3.1.3.1.2.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route The Eastern Route would trend northeast from WSP Milepost 27, roughly paralleling Oraibi Wash, and pass through the community of Kykotsmovi. The area is characterized by low mesas with approximately 100-foot-high escarpments and flat, featureless plains that gently slope to the south and southwest. Oraibi Wash has cut a channel into the plain about 60 feet deep. Elevations range from about 5,100 feet above MSL on Newberry Mesa up to about 5,700 feet above MSL at WSP Milepost 76 in Oraibi Wash. The route then would turn north and continue past a 200-foot-high sandstone escarpment onto Third Mesa, then continue up the gently sloping Black Mesa and cross a 6,800-foot-high ridge to the coal-slurry preparation plant, located at an elevation of about 6,400 feet above MSL. The route would follow the trend of Dinnebito Wash but for the most part would be outside that drainage. The canyon cut by the wash is narrow and steep sided, with small terraces developed only in the wider portions of the wash. 3.1.3.1.2.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route The Western Route would turn northwest from WSP Milepost 27 and then north along the top of Newberry Mesa and Ward Terrace at an elevation of about 5,000 feet above MSL. It would continue over the Adeii Eechii (Red Rock) Cliffs and across the low mesas, dry washes, and flat alluvial plains with localized sand dunes of the Moenkopi Plateau at an elevation of about 5,800 feet above MSL. South of Tonalea the route would meet and parallel U.S. Highway 160 northeast through the flat Red Lake and Klethla Valleys. Near WSP Milepost 127, it would turn southeast and continue over Black Mesa and cross a 7,300-foot-high ridge to the coal-slurry preparation plant. Two additional pump stations would be required along the Western Route to accommodate the longer distance and higher elevation encountered.

3.2

GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

The Colorado Plateau physiographic province is characterized by relatively flat-lying and laterally continuous Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary formations, highlighted by coal-bearing rocks deposited in the Black Mesa Basin that supply the Black Mesa mining operation (Figure 3-1). The Basin and Range physiographic province is characterized by folded and block-faulted mountains of Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary deposits, often with a central core of Precambrian metamorphic and/or granitic rocks, separated by thick alluvium-filled sedimentary basins. The transition zone has geologic characteristics of both provinces (refer to Map 3-1).
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-5 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Figure 3-1

Stratigraphic Column of Black Mesa Area

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-6

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The topography of the Colorado Plateau province in northern Arizona is the result of relatively gentle structural folding caused by northerly trending uplifts. The Black Mesa Basin is a broad synformal structure trending northwest to southeast. It is bounded on the southeast and east by the Defiance Uplift, on the north by the Monument and Paiute Uplifts, and on the west by the Echo Cliffs and Kaibab Uplifts. The Preston Mesa-Mount Beautiful Anticline and the Tuba City-Howell Mesa Syncline extend along the southwestern side of the basin. The Defiance Anticline bounds the basin to the northeast and east. These folds have very gentle dips even though their axial traces extend for miles. The north and northwest basin boundary is formed by the Comb Ridge Monocline and Organ Rock Monocline, which dip down to the southeast. These monoclinal folds compose the northwestern hydrologic barrier of the N aquifer in the Black Mesa Basin. Faulting is less extensive than folding in the study area. Normal faulting associated with fold axes is the most common type found. None of these faults are considered significantly active, and there is no indication that any recent volcanism, such as occurred in the San Francisco Peaks, ever extended to the Black Mesa Basin. Although the Colorado Plateau experienced only minor Holocene seismic activity, the margins of the plateau, including the western Grand Canyon, do exhibit some minor level of earthquake hazard. Several recorded earthquakes have measured between 5 and 6 magnitude on the Richter scale. Farther south, within the study area, the seismicity drops off, but occasional earthquakes in the Flagstaff area have been in the 4 to 5 magnitude range. The region between Flagstaff and the Colorado River experienced very little Holocene seismic activity. In general, the earthquake hazards in the study area are minor. 3.2.1 3.2.1.1 Black Mesa Complex Geologic Environment

The geology of the Black Mesa Complex area is dominated by relatively flat-lying sedimentary rocks with minor structural deformation by local folding and faulting. The rock units of Black Mesa are primarily undeformed and oriented in roughly horizontal beds. The Oljeto Syncline is a prominent fold that cuts north-south across the area, and lesser folds, such as the Maloney Syncline, are roughly parallel to it. Most faults are oriented east-west and are displaced less than 40 feet. Coal rank, quality, and thickness vary among Peabody’s designated coal-reserve areas in the Black Mesa Complex. Geological data from the individual coal-reserve areas were collected as part of Peabody’s various permit application packages, including the LOM revision. In 1977, exploration drill holes revealed specific aspects of the Black Mesa geology that contributed to the original and subsequent mine plans. Coal seams were found to be thicker in the synclinal folds and thinned by erosion on the anticlines. In the southeast part of the Black Mesa Complex area, all seven of the coal horizons are present at varied depths. These depths are controlled by northwest-southeast trending fold belts and small-displacement, high-angle normal faults. In the southern part of the Black Mesa Complex (Coal-Resource Area J-07), the Oljeto Syncline controls the depth and location of the four minable coal horizons. The Oljeto Syncline also is present along the Joint Use Boundary (Coal-Resource Areas J-01, N-06 [refer to Map 2-1 and Map A-1]). In the northern part of the Black Mesa Complex (Coal-Resource Areas N-14, N-10, N-11), structural disturbance is less pronounced and only two of the coal horizons are minable. Outcrops of coal typically have been burned to form resistant clinker material. The Yale Point Sandstone is a medium- to coarse-grained quartz sandstone. It is interbedded with the underlying Wepo Formation and can exceed 200 feet of thickness in the outcrop on the northeastern edge of Black Mesa. The Yale Point Sandstone contains only a minor coal seam or two and is not considered economic to mine.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-7

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.2.1.2

Geologic Natural Areas

There are no existing or proposed geologic natural areas in the Black Mesa Complex designated to preserve and protect unique or valuable geologic resources. 3.2.1.3 Mineral Resources

The Black Mesa Basin has proven coal reserves that have been mined for use by local communities as well as commercial enterprises. Economically viable coal reserves occur in the Toreva Formation, Wepo Formation, and Dakota Sandstone. Coal beds in the Dakota Sandstone are present throughout the region, mostly in the carbonaceous shale middle member. The USGS estimates 9.6 billon tons of inferred coal resources in the Dakota Formation at Black Mesa. Historically, the Dakota coal beds have been mined at three locations on Black Mesa outside the Black Mesa Complex for local use as fuel. Coal beds in other sedimentary basins produce economically viable quantities of coal-bed methane (CBM) gas from the Dakota Formation. The Dakota Sandstone is stratigraphically below the Wepo Formation and not affected by mining activities. The carbonaceous middle member of the Toreva Formation contains several coal beds up to 7 feet thick. The USGS estimates 6 billion tons of inferred coal resources in the Toreva Formation. The Toreva Formation has been mined near Keams Canyon, which is outside the Black Mesa Complex. The Toreva Formation is stratigraphically below the Wepo Formation. Economically viable reserves of coal are found in the Wepo Formation. In 2005, more than 13 million tons of coal were extracted by the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. Through 2007, 345 million tons of coal had been mined under existing OSM permits. Prior to the existing OSM permits, approximately 52 million tons of coal had been mined, a total of approximately 297 million tons from the two mining operations (as of 2007). The USGS’ inferred total coal resource in the Wepo Formation exceeds 4.8 billion tons. No other mineral resources of economic value (either metallic nor nonmetallic) are present in abundance. Minor quantities of the mineral material scoria are present; it is often used for road maintenance and in reclamation. 3.2.1.4 Paleontological Resources

The Cretaceous coal-bearing strata being mined in the Black Mesa Basin contain abundant plant and animal fossils and have high potential for yielding paleontological resources. The strata are laterally extensive and outcrop at many localities that have allowed collection and examination of the fossil assemblages that occur at the Black Mesa Complex. The paleontological resources contained in these rocks are common throughout Black Mesa. 3.2.2 3.2.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route

More than half of the existing coal-slurry pipeline (which currently is not in operation), from the Black Mesa Mine to about Seligman (including the pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash), is within the Colorado Plateau physiographic province. The existing pipeline route traverses the transition zone from about Seligman to Kingman and the Basin and Range province from Kingman (including the Kingman reroute) to the terminus.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-8

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.2.2.1.1

Geologic Environment

The existing pipeline route begins at Black Mesa and extends southwest to the Little Colorado River near Cameron. The geology of this area includes surface exposures of the Upper Cretaceous Toreva Formation, Wepo Formation, and Yale Point Sandstone (all part of the Cretaceous Mesa Verde Group) as well as Mancos Shale. The Toreva Formation and Mancos Shale are exposed in several washes that cut through the Wepo Formation. The more established washes (Wepo, Oraibi, and Dinnebito) contain Quaternary alluvium. Several geologic structures with subtle folding and faulting characterize the Black Mesa area. These structures include the Oraibi Monocline, Wepo Syncline, Cow Springs Anticline, and Black Mesa Syncline. Continuing west to Cameron and on to Seligman, the existing route traverses surface exposures of relatively flat-lying Jurassic, Triassic, and Permian sedimentary rocks. Between CSP Mileposts 65 and 79, the pipeline route crosses the Chinle Formation, which contains swelling clays and expansive soil that potentially can affect pipeline structural stability. Uranium, and localized waste piles from historical uranium mining having potentially high levels of radiation, could be present in that area of the Chinle Formation. The pipeline route crosses the inactive Mesa Butte Fault about 23 miles southwest of Cameron between CSP Mileposts 99 and 100. Between Cameron and Seligman, the surface geology consists primarily of Permian sedimentary rocks and Quaternary volcanic rocks and basalt flows. From Seligman westward, the existing route traverses surface exposures of transition zone rocks that include Precambrian granites, Paleozoic limestones, Tertiary volcanic and basaltic rocks, and Quaternary alluvium in streambeds. Several inactive faults are present in this area, including the Grand WashCottonwood Fault at about CSP Milepost 210, which defines the boundary between the transition zone and Basin and Range province. West of the Cottonwood Fault, the route traverses mountain ranges and valleys of the Basin and Range province and encounters surface exposures of Precambrian granitic and metamorphic rocks, Tertiary volcanics, and Quaternary alluvium. Several inactive faults are crossed at the fault-block boundaries of mountain ranges east and west of Kingman and west of the Sacramento Valley. 3.2.2.1.2 Geologic Natural Areas

There are no existing or proposed geologic natural areas along the existing route designated to preserve and protect unique or valuable geologic resources. 3.2.2.1.3 Mineral Resources

The existing pipeline begins on Black Mesa where it is buried within coal-bearing sedimentary rocks at a width and depth that has not affected near-surface coal resources. There are no known noncoal mines or mineral deposits of economic value in the segment of the existing pipeline route corridor that traverses the Colorado Plateau. The pipeline route crosses the Cameron mineral district that historically has been mined for uranium and vanadium; however, the Navajo Nation has banned uranium mining on tribal land. The segment of pipeline route from Kingman to Laughlin crosses several mining districts with numerous mines and mining claims. These include the Wallapai silver-gold-lead-zinc district in the Cerbat Mountains north of Kingman, the Union Pass gold-silver-beryllium district in the Black Mountains, and the San Francisco gold-silver-fluoride district and Oatman gold-silver-lead district, both in the Black Mountains southeast of Bullhead City.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-9

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The existing route encounters no active or inactive mineral material pits as it traverses the Colorado Plateau or transition zone. Southeast of Kingman, it traverses an existing mineral material pit in the foothills of the Hualapai Mountains. 3.2.2.1.4 Paleontological Resources

Surface exposures of Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks occur along the Colorado Plateau and transition zone segments of the existing route. Cretaceous coal-bearing strata that contain abundant plant and animal fossils are found on Black Mesa. The paleontological resources contained in these rocks are common throughout Black Mesa. Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, including limestones equivalent to the Mississippian-age Redwall Limestone and the Devonian-age Temple Butte Limestone, outcrop in the western Colorado Plateau and transition zone. These limestones have high potential for yielding paleontological resources; however, the paleontological resources contained in these rocks are common throughout the Colorado Plateau. From the Kingman area west, the existing pipeline crosses Precambrian granitic rocks and Tertiary volcanic rocks in the Hualapai Mountains, and Quaternary alluvium in the Hualapai and Sacramento Valleys. None of these rock types are considered fossil-bearing. 3.2.2.2 3.2.2.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments Geologic Environment

The pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash would be entirely within the Colorado Plateau province and traverse surface exposures of the Upper Cretaceous Wepo and Toreva Formations and the Mancos Shale on Black Mesa. Portions of Moenkopi Wash contain Quaternary alluvium. The Kingman reroute would traverse mountain ranges and valleys of the Basin and Range province and encounter surface exposures of Precambrian granitic and metamorphic rocks, Tertiary volcanics, and Quaternary alluvium. Inactive faults are present at the fault-block boundaries of mountain ranges east and west of Kingman. 3.2.2.2.2 Geologic Natural Areas

There are no existing or proposed geologic natural areas along the realignments that are designated to preserve and protect unique or valuable geologic resources. 3.2.2.2.3 Mineral Resources

The pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash would traverse coal-bearing sedimentary rocks on Black Mesa. There are no known mineral deposits or mineral districts along this realignment. No active or inactive mineral material pits are in this area, and the realignments would be outside any mineral district. There are no known mineral deposits of economic value reported along the Kingman reroute. The reroute would pass through one mining district south of the town of McConnico. The mines of the McConnico district—past producers of gold and silver—were discovered in the early 1900s and did not produce beyond 1950. The reroute also would pass through an existing mineral materials pit southeast of Kingman. 3.2.2.2.4 Paleontological Resources

The pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash would traverse a geologic area comparable to that of the existing route. Cretaceous coal-bearing strata that contain abundant plant and animal fossils are found on

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-10

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Black Mesa. The paleontological resources contained in these rocks are common throughout the Black Mesa Basin. The Kingman reroute would traverse outcrops of Precambrian granitic rocks and Tertiary volcanic rocks in the Cerbat Mountains. 3.2.3 3.2.3.1 3.2.3.1.1 Water Supply C Aquifer Water-Supply System Well Field

The proposed C-aquifer well field is located within the Colorado Plateau province and the Little Colorado River drainage. Other than small areas of stream alluvium in creeks and washes, rocks exposed at the surface include the Permian Kaibab Formation and Triassic Moenkopi Formation. The surface geology and structural geology are shown on Map 3-2. No subsurface economic mineral resources are known to exist in the well field area. There are no existing or proposed geologic natural areas in the well field area. There are no known mineral deposits of economic value in the well field area. No active or inactive mineral material pits are located in the well field area. The paleontological resources contained in the fossil-bearing Kaibab Formation and Moenkopi Formation are common throughout the Colorado Plateau. 3.2.3.1.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline

At the well field, the pipeline route is underlain by the Kaibab Formation. As the route progresses toward the coal-slurry preparation plant, it crosses successively younger geologic units. Heading north from the well field, it would traverse surface exposures of relatively flat-lying Permian, Triassic, and then Jurassic sedimentary rocks. At the Little Colorado River crossing, the two subalternatives would be on Quaternary alluvium. Between CSP Mileposts 24 and 34, the pipeline would cross the Chinle Formation, which contains swelling clays and expansive soil that can affect pipeline structural stability. Deposits of uranium and localized waste piles from historical mining of uranium, with potentially high levels of radiation, could be present in that area of the Chinle Formation. The two alternative routes separate near CSP Milepost 27. Both the eastern and western pipeline routes would cross the major geologic units present in the Black Mesa Basin. 3.2.3.1.2.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) The Eastern Route would begin traversing Cretaceous sedimentary rocks near Kykotsmovi. The two subalternative routes through the Kykotsmovi area would be on Dakota Sandstone. The remainder of the Eastern Route would be on alluvium or surface exposures of the Wepo and Toreva Formations. On Black Mesa, the route would traverse coal-bearing sedimentary rocks. Cretaceous coal-bearing strata on Black Mesa contain abundant plant and animal fossils. The paleontological resources contained in these rocks are common throughout the Black Mesa Basin. There are no existing or proposed geologic natural areas along the Eastern Route. There are no known noncoal mines or mineral deposits of economic value along the eastern pipeline route, nor are there any mineral material pits. 3.2.3.1.2.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route The Western Route would traverse surface exposures of Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous sedimentary rocks, and alluvium in washes and on the Moenkopi Plateau. The remaining 10 miles of the Western Route would be on surface exposures of the Wepo and Toreva Formations on Black Mesa. The route also would traverse coal-bearing sedimentary rocks on Black Mesa. Cretaceous coal-bearing strata on Black

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-11

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Mesa contain abundant plant and animal fossils. The paleontological resources contained in these rocks are common throughout Black Mesa Basin. There are no known existing or proposed geologic natural areas along the alternative route. There are no known noncoal mines or mineral deposits of economic value along the Western Route. There are no mineral material pits along the Western Route.

3.3
3.3.1

SOIL RESOURCES
Black Mesa Complex

The soils on the plateaus, mesas, hillsides, and fan terraces of the Colorado Plateau range from very shallow (a few inches) to deep (5 feet) and generally are well drained. Many have formed in basalt and pyroclastics and are very cindery. The water-erosion potential is usually slight to moderate, but may be high in areas with steeper slopes. Wind-erosion potential is often moderate to severe. Many portions of the Colorado Plateau are subject to high wind and water erosion due to sparse vegetation cover and soil type. Soils within the Black Mesa Complex are derived primarily from the Cretaceous Mesaverde Group, a series of sedimentary sandstones, siltstones, and mudstones. In 1979, 1983, 1985, 2000, and 2003, sitespecific soil surveys, required by SMCRA, were conducted by private contractors in the Black Mesa Complex area, along with the surrounding areas, to provide detailed soil taxonomy. The surveys identified 14 soils in and surrounding the area. These soils were predominantly very fine- to fine-grained sandy loams with minor smectitic clayey soils. The smectite clays, also referred to as “swelling clays,” can undergo as much as a 30 percent volume change due to wetting and drying. Soils in the area can be characterized generally as well drained with moderate shrink-swell potential (with the exception of the smectitic clayey soils) and as slightly susceptible to wind erosion. On reclaimed surface mines, topsoil is essential for reestablishing native vegetation and forage. Subsoil and weathered rock overburden beneath the topsoil supply additional nutrients and moisture for plant growth. The removal and replacement of all topsoil is required by SMCRA unless it is demonstrated that selected subsoil or spoil is better suited for growing plants. Topsoil is removed as a separate layer before mining and is either spread on nearby regraded areas or, if necessary, temporarily stockpiled. Topsoil is spread to the appropriate depths for the approved postmining land use. By definition, topsoil means the A and E soil horizon layers of the four master soil horizons (30 CFR 701.5). The soils of the Black Mesa Complex have A horizons that range in thickness between 0 to 1 inch and 0 to 4 inches, depending on the soil. The topsoil is of insufficient quantity to salvage as a separate layer and must be salvaged together with suitable subsoil and suitable unconsolidated material below the subsoil to provide a topsoil mixture suitable for reclamation. When topsoil material requirements to support the reclamation plan so demand, Peabody salvages the residual soils unless their depth makes salvage impractical. The soil surveys assessed residual soils’ unsuitability for restoration based on four conditions: selenium concentration, sodic zones, pH, rock fragment percentage, and acid-forming spoils. Soils developed from the coal-bearing parent rock of the Mesaverde Group have the potential for higher than normal selenium concentrations. Native vegetation that bioaccumulates selenium on these soils can create a level of toxicity in the forage high enough to affect cattle. For this reason, Peabody has conducted geobotanical studies (submitted as part of Peabody’s permit application) on the disturbed areas in support of the suitability assessments of topsoil material.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-12

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Map 3-2

Surface Geology and Structure Proposed C-Aquifer Well Field

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-13

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The geobotanical studies demonstrated that selenium-accumulating plant populations are common locally in certain subhabitats in the area. The selenium accumulators occurred on the shallow soils associated with wooded ridges and disturbed areas, and were absent from the broad sagebrush valleys and wash terraces where the deeper soils occur. Based upon the results of selenium analysis in plants and soils at a representative cross section of sites where accumulator plants were found, the soils in which they were growing are not seleniferous. No selenium poisoning of livestock has been reported in or surrounding the Black Mesa Complex. Overburden material, which could be used to provide soil, also was evaluated for this problem. Initial results indicated the probability of suspect concentrations of plant-available selenium occurring in regraded spoils. The assessment of overburden for 13 mining areas concluded that selenium has the potential to occur in seven of those areas. Most values that exceeded the suspect level of 0.26 ppm approved by OSM were less than 0.30 ppm. More recent analysis of selenium levels of regraded spoil in comparison to selenium blood levels in cattle grazing on reclaimed areas indicate that the selenium levels present in the regraded spoil do not pose a threat to livestock. No selenium monitoring in the regraded spoil is currently required. Sodium adsorption ratios (SAR) greater than 18 or 22, depending on soil texture, are indicative of elevated sodium in soil. The overburden assessment for 11 mining areas concluded that there was potential for sodic zones to occur in 10 areas at or near the surface of regraded soils. Alkaline and acidic soils are typical in coal seams and in deeper subsurface soils. Overburden materials having elevated SAR also may have unsuitable pH values: either alkaline pH values greater than 8.8, or acidic pH values less than 5.5. However, acidic soils may not be a significant issue because of excess alkalinity measured in many core samples. Negative acid-base account potential values indicate a potential for acid-forming zones that make spoil unsuitable for use as replacement soil in reclamation areas. Negative acid-base accounting has been detected at unsuitable levels in about 10 percent of the total samples of spoil collected and analyzed. Acidic or acid-forming spoils are not anticipated in most areas. Seventeen years of sampling show that about 10 percent of near-surface spoil is unsuitable to reestablish native vegetation and forage after mining, overburden mixing, and final grading. These areas are mitigated by placing 4 feet of suitable plant growth material (suitable spoil on topsoil) on the unsuitable material. 3.3.1.1 Prime Farmland Determination

The soils that occur are predominantly in the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) land capability Classes VI and VII. Soils in Classes VI and VII have severe to very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation and limit or restrict their use largely to pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife habitat. Soils in these groupings are used primarily for livestock grazing. The land in the Black Mesa Complex area has received a negative determination as prime farmland from the NRCS (Peabody 1985, 1986). 3.3.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline

As stated previously, the existing coal-slurry pipeline (which currently is not in operation) crosses two physiographic provinces—the Colorado Plateau and the Basin and Range, with a transition zone between the two. In the Basin and Range province and the transition zone, the soils in the valleys generally have formed from mixed alluvium. The soil depths range from very shallow to deep and are typically gravelly, sandy, or loamy with caliche in the subsurface. The erosion potential is slight to moderate, typically

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-14

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

increasing with greater slope. In the floodplains, terraces, and alluvial fans of the Colorado River area, the soils have formed in alluvium derived from igneous and sedimentary rocks. They are deep soils and are sandy, loamy, or gravelly on the surface. Caliche is typical in the subsurface of soils developed on the terraces and alluvial fans. The erosion potentials are slight to moderate, increasing with greater slope. Between CSP Mileposts 65 and 79, the existing route crosses soil derived from the Chinle Formation, which contains swelling clays and expansive soil that can affect pipeline structural stability. Deposits of uranium and localized waste piles from historical mining of uranium, with potentially high levels of radiation, could be present in that area of the Chinle formation. Both the pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash and the Kingman reroute are located within the same general areas as the existing route and would cross the same soil types. Although there is no prime and unique farmland along the existing route, the American Farmland Trust identified high-quality farmland on private and State Trust Land near Seligman, Arizona (between CSP Mileposts 170 and 180). 3.3.3 3.3.3.1 3.3.3.1.1 Water Supply C Aquifer Water-Supply System Well Field

Soils in the area of the well field are considered to be well drained, with a clay content of less than 20 percent and a low shrink-swell potential. The wind erodibility for soils in this area is high due to sparse vegetation. Susceptibility for soil-induced corrosion of concrete is low. Susceptibility for corrosion of uncoated steel is high throughout most of the well-field area, with the exception of a small area in the southwestern corner of the well field characterized as holding moderate potential. 3.3.3.1.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline

Soils along the Eastern Route can be described generally as either well drained or somewhat excessively drained. The shrink-swell potential is generally low; however, minor areas along the middle and approximately the last 10 miles of the Eastern Route have moderate shrink-swell potential. The majority of soils along the Western Route are characterized as excessively drained. Two small transects in the middle of the Western Route and approximately the last 20 miles to the coal-slurry preparation plant are well drained. The shrink-swell potential of the soils along the route is generally low, with the exception of two small transects in the middle of the route, where soils have high shrink-swell potential. As discussed in Section 3.3.1.1, soils that occur in the project area are predominantly unsuitable for cultivation. There is, however, limited agriculture along the proposed C aquifer water-supply pipeline’s Eastern Route. Small farm plots on the order of 1 acre typically may be located within the major washes on the relatively flat terraces where more soil has accumulated. Although the farm plots are sited adjacent to drainage channels, there are no flood irrigation features such as dikes, diversions, or canals to water the crops. The availability and quality of surface water is uncertain and unreliable. Instead, moisture for the crops is provided by infrequent rainfall events. These farm plots are established on an opportunistic and intermittent basis because they depend on sufficient rainfall for a successful crop. For these reasons, Peabody considers the farm plots as “kitchen gardens” used to augment the household food supply and does not include them as an established land use requiring reclamation.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-15

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.4

WATER RESOURCES (HYDROLOGY)

Surface drainage of northern Arizona is a consequence of the topography of the Colorado Plateau physiographic province in the east and the Basin and Range physiographic province in the west. The Black Mesa Complex and the C aquifer water-supply system are entirely within the Colorado Plateau, while the coal-slurry pipeline is within both the Colorado Plateau province and the Basin and Range province. The Colorado Plateau is a region of low relief, punctuated by erosional plateaus; steep-sided, river-cut canyons; and isolated volcanic landforms. The area stands high in elevation relative to surrounding parts of Arizona. Drainage is controlled by the perennial Colorado River flowing from the northeast to the west, and by the Little Colorado River running from the south near the White Mountains to its junction with the Colorado River downstream from Page, Arizona. The Little Colorado River is intermittent (flowing certain times of the year) from Holbrook, Arizona, to the Colorado River. To the west and southwest, the Colorado Plateau gives way to the Basin and Range province, characterized by lower elevations and steeper relief. The Basin and Range comprises north- to northwest-trending, discontinuous, steep-sided mountain ranges interspersed with deep alluvial valleys. Major watersheds are shown on Map 3-3. Black Mesa is a major physiographic feature of the Colorado Plateau. Washes, including Moenkopi, Dinnebito, Oraibi, Polacca, and Jeddito, drain Black Mesa to the southwest and join the Little Colorado River, as shown on Map 3-4. Laguna Creek and Chinle Wash drain to the north and join the San Juan River. All of the washes draining Black Mesa are intermittent. None of the tributaries or washes is a reliable source of water for irrigation or potable use. Tributaries that are fed by springs, potentially affected by N-aquifer groundwater pumping or by mining operations, include Moenkopi, Dinnebito, Oraibi, Coal Mine, and Yellow Water Canyon washes and Laguna Creek on Black Mesa (refer to Map 3-4). Streams potentially impacted by C-aquifer pumping are shown on Map 3-5 and include lower Clear Creek, lower Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River near Winslow. Numerous springs are found across and adjacent to the Hopi and Navajo Reservations, some of which have important cultural value to either or both tribes. Lower Moenkopi Village, on the Hopi Reservation, obtains water from a spring near Moenkopi Wash. There are more than 200 other springs on the Hopi Reservation with cultural or water-supply value to the community. Many of these springs are local and not associated with the major regional aquifers. Four of the larger and/or consistent springs have been monitored by the USGS since at least 1995. These include Moenkopi School (19 af/yr in 2005), Pasture Canyon (54 af/yr in 2005), Burro Springs (0.3 af/yr in 2005), and Unnamed Spring near Dinnehotso (35 af/yr in 2005) in the unconfined portion (upper surface is open to the atmosphere through permeable overlying material) of the N aquifer (Truini 2006). These springs have shown fluctuations but no longterm trends are apparent (USGS 1985-2005). Since these springs occur where the N aquifer is at or near the ground surface, a portion of the spring flow may be due to the infiltration of rain water. Fluctuation in spring flow may be due, in part, to variations in precipitation. Blue Springs (long-term average 164,000 af/yr) is the discharge point for most C-aquifer water flowing north from the Mogollon Rim. Blue Springs is a series of springs located in the Little Colorado River gorge upstream from the river’s confluence with the Colorado River mainstem.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-16

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

There are several groundwater sources within the project area, each of varying water quality, wateryielding capability, and accessibility. Figure 3-1 (refer to Section 3.2) identifies the significant waterbearing units in the study area. Significant water-bearing formations and associated aquifers include the following, in descending order:

•	 The alluvial system, composed of gravel, sand and silt, associated with stream channels that occur
in the vicinity of the Black Mesa area (OSM 2006). This system is local and varies greatly in size and extent depending on the nature of the stream channels.

•	 Water-bearing formations of the Mesa Verde Group, specifically the Wepo Formation containing
siltstone, mudstone, sandstone, and coal beds. There are no developed Wepo water-use locations on the leasehold (Peabody 1986, revised 2003). The Wepo aquifer is discontinuous across the leasehold and does not constitute a regional aquifer.

•	 The D aquifer, which includes the Dakota Sandstone, portions of the Morrison Formation, and the
Cow Springs Sandstone (ADWR 1989); the D aquifer is confined (groundwater in the aquifer is under pressure and will rise above the level at which it is encountered by a well) by the overlying Mancos Shale.

•	 The N aquifer includes the Navajo Sandstone, the Kayenta Formation, and the Lukachukai
member of the Wingate Sandstone; the N aquifer is confined by the overlying Carmel Formation.

•	 The C aquifer includes the Kaibab Formation, the Coconino Sandstone, and the upper part of the
Supai Group; in some areas the C aquifer is confined by the overlying Moenkopi and Chinle Formations.

•	 The Redwall-Muav aquifer (R aquifer) is composed of the Redwall-Muav limestones that
underlie the C aquifer. Over most of the study area, the Redwall-Muav limestones are separated from the overlying C aquifer by the relatively impermeable silts and clays of the lower Supai Group. However, in the area west of Cameron, water from the C aquifer is thought to move downward through faults and fractures in the Supai Group into the R aquifer before discharging at Blue Springs. The relationships among these units in the project area are shown on Figure 3-2. The extent of the regional aquifers is shown on Maps 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6 (the R aquifer does not outcrop in the study area and is not shown on the surface maps). The regional aquifers (D, N, C, and R) extend over large areas and are controlled by the regional northern dip of the rocks and the basin structure beneath Black Mesa. The R aquifer is deeply buried throughout the study area. Water from Blue Springs is nonpotable (3,000 milligrams per liter [mg/L] of TDS), and no wells in the study area produce water from the R aquifer. The C aquifer is at the surface south of the Little Colorado River but is buried beneath more than 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock under the area of the Kayenta and Black Mesa mines. With the exception of the southeast portions of the D and N aquifers and the C and R aquifers west of Cameron, there is little interconnection among the major water-bearing units. It should be noted that, for convenience of presentation, the vertical exaggeration on Figure 3-2 is large (26 times), giving the impression of much greater structural relief than actually exists.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-17

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Mapa_3-3_Major_Watersheds.pdf(par)

Nevada

Utah

Lincoln County

Washington County

Kane County

Map 3-3
San Juan County

Utah Arizona
15010010

Major Watersheds
Black Mesa Project EIS

Page
14070007 14070006

14080205

LEGEND
Watersheds
Bill Williams River
Kayenta

Blac k

15010003

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d

Lower Colorado River - Lake Mead Upper Colorado River - Dirty Devil Little Colorado River

Me s

Nevada

Arizona

Tsegi

15010009

14080204

a
an

Clark County

La ke

15010006

15010000

0 13

Thief Rock PS
Ra
ilr o

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

0 12

Lower Gila River Lower San Juan River

Clark

90
30

Apache County

do lora Co
15010002

er Riv

MP 91 PS

we Po
ll

a d 10

0

PS #1
10
15010003

Verde River Sub-watershed Boundary and Hydrologic Unit Number River
 Lake


110

15020018
20

Tuba City

40
80
50

90

0 10

Other Water Features

Moenkopi
 Moenkopi Wash

15010005

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS
15020013

Project Features
Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route
 Realignment
 Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route

ta r Ca

Ra ilwa

Mohave County Coconino County

Tusayan
y

60

70

15020017

Cameron PS #2
80

70

Hotevilla
60

15020012

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives

ac r ee tC k
15010004

Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi

50

on

ny

Ca

Valle
100

90

50

15010014

15020016
40
40

Peach Springs
15010007

PS #3
110
120

Truxton
160

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
23 0

Grand

30

Tolani Lake PS
15020014

Western Pipeline Route PS = Pump Station
Navajo County
15020011

140

30

130

150

Tolani Lake PS Leupp
20

PS #4 Seligman
170

General Features
Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary State Boundary
15020009

Laughlin

240

Kingman
260
20

15060201

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff
15020015

270

10

180

0 25

190

0 20

Bullhead City
15030101

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

Ne da a va rni
Sacramento Wash

220

g Bi

Ca

o lif

ino Ch

15030103

10

Kingman Area Reroute

County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad

as W

15030201

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch
15060202

Winslow

Little Colorad o River
Holbrook

h

15020007

15030202

15020008

SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 Arizona State Land Department 2005 Arizona Department of Water Resources 2004 - Modified by URS 2005

15020002

n ifor Ca l
San Bernardino County

Ariz ona
15030203 15070102 15030204

Yavapai
 County


ia

November 2008
15020010 0 15020005 15060203 Miles 20 40

rd Ve ive eR r

Bill Willi ams Riv er
15030104

La Paz County
15030105

15070103 15070104

15060105

Prepared By:
15060103 15060104

Gila County

San Juan County

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3_4_Location_N_Aquifer.pdf(par)

Utah Arizona
Page
Navajo
Creek

Map 3-4

9379180
na C
r ee

Location of Surface Drainages on Black Mesa and Key N-Aquifer Features
Black Mesa Project EIS

k

Kayenta
any hon

Lagu

Unnamed near Dennehotso

LEGEND
Surface Drainage Features Streams Well Spring Stream Gage Station Lake Aquifers C-Aquifer N-Aquifer Confined Area of N-Aquifer (Southeast edge is limit of the model)
C h in

Tsegi
W

Kaibito
as

i b it oW

Coconino
 County


Po

l l Ye oa C

h

lo

w

k

ne Mi

W

a

sh

BLACK MESA COMPLEX
Reed Valley Red Peak Valley

ate

rC

INSET AREA

d
as W pi o nk oe

Be

i

oa

ga

sh

h
Yucca Fl at Was h

10R-111


Wa

sh

ny

on

M

Project Features

stu re

Forest Lake NTUA
ra
b

Apache County

Ca

oW a sh

Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignment Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route Western Pipeline Route

d
o

Pa

Moenkopi School

W

Hard Rock
 Tusayan
a te rC an yo n h

Po

la

a cc

W

a

Moenkopi


ep

o

W

as h

ve r

D in

9401260

O

Tuba City

ne

bit

Pasture Canyon
Ri

iW

i

as

h

sh

Coconino INSET
 County

Cameron BLACK MESA
 COMPLEX

Hotevilla Kykotsmovi
it
a oW

General Features

Hopi Reservation Boundary
s

Ye

ll

ow

W

Navajo Reservation Boundary State Boundary County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 USGS 2005 USGS Water Resources 2006 Bureau of Reclamation 2005

a Co

in lM

e

W

as

Burro
W

Re ed

Val le y

Lit tle

C olo

ligman
ea
R ed

kV

alle

y

Po l

a

a cc

as

h

Valle

9400568

Je

dd

P

bit o

Ash

en Fork Mo

Williams

at Wash

Wa sh

p ko

h as iW

u cca F l

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch
Flagstaff

Leupp

i

Navajo County

h

November 2008
0 10 Miles 20

Well Field Navajo Reservation

Arizona

Ut
le Wash

Kane County

Black
M es
aa
nd

La

e

ll R we

a
lr

Di nn e

C

ol

a or

ra
do

R

ve

r

Y

Prepared By:

Winslow

Kane County

San Juan County

Utah Arizona
Page

Kayenta Tsegi
BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Co lo

9402300

Blue Spring

at
t arac

rad o

Tuba City
R iv

er
Hard Rock

Tusayan

Li tt
9402000

Coconino County

le

Hotevilla

Kykotsmovi

Apache County

wo

on

xW

ro u

rC

re

9398000

iv er 9397300

Le

Cl
Blue Ridge
 Reservoir


ea

Ch
9398500

e ev

Zu n i

Ri

9397500
Chevelon Reservoir

Yavapai County

9398300

Ri v
er

Mo
Gila
 County
Woods Canyon
 Lake


g ollon Rim

Tonto Cr e ek

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-55_Location_C-Aquifer.pdf(par)

iv lt R Sa
Maricopa County

er

Greenlee County Graham County Pinal County

LEGEND

0

10 Miles


20


Prepared By:

SOURCES:
 URS Corporation 2005
 USGS 2005 USGS Water Resources 2006 Bureau of Reclamation 2005 U.S. FWS Critical Habitat Portal
 2005


Surface Drainage Features Stream Reach 9399000 Steam Gage Station Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Aqifers Existing Route C-Aquifer Realignment
 Confined Area of
 Alternative A Water-Supply System N-Aquifer (Southeast edge C-Aquifer Well Field
 is limit of the model)
 Eastern Pipeline Route Critical Habitat Subalternative along Eastern Route Humpback Chub Western Pipeline Route Little Colorado Spinedace Razorback Sucker

Project Features Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area

General Features Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary State Boundary County Boundary

Map 3-5

Location of Surface Drainages South of Black Mesa and Key C-Aquifer Features
November 2008

Black Mesa Project EIS

ve r

Ha

va

su C
Ash Fork

Ca
n y on
Valle Williams
d Ver

Well Field Navajo Reservation

C

ol

Apache
 County


ado River or
Leupp
Navajo County

Flagstaff
Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

od

Wa s h

as

h
i co R

Winslow 9399000 ek

t Co t L it l e Colorad oR
t

r ve

Pu er

v er C Sil

lo

n

C

re

ek

Holbrook
McHood Reservoir

Woodruff

reek

e

Figure 3-2

Regional Hydrology

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-21

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-6_KeyHydrologicFeatures.pdf(par)

Nevada

Utah

Lincoln County

Washington County

Kane County

Map 3-6
San Juan County

Utah Arizona
Page

Extent of Regional Aquifers
Black Mesa Project EIS

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d

LEGEND
Kayenta Tsegi

Blac k

Aquifers
C Aquifer D Aquifer

Me s

Nevada

Arizona

a
an

Clark County

La

ke

0 13

Thief Rock PS
Ra
ilr o a

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

N Aquifer

0 12

we Po
ll

Project Features
d 100

Clark

90
30

Apache County

lo Co

o rad

er Riv

PS #1
10

Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route
 Realignment
 Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route

110

MP 91 PS
20

Tuba City Moenkopi
50

40
80

90

0 10

Moenkopi
 Wash
 Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Ra ilwa

Mohave County Coconino County

Tusayan
y

60

70

Cameron PS #2
80

70

Hotevilla
60

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

Western Pipeline Route PS = Pump Station

Moenkopi PS

50

on

ny

Ca

Valle
100

90

50

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110
120

40
40

General Features
Tolani Lake PS

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
23 0

Grand

30

River Lake
Navajo County

140

30

130

150

Tolani Lake PS Leupp
20

PS #4 Seligman
170

Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary

Laughlin

240

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

270

10

180

0 25

190

0 20

Kingman
260
20

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

Ne da a va rni

State Boundary County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route

220

Ca

o lif

10

Kingman Area
 Reroute


Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow

Little Colorad o River

Railroad
SOURCES:
 URS Corporation 2005, 2006
 Bureau of Reclamation 2005


Holbrook

n ifor Ca l
San Bernardino County

Ariz ona
La Paz County Yavapai
 County

0

November 2008
20 Miles 40

ia

Prepared By:
Gila County

Of principal interest to this project is the N aquifer, which is the current and proposed source of water supply for mining operations. The N and C aquifers are the major sources of potable water for municipal use. Until December 2005 when mining at the Black Mesa operation ceased, the N aquifer was the primary source of water supply for the coal-slurry pipeline. The N aquifer can be characterized as a sandstone aquifer with low transmissivity that is confined beneath the leasehold, the central portion of the Navajo Reservation, and the northeast portion of the Hopi Reservation. The Peabody well field is in the confined area of the N aquifer, which is shown on Map 3-4. The aquifer is unconfined in the areas of Moenkopi and Tuba City where significant springs occur. The C aquifer is characterized as a moderately transmissive sandstone aquifer and generally is unconfined south of the Little Colorado River and in the southwestern corner of the Navajo Reservation. It is deep and confined under Black Mesa and beneath the Hopi Reservation. The aquifer in the area of the proposed C-aquifer well field is unconfined. The N and C aquifers are large aquifer systems; water in storage is estimated to be 166 and 413 million acre-feet, respectively (ADWR 1989; Eychaner 1983). Recharge is from precipitation and is estimated to range from 2,600 to 20,248 af/yr (Brown and Eychaner 1988; Eychaner 1983; GeoTrans 1987; Lopes and Hoffman 1997, and Zhu 2000), with a median of 13,000 af/yr for the N aquifer, and 319,000 af/yr for the C aquifer, or approximately 0.008 and 0.08 percent of the water in storage (Eychaner 1983; Hart et al. 2002). Because the annual recharge is small compared to the volume of water in storage, aquifer water levels do not fluctuate significantly in response to typical wet and dry cycles of precipitation. 3.4.1 Black Mesa Complex

Water resources in the Black Mesa region, particularly the eastern portion of the area where the existing and planned water production facilities are located, have been studied for many years. Peabody has conducted extensive surface water and groundwater studies in support of its permit applications and associated regulatory requirements. These studies include sedimentation and streamflow measurements, as well as detailed groundwater modeling of the N and D aquifers, and are referenced throughout this section of the EIS. OSM prepared a Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Analysis (CHIA) of the coal lease area in 1989 (USDI 1989). The purpose of the CHIA is to evaluate the potential for damage to the hydrologic balance outside the Black Mesa Complex. The hydrologic balance is the relationship between the quality and quantity of water inflow to, and water outflow from, a hydrologic unit such as a drainage basin or aquifer. The CHIA currently is being updated to include information from additional water resource studies available since the first CHIA report and to determine potential mining-related hydrologic impact on the existing and foreseeable water uses. Existing hydrologic conditions, including the ongoing mining operations, are described in the following subsections. 3.4.1.1 Surface Water

Two major drainages convey runoff and spring discharge from the Black Mesa Complex including Moenkopi Wash and Dinnebito Wash (refer to Map 3-4). The two washes are intermittent and discharge to the Little Colorado River system. Additionally, five relatively large washes feed Moenkopi Wash on the mine leasehold—Yucca Flat, Red Peak Valley, Reed Valley, Coal Mine, and Yellow Water Canyon. Flows are highly variable and primarily consist of storm runoff. As is typical of the area, runoff from storm events can range from a few cubic feet per second (cfs) to more than 10,000 cfs, depending on the location, intensity, and duration of a storm. Perennial reaches (flowing continuously at that point) are the result of saturated rock units at the surface and the discharge of alluvial aquifers holding stormwater bank storage. This flow is referred to as base flow and is generally synonymous with the low flow of the stream. When base flow occurs, Peabody measures flows in each of the washes within the Black Mesa Complex. Base flow is generally low and ranges from 0.020 to 0.29 cfs for Coal Mine Wash, 0.09 to

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-23

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Complex. Base flow is generally low and ranges from 0.020 to 0.29 cfs for Coal Mine Wash, 0.09 to 0.17 cfs for Moenkopi Wash, 0.002 cfs for Dinnebito Wash, 0.08 cfs for Reed Valley Wash, 0.071 cfs for Red Peak Valley Wash, and 0.027 cfs for Yellow Water Canyon Wash. Not all stream reaches within the permit area have periods of base flow. The USGS monitored streamflow on Coal Mine Wash (three locations) and Moenkopi Wash (two locations) sporadically throughout the 1970s within the permit and adjacent area. After 1980, all on-site streamflow monitoring was performed by Peabody. Peabody surface-water monitoring has occurred at 14 locations within the permit area, and includes all major drainages and tributary drainages. Monitoring of surface water is a routine permit requirement for Peabody. Peabody categorizes surfacewater quality data based on three sources of surface water monitored—rainfall (stormwater), snow melt, or base flow. Water-quality analyses indicate a variety of water types, mostly calcium/magnesium sulfate and calcium/magnesium bicarbonate waters. Stormwater generally has less contact time with saltcontaining materials that results in less concentration after evaporation. Therefore, TDS concentrations tend to decrease as runoff increases. Mean concentration of stormwater is given in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Mean Concentrations of Chemical Parameters in Stormwater, 
 Stream Monitoring Sites by Site Number (1986 to 2002) 

Reed Valley Yellow Water Yazzie Wash Wash Wash 37* 50 15 157 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.2 1,485 755 686 231 121 86 85 111 694 437 398 122 162 125 127 50 105 44 34 8 100 19 16 4 213 17 10 3 Red Peak Valley Wash Coal Mine Wash 16 18** 25 14 155 8.1 8.0 8.0 8.3 8.3 471 1,335 1,538 268 316 80 123 119 92 88 242 810 977 109 128 87 165 168 46 43 19 80 97 12 12 13 104 141 15 31 10 11 8 26 20 Moenkopi Wash 35 26 8.1 8.0 292 1,109 68 107 118 660 52 152 11 66 5 83 4 38

pH TDS Alk SO4 Ca Mg Na C1

Dinnebito Wash 34 78 8.1 8.0 1,170 1,489 91 87 740 937 166 194 70 98 75 98 17 22

SOURCE: Peabody Western Coal Company 1986 NOTES: *Excludes chemical data for two samples that were influenced by magnesium chloride spills upgradient of this monitoring site. **Includes chemical data from subsites FLUM18 and CG18. pH = acidity, TDS = total dissolved solids, Alk = alkalinity, SO4 = sulfate, Ca = calcium, Mg = magnesium, Na = sodium, Cl = chloride

Peabody’s LOM applicaton indicates 163 impoundments to exist in 2008 under SMCRA to control sediment transport from mined areas into the washes. A total of 51 impoundments are proposed to be permanent (left as part of the postmining landscape). Location of these impoundments, along with other water features on the permit area, are shown on Map 3-7 (as of 2007).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-24

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-7_Ponds.pdf(par)

Map 3-7
T N9-A2
 N9-J3 T N9-J2 T N9-A1
 T N9-B2 T N9-A T

YA ZZ IE

Coal-Loading Site

N9-J1 T N9-J SH T N9-I T N9-H T

W A

N10-I

T

N2-D T

T N9-B1 N9-B T

N2-E T

CO

N10-J T

AL

M

N10-K T

Temporary and Permanent Impoundments
Black Mesa Project EIS

T TS-B

TS-A T

P N8-RA

KM-TPB T

N9-K T N9-C1 T N9-G T T N9-C T N9-F T N9-D N9-E T

N2-RC P N2-RB P

T N10-G1

IN E

W AS

H

N2 P -R A

Overland Conveyor

T TPC-A

KM-TPB1 T P N7-D P

N1-D T N1-E T P

COAL MINE
 DIVERSION

N1-PII#1 P

T N10-D1

T N10-G P N10-A T N10-B N10-F T T N10-A2 P N10-A1

LEGEND
Impoundments and Other Water Features
Existing Permanent Impoundment P Existing Temporary Impoundment T
AS W PI

YELL O CANY W WATER ON W ASH

N1-PII#2 N1-RA P
 N11-G P N1-RB N11-G1 T
 TPF-D P T T
 N6-M N11-G2 T
 P T N1-O TPF-A N1-M N10-C T N11-A2 T T N1-L P TPF-E N6-L T N1-AC T T N6-K P T N1-F T P KM-A3 T T T N6-J T KM-D T T KM-C N6-I T N6-K1 T KM-B N12-C1 N12-C2 N12-N T N6-G N6-H T N5-F T T T T T N5-G T N5-A N12-M T T KM-E P N5-A2 T KM-E1 N5-E N14-B T T N5-D T N14-P T N7-E P N1-PII#4 P N1-PII#7 P N1-PII#6

T N11-E T P N10-H N10-D N11-C T N11-A P N11-A1 T

H

Proposed Permanent Impoundment P Proposed Temporary Impoundment T Stream Spring

B1 0- 2- C N1 N1 M1 N6-

M

O NK OE

P N14-H

Project Features
Black Mesa Complex Kayenta Mining Operation Area, including Coal-Loading Site, Overland Conveyor, and Power Line (permanent permit area)
T J28-J J28-J1 T

P N14-F

N14-G P

AL WA MIN SH E

N6-E T

T N6-F T WW-6

T J15-I T J15-H T J15-A T J15-B T J15-G T J15-F T J15-D J15-E T T J15-C

WW-2 T
-A T CW

P J1-RA J1-A T T J3-SL P J1-RB N6-D1 T N6-D T N6-C T

N14-D P N11-I2 T N11-J2 T
 N11-I1 T N14-C T N11-J1 T
 N14-Q T T N11-J T N11-I T N11-H T J16-F P J16-G T J16-G1

N14-T T
J16-A P

CO

Black Mesa Mining Operation Area (currently unpermitted area) Alternative A New Coal-Haul Road

J16-D T J16-E T

T J28-D T J28-SL

J28-C T J28-B T

Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Alternative A Water-Supply System Eastern Pipeline Route

P J2-A

T J3-H

WILD RAM WASH T J3-A P J3-PII#1
T J3-B P J3-PII#2 T J3-F J3-G P T J4-D1

T WW-5 J3-E P BM-FWP T J4-A1 P T J3-D J4-B T J4-A J16-L P

WAS H

COAL MINE

MO
T

EN

P KO

H AS IW

J28-G T

RE

ED

Western Pipeline Route

VA L
L EY WA
SH

DUG OU

T J4-D J4-C T

J19-RA T

AL L TV

J14-H T J3-PII#4 P T P J3-PII#3 T J3-PII#5 MW-A T P J27-A MW-B T J14-A T J27-RA J14-G T BM-B T P T BM-SS J27-RC J27-RB T WW-4 J14-F T BM­ P T P TW J14-B1 T J6-I T J6-J T T BM-T T J14-C J14-B J6-I1 T T J14-D BM-A1 J6-H T WW-3 T T T J14-E J6-G T J6-F T T J6-E T T J7-DAM P T J6-B J7-A J6-D J6-C T J6-A T

General Features
Hopi Reservation Boundary
J19-RB P

EY SH WA

J19-A T J19-B T
RED P

Navajo Reservation Chapter Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route

EAK VALLE

YW AS

J19-D T J19-E T J7-JR P T J21-C2 T J21-A1 P J21-A

Railroad
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005, 2006 Peabody Energy 2006 DigitalGlobe Incorporated 2003

H
J23-A T

P J21-C

Power Line
T J23-B T J21-G1 T

T J21-D T J21-E
J21-F1 J21-F T

YUCCA FLAT WASH

J7-G

T

J7-B1 T

T T J23-C J23-D J21-G T J7-CD J23-E T H T T J7-E T AS J21-H1 SAGEBRUSH J23-G J23-F T W J7-I T T O T J7-F WASH T T T J21-H T T J7-J J8-E T BI J7-K J10-E T T J23-K J23-L T J7-U T T E VALLEY W T J23-H J10-F J7-M T CATTL AS J7-T J7-V T J23-I J23-J T T J8-F T REST ING T J21-I2 H J23-M J23-M1 J7-R1 J7-S T T J10-D T T WW-9C T J21-I1 T T T T P J10-C T -I J9-E 1 J8-A T J7-R J8-D T J9-F J2 P J10-B T T J9-D T T J9-G WW-9B T T J9-C J21-L J10-A T WW-9A T J9-G1 J21-N1 T T J8-C T YUCCA FLAT
 T T J9-B T WW-9 T J8-B T J21-N WASH
 T J21-M T J9-A J7-H

November 2008
0 1 Miles 2

DI N

NE

Prepared By:

Permanent internal impoundments on the mining operation areas also have been monitored for water quality (Table 3-2). Most, but not all, values fall within the draft livestock-watering standards established by the USEPA (1995), Hopi Tribe (1998), and Navajo Nation (1999). With the exception of Impoundment Site No. N2-RA, the quality of water in these impoundments is similar in range to natural stormwater flow, with TDS, sulfate (SO4), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sodium, and chloride (Cl) lower than natural drainages. Reclaimed areas have generated runoff that is similar in water-quality composition. Table 3-2 Mean Concentrations of Chemical Parameters, 
 Permanent Internal Impoundments by Site Number (1986 to 2002) 

pH TDS Alk SO4 Ca Mg Na C1 116 8.2 459 84 225 63 25 29 10 124 118a N1-RA 122a 123a 112a 7.8 8.6 9.5 8.0 7.5 7.8 205 144 424 143 177 281 100 105 145 96 102 109 68 16 180 15 21 98 44 24 34 25 26 24 13 11 23 9 9 12 4 5 69 4 7 44 3 5 7 5 6 4 113a 119a N7-D N2-RA N2-RB N2-RC N8-RA 7.9 7.9 8.1 8.5 8.1 8.6 8.0 603 165 939 11,944 566 227 133 205 116 74 301 113 97 56 252 25 595 8,280 297 79 34 46 28 155 451 108 44 26 21 12 56 549 34 12 4 117 9 41 2414 12 6 2 54 6 4 4 8 2 20

SOURCE: Peabody Western Coal Company 1986 NOTES: aPre-law area ponds. pH = acidity, TDS = total dissolved solids, Alk = alkalinity, SO4 = sulfate, Ca = calcium, Mg = magnesium, Na = sodium, Cl = chlorine

In compliance with NPDES Permit No. NN0022179, Peabody conducts regularly scheduled inspections of impoundments to monitor and assess conditions including seepage from impoundments and potential effects on livestock drinking water. Several of the seeps found during the 2005 inspections downstream of impoundments with outfalls permitted under the NPDES permit (NPDES impoundments) have the potential to be accessed and used by livestock as a source of drinking water. The Hopi Tribe (1998) and Navajo Nation (1999) have proposed, but have not formally adopted, waterquality standards for livestock. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has established standards for agricultural livestock watering for the Little Colorado River below Lyman Lake, which is upstream of the Navajo Indian Reservation. Constituents for which livestock standards have been established include arsenic (As), cadmium, chromium, copper, lead (Pb), mercury, selenium, zinc, and pH. The National Academy of Sciences has recommended livestock standards for other constituents including aluminum, boron, fluoride, nitrate (NO3), nitrite, TDS, and vanadium. Sediment structures are earthen embankments constructed by digging key-ways into the sides and bottoms of drainages, and building dams on top of the key-ways from earthen materials excavated locally using standard engineering and construction methods. At some locations, water impounded by the dams may persist in large enough amounts and for sufficient durations to cause seepage through the bottom of the dam or through more permeable geologic formations near the embankment, eventually emanating downstream of the structure. Peabody terms these downstream emanations “seeps.” The seeps range from damp areas at the embankment toe to water flowing at low rates in the channel for limited distances below the structure. Most of the seeps are ephemeral, and those that do flow more persistently do so at rates no greater than several gpm. The water impounded by the dams usually carries low dissolved chemical loads, but commonly features high concentrations of suspended solids due to the natural process of sediment entrainment during rainfall runoff. After the suspended solids settle out of the water impounded above the dam, seepage through the embankment or surrounding geology (e.g., thin coal seams) can react with constituents that naturally
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-26 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

occur in the materials used to build the embankments or the more permeable geologic formations in the vicinity. These reactions between water from the impoundment and surrounding materials can result in elevated concentrations of select water-quality parameters such as pH, NO3, aluminum, selenium, iron, and other trace elements. On occasion, these parameters have exceeded water-quality standards. However, the seepages and chemical reactions are not prevalent at the sediment-control structures built by Peabody. Seeps below NPDES impoundments were identified as features of concern by the USEPA during the late 1980s and early 1990s. As a result, Peabody monitored the seeps, and conducted a comprehensive study during 1995. The study (Brogan-Johnson 1996) concluded the following: The evaluation of major ion chemistry, deuterium and oxygen isotope data, relationships between water levels and seep discharges, and geology, indicate that the chemistries of the impoundments are variable, and the geochemical relationships between impoundments and their seeps are complex. All exceedences of the effluent limitations appear to be attributable to natural processes, and/or the geologic material within the study area. The chemistry of the seeps and natural springs in the Wepo Formation appear to be controlled by similar geochemical processes. Nevertheless, the presence of the impoundments creates a source of water that feeds the seeps and, in some cases, results in discharges that exceed water quality standards for some parameters. Based on the study results, Peabody developed a Seepage Management Plan to manage seeps below NPDES-permitted sediment-control structures. The plan was approved by USEPA and subsequently incorporated in the Kayenta and Black Mesa Mine NPDES permit in March 1999, and remains a NPDES permit requirement today. Peabody routinely inspects select NPDES sediment ponds that have seeps, conducts monitoring at the seeps for flow and water quality at least annually and in some cases more frequently, and assesses the data with respect to livestock water-quality standards and potential impacts on the hydrologic balance. Peabody submits an annual Seepage Monitoring and Management Report to USEPA and other agencies (Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, and OSM) that incorporates seep-inspection summaries, flow and water-quality data, assessments of the data with respect to livestock water-quality standards and impacts on the hydrologic balance, and summaries of management activities that have been conducted during the year. To date, Peabody has submitted seven annual Seepage Monitoring and Management Reports. Peabody samples seeps that have pooled or have sufficient flowing water to allow sampling on an annual basis. Water-quality parameters measured in the field in 2005 included electrical conductivity, pH, temperature, and salinity. A total of 41 water samples were collected from NPDES and non-NPDES seeps. Thirty-eight samples were analyzed for iron (total and dissolved), selenium (total and recoverable), and nitrogen (NO3 and nitrite), while three samples were further analyzed for the full suite of chemical parameters (Peabody 2006). Analysis indicated that livestock drinking-water standards were exceeded in samples collected in 2005 from 6 of 28 seep-sampling sites (Seeps BM-A1-S1, BM-A1-S2, N6-F-S1, J21-A1-S1, N14-D-S1, andN14-P-S1) (Table 3-3). These six sites are below five separate ponds. Two of the ponds, J21-A1 and N14-D, are not NPDES ponds. The measurements are similar to previous years, with the exception of the high value for total recoverable selenium measured at a seep below Pond J3-D. No results outside the acceptable range for livestock drinking water were measured at the remaining 22 sites that were sampled.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-27

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-3
Seep Monitoring Site BM-A1-S1

Seep-Water Samples not Meeting Livestock Drinking-Water Standards*
Livestock Drinking-Water Standards 6.5 to 9.0 S.U. Measured Values 4.86 to 5.18 S.U. Impacts on Livestock Drinking Water and Prevailing Hydrologic Balance Measurements outside of pH range recommended for livestock, indicating seep water is unsuitable for livestock. Proposed (pending USEPA approval) passive treatment system and rock placed along limited reaches to prevent livestock accessing seep water. Measurements outside of pH range recommended for livestock, indicating seep water is unsuitable for livestock. Proposed (pending USEPA approval) passive treatment system and rock placed along limited reaches to prevent livestock accessing seep water. Measurements outside of pH range recommended for livestock, indicating water is unsuitable for livestock. Additional fencing added in 2005 to prevent access by livestock. New seep, only sampled once. May be laboratory error, but likely to be near the standard. Seep unsuitable for livestock use. Fenced to prevent livestock access. New seep. Downstream impact small due to buffering by alkaline soils and concurrent snowmelt.

WaterQuality Parameters Field pH

BM-A1-S2

Field pH

6.5 to 9.0 S.U.

3.42 to 4.25 S.U.

N6-F-S1

Field pH

6.5 to 9.0 S.U.

3.89 to 4.18 S.U.

J21-A1-S1 N14-D-S1 N14-P-S1

TDS Field pH Field pH Total recoverable aluminum

6,999 mg/L 6.5 to 9.0 S.U. 6.5 to 9.0 S.U. 5 mg/L

8,610 mg/L 3.60 S.U. 5.57 S.U. 6.80 mg/L

SOURCE: Peabody Western Coal Company 2006 NOTES: * Livestock drinking-water standards established by Navajo Nation (1999). pH = acidity or alkalinity of a solution, S.U. = standard units, USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TDS = total dissolved solids, mg/L = milligrams per liter, μg/l = micrograms per liter

Evaluation of water-quality data collected in 2005 indicates that the impact of these seeps is localized. The pH of the water controls the solubility and transport of metals. Other than at the immediate area of the seeps, the pH of surrounding groundwater and surface water is alkaline. When dissolved in low-pH water, most metals are rapidly lost to a solid (precipitation) as the seep water flows a short distance downgradient. Some of the values of the constituents of concern are already as high or higher in the natural system. In addition, seep-flow rates and total chemical loads are relatively small in comparison to the flow rates and chemical loads typically measured in downgradient shallow groundwater (alluvial aquifer) and streamflow (Peabody 2004). The results of the analyses of seeps on surface-water quality indicate that increases in chemical concentration would be minimal or immeasurable if seep water with high levels of NO3, SO4, TDS, selenium, or aluminum mixed directly with conservatively low rates of stormwater runoff in receiving streams. Thus, impacts of seeps on surface water are limited to the immediate areas of the seeps below the NPDES ponds. Information regarding the results of seep inspections and analyses conducted in 2005 are presented in the 2005 Seepage Monitoring and Management Report prepared by Peabody (2006).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-28

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.4.1.2

Groundwater

Within Black Mesa, groundwater in the region can be found in the alluvium, Mesa Verde Group, D-aquifer system, N-aquifer system, and C-aquifer system. The alluvial and Mesa Verde Group aquifer systems are discussed below. The D-, N-, and C-aquifer systems are discussed in Section 3.4.3. The alluvial-aquifer system represents alluvium (stream deposits) and colluvium (original rocks and debris) that occur as a substantial volume within and along principal washes in the study area. These washes include Dinnebito, Reed Valley, lower Coal Mine, and lower Moenkopi. The saturated portions of these washes range from 900 to 40,000 square feet in area (OSM 2006). Transmissivity values are reported to range from 21 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft) to 5,100 gpd/ft (Peabody 2006). The alluvial aquifer is recharged from infiltration of surface-water runoff, and from the intersection of the alluvial channels with saturated portions of the Mesa Verde Group, including the Toreva and Wepo Formations (OSM 2004b). Alluvial-aquifer water quality is highly variable and dependent upon the water quality and quantity of the contributing source. TDS range from 628 mg/L (Coal Mine Wash) to 62,000 mg/L (Moenkopi Wash). Nitrate is a concern in the alluvium, ranging up to 540 mg/L in some samples. Water quality in alluvial wells upgradient of all mining activities (groundwater flow before reaching the mine area) has a median TDS ranging from 540 mg/L (Coal Mine Wash) to 4,276 mg/L (Dinnebito Wash). Sulfate concentrations in upgradient background alluvial-monitoring wells have a median concentration ranging from 220 mg/L (Coal Mine Wash) to 2,774 mg/L (Dinnebito Wash). Therefore, background alluvial water is marginally suitable for livestock watering based on Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation proposed livestock watering limits of 1,000 mg/L for SO4. Of the 32 alluvial wells sampled in 2005, 6 wells potentially were suitable for livestock use (Peabody 2005). The Mesa Verde Group yields small amounts of water to wells and springs on Black Mesa. This group is a source of water for springs located on the Hopi Reservation and is of local significance as a shallow source of water supply. The Mesa Verde Group includes the Wepo Formation that is mined for coal at the Black Mesa Complex. This Formation is separated from the underlying D aquifer by the relatively impermeable Mancos Shale. Water levels in the Wepo aquifer range from 0 to 212 feet below ground surface (bgs) across the permit area (Peabody 1986, revised 2004). The aquifer is confined in some areas and is not present continuously across the project area. Recharge occurs in the unconfined and exposed surface areas of broken and burned coal-clinker material. The direction of groundwater flow is generally west to southwest across the Black Mesa Complex. Tests on wells drilled into the Wepo aquifer indicate transmissivity values of between 0.07 and 1,990 gpd/ft. Reported storage coefficients for the Wepo aquifer are between 1.9 x 10-5 and 1.45 x 10-4, indicating confined or delayed yield conditions in the area of the test wells. The LOM revision application evaluated the hydrogeology of water flow to the open pits from the Wepo aquifer. Aquifer testing indicated that some flow in the Wepo aquifers was confined and that coal beds acted as confining layers in some sequences. In general, however, groundwater modeling assumed that the alluvial and Wepo aquifers were connected and, upon excavation, groundwater flow would be in the direction of the face of the mine pits. Maximum inflow (Pit N-14) was estimated to be about 23 gpm. The computer-predicted impact on Wepo aquifer water levels was as much as 65 feet. However, actual observation of both pit-water inflow and water-level change in Wepo wells suggests that groundwater modeling overestimates both these numbers (Peabody 1986, revised 2004). To date, two Wepo windmill wells have been removed by mining, and one additional windmill well will be removed in the future. Peabody has committed to replacing all three wells. Peabody has installed two water stands that provide free potable (N-aquifer) water to the public on a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week basis.
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-29 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Groundwater from the Wepo aquifer is highly variable in chemical quality. Water from sandstone units generally contains calcium bicarbonate. Coal water contains calcium/magnesium sulfate, and water from shale units contains sodium/potassium sulfate. Wepo-aquifer water from background wells located a significant distance from the area disturbed by mining indicates median SO4 concentrations may be as high as 1,100 mg/L. Therefore, Wepo-aquifer water is marginally suitable for livestock watering based on Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation proposed surface-water-quality standards for livestock (SO4 limit of 1,000 mg/L). 3.4.2 3.4.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline Surface Water

A number of watercourses are traversed by the existing coal-slurry pipeline. The pipeline crosses the following: • • • • • • • • Coal Mine Wash Moenkopi Wash Black Mesa Wash Little Colorado River Cedar Wash Miller Wash Spring Valley Wash Red Lake Wash • • • • • • • • Cataract Creek Martin Dam Draw Big Chino Wash Muddy Creek Knight Creek Tuckayou Wash Sacramento Wash Colorado River

In addition to these larger named washes and water bodies, the existing pipeline route crosses many smaller, unnamed washes. Of these watercourses, only the Colorado River is perennial; the rest are intermittent or, most commonly, ephemeral (flowing in direct response to precipitation). There are, however, portions of some drainages that are perennial. None are unique waters, as defined by the NNEPA. The Colorado River is one of the most regulated streams in the West. Where the existing coalslurry pipeline crosses the Colorado River, the river’s flow is controlled by the Davis Dam. The rest of these washes or streams are largely unregulated. The major nonperennial streams include Moenkopi Wash, Little Colorado River, Cataract Creek, Big Chino Wash, and Sacramento Wash. Median annual peak surface-water flows recorded at USGS streamgauging stations vary widely and are reflective of local rainfall, the period of record for the streamgauging station, and how much of the watershed is upstream of the location. From these data, it is likely that Moenkopi Wash, the Little Colorado River, and Sacramento Wash would provide the largest potential flood flows. Designated uses of the streams not on tribal land have been defined only for Cataract Creek, Sacramento Wash, the Little Colorado River, and the Colorado River (Table 3-4). The remaining nontribal streams are all designated for aquatic-and-wildlife ecological and partial-body-contact recreational uses. On the Navajo Reservation, surface-water quality is the responsibility of the NNEPA and USEPA. On the Navajo Reservation, Begashibito Wash and the Little Colorado River are designated for secondary human contact, ephemeral warm-water habitat, and livestock and wildlife watering. Moenkopi Wash has the same designations plus agricultural water supply (Navajo Nation 1999).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-30

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-4
Listed streams Stream Cataract Creek

State-Designated Use, as declared by AZ Rule R18-11, Appendix B
State-Designated Uses FC

Stream Segment Below 1 km downstream of Williams Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall to confluence of Red Lake Wash Sacramento Wash Tributary to Topock Marsh at 34°43’48"/114°29’13" Little Colorado River Below confluence with Puerco River Colorado River Lake Powell to Topock Tributary rule streams Stream Miller Wash Ephemeral tributary to Cataract Creek Spring Valley Wash Ephemeral tributary to Cataract Creek Red Lake Wash Ephemeral tributary to Cataract Creek Martin Dam Draw Ephemeral tributary to Partridge Creek Big Chino Wash Ephemeral tributary to the Verde River Muddy Creek Ephemeral tributary to Big Chino Wash Tuckayou Wash Ephemeral tributary to Knight Creek Knight Creek Ephemeral tributary to the Big Sandy River

A&Wc FBC A&We PBC A&Ww FBC A&Wc FBC A&We A&We A&We A&We A&We A&We A&We A&We PBC PBC PBC PBC PBC PBC PBC PBC

AgL

DWS DWS

FC FC

AgL AgI

AgL

State-Designated Uses

SOURCE: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2003a NOTES: Latitude/longitude: ° = degree, ‘ = minute, " = second; A&Wc = aquatic and wildlife (cold water), A&We = aquatic and wildlife (ephemeral), AgI = agricultural irrigation, AgL = agricultural livestock watering, DWS = domestic water source, FBC = full-body contact, FC = fish consumption, km = kilometer, PBC = partial-body contact

3.4.2.2

Groundwater

Map 3-6 shows the pipeline route and major groundwater aquifers. In the western portions of the route (west of Cameron) the pipeline crosses primarily shallow alluvial aquifers. These aquifers are composed of unconsolidated and semiconsolidated clay, silt, sand and gravel. Groundwater depths range from a few feet to several hundred feet bgs. In most areas, however, the water table is below the excavation depth of the pipeline trench. East of Cameron, the coal-slurry pipeline crosses the outcrops of the N aquifer, D aquifer, and Wepo and alluvial aquifers. These aquifers are described in other sections of this chapter. 3.4.3 3.4.3.1 3.4.3.1.1 Water Supply C Aquifer Water-Supply System Surface Water

With the exception of the Colorado River, most streams in the study area are intermittent or ephemeral. There are, however, portions of some drainages that are perennial. These reaches exist where groundwater discharges to the stream channel. These stream reaches may be affected by groundwater pumping from the C aquifer. The two streams of most concern for possible impacts due to pumping at the C-aquifer well field are lower Clear and Chevelon Creeks. Location of the proposed C-aquifer well field, Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, and other C-aquifer features are shown on Map 3-5. The Clear Creek watershed (subwatershed of the Little Colorado River watershed) drains approximately 600 square miles above and to the south of the City of Winslow before the confluence with the Little Colorado River. Clear Creek is composed of both perennial reaches, fed by baseflow, and ephemeral sections, supplied by flood-flow periods during snowmelt and runoff events. ADWR estimated an average depleted flow (streamflow after diversions and evaporation) of 61,860 af/yr for Clear Creek (ADWR 1994).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-31

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The headwaters of Clear Creek are on the Mogollon Rim, at about 7,500 feet above MSL (refer to Map 3-5). The stream flows 25 miles in a generally northeasterly direction to its junction with the Little Colorado River at about 4,900 feet above MSL. Blue Ridge Reservoir, located on one of the Clear Creek headwater tributaries, has a storage capacity of 19,500 acre-feet. About 0.5 mile south of the confluence with the Little Colorado River, Clear Creek is impounded to form McHood Reservoir. McHood Reservoir currently stores between 200 and 500 acre-feet. June is traditionally the period of lowest rainfall and surface flow runoff in the region, and it offers the monthly average most indicative of base flow conditions and flow minima. There are two USGS streamgauging stations in the Clear Creek watershed: USGS Station 09398500 below Willow Creek with a period of record from 1947 to 1991, and farther downstream, USGS Station 09399000 near Winslow, with a period of record from 1906 to 1982. These data, while not necessarily reflective of current conditions, show the climate variations that include high streamflow pulses early in the calendar year followed by a summer dry period and increase over the monsoonal months of August and September. Fall/winter frontal storms also are reflected in the streamflow data. As of the summer of 2005, the Winslow station was reactivated and now serves as a real-time stream gauge. A field investigation was conducted between June 30 and July 5, 2005, and consisted of visual inspection of the perennial reaches of lower Chevelon Creek and lower Clear Creek, along with measurement of flow, salinity (specific conductance), and retrieval of water samples for laboratory analysis. The work was performed by staff from the USGS Arizona Water Science Center in Flagstaff, Arizona. Perennial flow in Clear Creek begins about 10 miles upstream from the Little Colorado River. Flow in Clear Creek was about 2.5 cfs 0.5 mile above McHood Reservoir (approximately 2 miles upstream from the confluence with the Little Colorado River). At the entrance to the reservoir, the flow increased to 3.2 cfs. Seeps from the Coconino Sandstone were observed in the canyon walls at the reservoir. Immediately below the dam, the creekbed was dry. However, springs began appearing directly below this section of the creek. Flow increased to about 5.4 cfs over this interval. Flow in the Little Colorado River above Clear Creek was about 0.06 cfs and increased to 3.2 cfs below the confluence of Clear Creek and the Little Colorado River. Chevelon Creek is located to the southeast of Clear Creek and is broadly similar in surface-water hydrology (refer to Map 3-5). The Chevelon Creek watershed drains approximately 800 square miles south of the City of Winslow and empties into the Little Colorado River. Chevelon Creek is characterized by streamflow patterns similar to Clear Creek, with distinct perennial reaches sustained by springs and seeps. ADWR estimated an average depleted (after all diversions) flow of 40,680 af/yr (ADWR 1994). Streamflow patterns in Chevelon Creek are similar to those in Clear Creek. There are two USGS streamgauging stations: Station 09397500 below Wildcat Canyon, with a period of record from 1947 to present, and Station 09398000 near Winslow, with a period of record from 1906 to 1972. The period of record is the period when daily values of approved, quality-assured data were collected. Seasonality of runoff is similar to that of Clear Creek, although of slightly higher discharge on Chevelon Creek. Median flows from the periods of record on Chevelon Creek for June are 0.063 cfs at Wildcat Canyon and 5.02 cfs at Winslow. Perennial flow in Chevelon Creek starts about 12 miles upstream from its confluence with the Little Colorado River. During the field investigation, observed flow in Chevelon Creek ranged from 0.36 to 0.50 cfs in the reaches above Chevelon Reservoir (about 5 miles above the confluence with the Little Colorado River). Seeps from the Coconino Sandstone were observed in this same section. Along the shores of the reservoir, a spring discharges about 0.1 cfs. Flow over the Chevelon Reservoir Dam was 2.2 cfs, which increased to 2.7 cfs downstream of the dam. One-half mile upstream of the confluence with
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-32 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

the Little Colorado River, the flow measured 2.6 cfs, and at the confluence, 1.6 cfs. Thus, it appears that the stream was gaining at the reservoir and immediately downstream began losing to the streambed and evaporation. The USGS has taken several samples for standard water-quality analysis on both Chevelon and Clear Creeks. These data indicate generally good-quality water with low values for typical problem constituents in southwestern streams (i.e., boron, fluoride, NO3, pH, etc.). TDS range from about 500 to 3,600 mg/L. 3.4.3.1.2 Groundwater

The C aquifer underlies most of the eastern half of northern Arizona and includes an area of approximately 27,000 square miles (refer to Map 3-6). Most recharge to the C aquifer occurs along the Mogollon Rim and in the San Francisco Peaks where precipitation is high. Additionally, recharge occurs on the slopes of the Defiance Uplift (near Ganado) where precipitation also is elevated. C-aquifer recharge is estimated to be 319,000 af/yr. Of this amount, 173,280 af/yr flow north into the study area. Most of this water (164,000 af/yr) eventually discharges at Blue Springs in the Little Colorado River gorge. Recharge that does not flow north into the Little Colorado River basin flows south into the Verde and Salt River basins (Hart et al. 2002). The total volume of groundwater in storage in the C aquifer within the Little Colorado River watershed has been estimated at 413 million acre-feet (ADWR 1989). Groundwater usage in the Little Colorado River Basin portion of the C aquifer in 2000 is estimated at about 100,000 af/yr (Reclamation 2005) Approximately 1,500 square miles of the C aquifer along the western edge of the Navajo Reservation is considered to be dry (water level is below the bottom of the C aquifer). In this area, groundwater is thought to move downward through faults and fractures in the Supai Group into the limestone of the R aquifer (Hart et al. 2002). Over much of the rest of the study area, the C aquifer generally is separated from the underlying R aquifer by the low-permeability units of the middle and lower Supai Group. The saturated thickness of the C aquifer varies from 0 to more than 900 feet and averages 400 feet within the watershed. The C aquifer is unconfined south of the Little Colorado River (refer to Map 3-5). North of the river, beneath the Hopi and Navajo Reservations, the aquifer generally is confined by the overlying Moenkopi and Chinle Formations (Leake et al. 2005). As requested by Reclamation, USGS drilled three test wells and six observations wells at three sites within the proposed well field for the project water supply. Location of the test wells and other wells in the area of the well field are shown on Map 3-8. Depths of the test wells range from 1,096 to 1,134 feet. These wells were pumped and tested to investigate lithologic, structural, and water-quality conditions and to estimate aquifer parameters. The results of these tests are presented in Table 3-5 and Table 3-6.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-33

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Hydrology\C_Aquifer_Test_wells.pdf

LEGEND
C-Aquifer Well Field Bureau of Reclamation
 Well Site
 Navajo Well Location


OW-2A

PW-2A

18

17

16

15

14

13

5T-320
ted Selec
 ADWR
 Registered Well Location
 Surface Management Navajo Reservation Private General Features Interstate

05M-94 OW-2B PW-2B

Site 2

19

20

21

22
05M-86

23

24

State Route

State Trust

Major Streams Township Section

30

29

28
34 35

27

26

25

Site 1	

05M-88

31

32

30
34 PW-3

OW-3A OW-3C 35

34

35
05T-536

36

05T-320

Site 3

31
PW-1, PW-1A 05T-533 OW-1 590952 590953

32

33

34

35

36

04

03

02

01

03
597831

02

590954

01

07
601277 597834

08

09

10

11

12

590955	

R12.5E
 R12.5E R13E R13E


09

10

11

613875

12
R12E R12.5E R12.5E

10

11

12

18	 18

17
601273 601274 597833 597833 601272

597832 597832

16

15

14

13

Hopi Hart Ranch

597835 590956

15 14
40

613868

16
1

15 15 SCALE
0 1

14 14

Miles

13 13


13	

19 19	

20

21

601278 590152

22 22
590338 590338

23

24

SOURCES: Arizona Department of Water Resources 2005 Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources 2005 Bureau of Reclamation 2006

Map 3-8

C-Aquifer Test Wells and Other Nearby Wells

590821

Table 3-5

Aquifer Parameters for C-Aquifer Well Field
Site 1 2.0 52,400 28 NA 0.1 0.06 2 x10-6 0.5 Site 2 7.5 134,700 42 0.5 NA 0.08 2 x10-6 0.2 Site 3 2.4 40,400 11 0.2 0.2 0.05 2 x10-6 0.2

Parameter Specific capacity (gpm/ft) Transmissivity (gpd/ft) Hydraulic conductivity (ft/day) – Coconino (Ss) Hydraulic conductivity (ft/day) – Schnebly Hill Formation Hydraulic conductivity (ft/day) – Upper Supai Group Specific yield (dimensionless) Specific storage (1/ft) Vertical anisotropy (dimensionless)

SOURCE: Hoffmann et al. 2005 
 NOTE: ft/day = feet per day, ft = foot (feet), gpm/ft = gallons per minute per foot, gpd/ft = gallons per day per foot, 


Table 3-6
Well Number PW-1A OW-1 PW-2B OW-2B 3 PW-3 OW-3C Sunshine Well

Test Well Selected Inorganic Water-Quality Parameters, in mg/L except Arsenic (µg/L)
Na 54.9 58.2 27.6 27.6 85.1 80.1 26.1 Ca 121 121 96.1 99.2 100 107 107 Mg 567 58.4 41.7 43.1 52.1 50.7 45.5 NO3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 SO4 383 386 257 255 253 253 265 Cl 64.7 65.2 20.9 21.7 121 129 21.7 F 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 As 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.5 Formation C/S-H C/S-H C C/S-H C C/S-H C S-H C Upper Supai — Depth Interval (feet) 837 to 1,077 686 to 1,086 577 to 715 715 to 977 698 to 740 740 to 998 696 to 740 740 to 1,000 1,000 to 1,076 1,150 to 1,170 —

Site 1 2

TDS 837 838 592 594 770 773 606

SOURCE: Hoffmann et al. 2005 
 NOTES: As = arsenic, Ca = calcium, Cl = chlorine, F = fluoride, Mg = magnesium, Na = sodium, NO3 = nitrate,
 SO4 = sulfate, TDS = total dissolved solids, C = Coconino Sandstone, S-H = Schnebly Hill Formation

There are 166 known wells located within 10 miles of the proposed C-aquifer well field. Average well depth is 669 feet bgs and average depth to water is 310 feet bgs. Well yields in the vicinity of the proposed well field are reported to be between 5 and 1,700 gpm. Most of the wells in the area are smalldiameter stock wells and are not designed to produce large volumes of water. Five wells produce more than 200 gpm; these are larger-diameter irrigation wells and indicate that properly designed wells can produce significant volumes of water. Reclamation pumped the test wells between 450 and 795 gpm. The ability to install moderate- to large-capacity wells in the C aquifer is further supported by reported well yields at large industrial facilities that use C-aquifer water. The closest of these facilities is the APS Cholla Power Plant, located approximately 30 miles to the east (Figure 3-3). This facility has been in operation since the late 1960s and has 21 production wells in the C aquifer. The average pumping rate of these wells is 500 gpm (HDR 2003). Water quality in the C aquifer is generally good south of the Little Colorado River, but degrades north of the river. South of the Little Colorado River, TDS are generally less than 500 mg/L. North of the river the TDS content ranges from 3,000 to greater than 10,000 mg/L (ADWR 1989).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-35

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Figure 3-3

Historic and Proposed C-Aquifer Pumping Centers

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-36

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Selected inorganic water-quality parameters for the test wells in the C-aquifer well field are given in Table 3-6. The water is moderately hard and has a pH of about 7.6. TDS range from 592 to 838 mg/L, which is above the secondary, nonmandatory drinking water standard of 500 mg/L. Nitrate, As, and fluoride are well below the drinking-water standards for these parameters; however, SO4 is slightly above the secondary, nonmandatory drinking water limit of 250 mg/L. 3.4.3.1.3 Infrastructure

3.4.3.1.3.1 Well Field The three test well sites are individually located 10 miles south of Leupp, 8 miles southwest of Leupp, and 10 miles southwest of Leupp. The proposed well-field area is within the 1,200-square-mile watershed of Canyon Diablo. Canyon Diablo is an ephemeral stream with few uses or sources of potential pollution. The test wells and proposed well field are underlain entirely by the C aquifer. Depths of the test wells range from 1,096 to 1,134 feet bgs. Depth to water ranges from 226 to 615 feet bgs. The proposed well field is estimated to have 12 production wells drilled to approximately 1,100 feet bgs. Well spacing would be approximately 1 mile. 3.4.3.1.3.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline Routes In the hydrologic environment, there are some differences between the Eastern Route and the Western Route of the water-supply pipeline. The routes are both entirely within the Little Colorado River watershed. The Eastern Route would cross Dinnebito Wash, Oraibi Wash, Little Colorado River, and Yucca Flat Wash. In addition to these larger washes, many smaller unnamed washes that also may qualify as waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act may be involved. All these stream courses are intermittent or ephemeral. None supply a reliable source of drinking or irrigation water. The Western Route would avoid the integrated channels of Oraibi and Dinnebito Washes but would cross Moenkopi Wash near Blue Canyon. This reach of Moenkopi Wash has a number of springs and seeps that are fed by the N aquifer. The Western Route also would follow Begashibito Wash, which is not encountered by the Eastern Route. Defined uses for streams crossed by the water pipeline are given in Table 3-7. Table 3-7 Navajo Nation Water Pipeline Stream Crossings, Designated Uses
— — — Dom — — AgWS PrHC Designated Use ScHC EphWwHbt ScHC EphWwHbt ScHC EphWwHbt ScHC EphWwHbt L&W L&W L&W L&W

Surface-Water Body Begashibito Wash Dinnebito Wash Moenkopi Wash Little Colorado River

SOURCE: Navajo Nation Water Quality Standards 1999 
 NOTES: AgWS = agricultural water supply, Dom = domestic water supply, EphWwHbt = 
 ephemeral warm-water habitat, L&W = livestock and wildlife watering, PrHC = primary human 
 contact, ScHC = secondary human contact, 


Because the pipeline would be constructed near land surface, construction and operation would not affect existing groundwater in the D, N, or C aquifers. On the leasehold, the pipeline would cross the Wepo and alluvial aquifers. 3.4.3.1.4 Water Withdrawal

Current groundwater use in the C aquifer is estimated to be 100,000 af/yr. Of this, about 60,000 af/yr are pumped by the four major industrial users in the study area, 16,000 af/yr are pumped by irrigators, and the remaining 24,000 af/yr are pumped mostly by municipalities (Reclamation 2005).
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-37 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Most communities in the eastern portion of the study area use the C aquifer for both municipal and irrigation uses. Communities within the area of the proposed C-aquifer well field include Leupp-Dilkon and Cameron on the Navajo Reservation, and Joseph City, Holbrook, and Winslow off the reservation. Three large regional power plants use water from the C aquifer; however, only one (Cholla, operated by APS) is located near the well-field area. In addition, the Catalyst Paper (Snowflake), Inc. paper mill near Snowflake, Cholla Ready Mix in Holbrook, and several agricultural users all extract groundwater from the C aquifer within the study area. Estimated 2010 groundwater use for these entities is given Table 3-8 (Reclamation 2005). Location of these users are shown on Figure 3-3. Table 3-8 Estimated 2010 Groundwater Uses
Annual Use (af/yr) 456 25 948 2,195 1,500 1,600 300 15,000 100 18,000

User Leupp-Dilkon Cameron Holbrook Winslow Holbrook Agriculture Joseph City Agriculture Winslow Agriculture Cholla Power Plant Cholla Ready Mix Catalyst Paper Mill

SOURCE: S.S. Papadopulos and Associates, Inc. 2005

While the C aquifer is experiencing water-level declines in areas of intensive development, the USGS concluded that “the cones of depression have not reached the boundaries of the aquifer or caused a decline in springs or base flow along the periphery of the C aquifer” (Hart et al. 2002). 3.4.3.2 N and D Aquifer Water-Supply Systems

The N aquifer includes the Navajo Sandstone, sandstones of the Kayenta Formation, and the Lukachukai member of the Wingate Formation. The N aquifer consists of 4 million acres within the Little Colorado River system. The aquifer is composed of fine-grained sandstone alternating with siltstone and ranges in thickness from a few feet to 1,300 feet thick (Farrar 1979). The average thickness of the aquifer is approximately 400 feet (Eychaner 1983), and the storage coefficient is estimated to range from 0.00022 to 0.008 for the confined areas and 0.10 to 0.15 for the unconfined areas. The total water in storage has been estimated at 166 million acre-feet for this aquifer (Eychaner 1983). Transmissivity values range from 560 to 2,600 gpd/ft (Peabody 2004). Recharge of this system generally occurs in the north-central part of the aquifer, north and west of Kayenta, where aquifer units are exposed at the land surface and precipitation is relatively high. Some N-aquifer groundwater flows to the northeast, where it discharges into Laguna Creek; to the northwest where it discharges into Navajo Creek; and to the southwest where it discharges into Moenkopi Wash. All three of these streams have perennial reaches of varying lengths supported by discharge from the N aquifer. The N aquifer also discharges to springs along the aquifer boundary (ADWR 1989) (refer to Map 3-4). These perennial stream reaches and springs may potentially be affected by groundwater pumping from the N aquifer. Areas of groundwater discharge that have been modeled to assess potential impacts due to pumping include:

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-38

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ
ƒ

Chinle Wash Laguna Creek Pasture Canyon Moenkopi Wash Dinnebito Wash Oraibi Wash Polacca Wash Jaidito Wash Begashibito Wash/Cow Springs

There is little or no downward leakage of groundwater from the N aquifer into the underlying C aquifer because they are separated by approximately 1,000 feet of the relatively impermeable Chinle and Moenkopi Formations (ADWR 1989). Groundwater from the N aquifer is considered to be of good to excellent quality and is suitable for most uses. Generally the groundwater contains less than 500 mg/L of TDS and rarely exceeds 1,000 mg/L. Fluoride concentrations are generally less than the recommended average concentration for drinking water. The USGS has been monitoring N-aquifer water levels since 1981 and currently uses a groundwatermonitoring network of 34 wells to track annual water-level changes. Specifically, six nonpumping observation wells, identified as BM1 through BM6, are used to evaluate the regional hydrologic condition of the N aquifer. BM1 through BM6 have been monitored since the 1970s and are currently equipped with continuous recording devices, collecting a water-level measurement every 15 minutes. BM6 had the largest measured regional drawdown since 1965 with a water-level decline of 155 feet by 2004 (USGS 1985-2005). The USGS groundwater monitoring also indicated that although drawdown has occurred in the N aquifer, measured water levels have not dropped below the top of the N aquifer within the confined basin. Since the aquifer remains confined, groundwater in wells has continued to be above the top of the aquifer. Therefore, the saturated thickness (thickness of aquifer containing groundwater) of the confined N aquifer is unchanged at the monitored locations. The potential for induced leakage from the D aquifer due to groundwater pumping in the N aquifer is less in the area where the N aquifer is confined by the Carmel Formation than in areas where the Carmel Formation is thin or sandy (refer to Figure 3-2). The thickness and lithology of the Carmel Formation are factors influencing groundwater leakage between the aquifers. Areas where the Carmel Formation is less than 120 feet thick coincide with areas where water from the overlying D aquifer has historically (over thousands of years) mixed with underlying N-aquifer water (Truini 2005). The D aquifer includes the Dakota Sandstone, the water-bearing portions of the Morrison Formation, and the Cow Springs Sandstone (refer to Figure 3-1). The D aquifer is overlain by the Mancos Shale and is confined over most of the area (ADWR 1989). Recharge generally occurs from precipitation along the eastern boundary of the D aquifer. Groundwater flows south, west, and north and discharges into springs on the eastern and northern edges of the aquifer and into the alluvium of Polacca, Oraibi, and Dinnebito Washes along the southwest aquifer boundary, and Moenkopi Wash to the west. This discharge is consumed by plants or lost to evaporation and is not seen as surface flow.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-39

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The estimated saturated thickness of the D aquifer is roughly 500 feet; however, this also may include some unsaturated units within the Dakota and Morrison Formations. The storage coefficient was estimated to be 0.015 based upon core samples adjusted to compensate for the nonwater-bearing units included in the thickness (Cooley 1969). The total amount of water in storage is estimated to be 15 million acre-feet (ADWR 1989). Groundwater quality in the D aquifer is marginal to unsuitable for domestic use, although it may be acceptable for other uses. TDS concentrations range from 190 to 4,410 mg/L, generally exceeding the recommended limit of 500 mg/L for drinking water. Fluoride concentrations range from 0.2 to 9.0 mg/L and often exceed the maximum contaminated levels of concentration of 4 mg/L. Water quality improves slightly in the southern portion of the aquifer (ADWR 1989). 3.4.3.2.1 Infrastructure

3.4.3.2.1.1 Peabody Well Field The N aquifer currently supplies the water for the mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex. The Peabody well field consists of eight wells used for mining operations and the coal-slurry pipeline, which currently is not in operation. Wells are located on the leasehold (refer to Map 3-4) and range in depth from 3,417 feet bgs to 3,733 feet bgs. Static (nonpumping) water levels in 2005 ranged from 945 to 1,374 ft bgs. 3.4.3.2.1.2 Community Well Fields The BIA, Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA), and Hopi Tribe operate about 70 N-aquifer wells that are combined into 28 well systems to supply several communities on Black Mesa. The closest communities to the Peabody well field are Forest Lake, Kitsillie, Chilchinbito, and Kayenta. The largest water users are Tuba City, Kayenta, and Shonto (Truini 2005). Well depths range from 475 feet bgs (Tuba City) in the unconfined area to 2,600 feet bgs (Forest Lakes and Kitsillie) in the confined area. Depth to water in 2004 was between 30 feet bgs (Tuba City) and 1,316 feet bgs (Kitsillie) (USGS 1985-2005). 3.4.3.2.2 Water Withdrawal

The N aquifer currently supplies the majority of the water for the mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex. It also is used extensively by the Hopi and Navajo tribes as a public drinking supply. Total withdrawals from the N aquifer increased from about 70 to 8,000 af/yr from 1965 to 2002, with the major increase due to industrial use by the eight wells used for mining operations and the coal-slurry pipeline, which currently is not in operation. About 270 windmills produce N-aquifer water, primarily for stock watering. In total these windmill wells produce about 65 af/yr. In 2003, 5,800 acre-feet were withdrawn from the confined N aquifer, of which 4,450 acre-feet were attributed to operations at the Black Mesa Complex (USGS 1985-2005). The remaining water withdrawn is used by the communities. Groundwater pumping has occurred historically in the D aquifer. While approximately 124 D-aquifer wells are located within the study area and provide a reliable source of water for local residents, most of the pumping is outside the study area. Until the Black Mesa mining operation shut down in late 2005, Peabody withdrew approximately 130 af/yr of groundwater from this aquifer through its production wells, which are screened in both the N aquifer and D aquifer. Community pumping of the confined D aquifer accounts for an annual withdrawal of approximately 100 af/yr.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-40

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.5
3.5.1

CLIMATE
Region

The study area lies within two separate climatic regions—the eastern region and the western region. The eastern region includes the plateau and mountainous areas that are predominant from the Grand Canyon National Park and Sycamore Canyon eastward. The western region includes the valley and low mountainous regions located in portions of northwestern Arizona, southern Nevada (Clark County), and eastern California (San Bernardino County) (Map 3-9). Meteorological conditions recorded at sites within the eastern and western regions of the study area are summarized in Table 3-9. Table 3-9
Monitor Mean monthly temperature average (oF)1 Betakin Tuba City Winslow Airport Flagstaff Mean monthly precipitation average (inches)1 Betakin Tuba City Winslow Airport Flagstaff Mean monthly snowfall average (inches)1 Betakin Tuba City Winslow Airport Flagstaff Average wind speed (miles per hour)2 Winslow Airport Flagstaff

Meteorological Conditions of the Study Area
Winter Spring Average Average Eastern Region 31.5 35.3 35.4 30.3 3.08 1.50 1.55 6.13 31.5 4.2 8.0 54.1 47.5 54.4 53.9 43.1 2.19 1.20 1.19 4.20 12.4 0.8 2.2 33.6 Summer Average 69.6 75.0 75.1 63.2 3.32 1.83 3.00 5.85 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 5.6 Fall Average 51.3 55.9 56.0 47.1 3.32 2.02 2.09 5.32 7.7 1.5 1.2 12.6 6.7 5.2 Annual Average 50.0 55.1 55.1 45.9 11.91 6.54 7.84 21.50 51.6 6.5 11.4 100.3 7.9 6.0

Mean monthly temperature average (oF)3 Bullhead City 55.7 72.6 93.5 74.8 74.2 Yucca 49.9 64.7 86.7 68.7 67.5 Mean monthly precipitation average (inches)3 Bullhead City 2.70 1.22 1.07 1.29 6.29 Yucca 2.64 1.52 1.73 1.76 7.66 Average wind speed (miles per hour)2 Kingman Airport 7.8 10.2 10.6 8.1 9.2 SOURCES: Western Regional Climate Center 2005a, 2005b NOTES: 1 For mean monthly temperature, mean monthly precipitation, and mean monthly snowfall, the period used for Betakin is 1948 to 2005, for Tuba City it is 1900 to 2005, for the Winslow Airport it is 1898 to 2005, and for Flagstaff it is 1950 to 2005. 2 For average wind-speed values, averages are based on data collected between 1992 and 2002. 3 For mean monthly temperature and mean monthly precipitation averages, the period used for Bullhead City is 1977 to 2005 and for Yucca it is 1950 to 2005.

6.7 9.5 6.1 7.0 Western Region

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-41

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Three remote automatic weather-station (RAWS) monitors provide data that best represent the prevalent wind patterns within the study area (Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC 2005c]). These data were evaluated to determine wind patterns in the Black Mesa, Flagstaff, and Union Pass areas. Based on wind patterns recorded at the Betakin RAWS monitor (near the Black Mesa Complex), the Flagstaff RAWS monitor, and the Union Pass RAWS monitor (near Bullhead City), winds are predominantly from the southwest for approximately 30 to 40 percent of the year, with the remaining winds being somewhat evenly distributed. 3.5.2 Black Mesa Complex

Peabody operates a meteorological network consisting of four meteorological tower systems and five rain-gauge sites (Figure 3-4). Conditions recorded at these meteorological towers for the period of July 7, 1985, through December 31, 2004, are summarized in Table 3-10. Table 3-10 Meteorological Conditions at the Black Mesa Complex, 
 July 7, 1985, through December 31, 2004 

Site 8R 49.6 86.0 9.2 N/A 4.1 16.7 0.4 Site 9 49.5 88.3 6.0 8.27 3.3 15.4 0.2 Site 12 50.4 87.5 8.4 5.77 4.0 16.5 0.2

Parameter Site 1 Temperature conditions 49.7 Mean temperature (oF) 89.5 Maximum temperature (oF) Minimum temperature (oF) 0.7 Precipitation Total annual precipitation (inches) 8.18 Wind speed Mean wind speed (meters per second) 3.7 Maximum wind speed (meters per second) 20.0 Minimum wind speed (meters per second) 0.2 SOURCE: 	 TRC Environmental Corporation 2005 o F = degrees Fahrenheit, N/A = not available

The Black Mesa region in northeastern Arizona has a semiarid climate, characterized by wide variations in diurnal and annual temperature. Black Mesa receives much of its precipitation during the summer months, when afternoon showers form as a result of moist air from the Gulf of Mexico moving over the area. Rainfall as high as 0.90 inch for 1 hour and 1.98 inches for 24 hours have been recorded. The total amount of precipitation received at various locations on the Black Mesa Complex may be related to topographic features and changes in altitude. Nearly 50 percent of the annual precipitation is received in the months of July, August, and September, and 64 percent is received from April through September. Most snowfall is light and evaporates within a few days. Mean annual lake evaporation monitored at Sites 1, 8, 9, and 12 from May through October is 45 inches, with the greatest monthly evaporation occurring during June and July. Peabody has been collecting storm hydrographs from events over the Black Mesa Complex as part of the Hydrologic Monitoring Plan. The storm characteristics are reflective of the Colorado Plateau in general. Mean summer single-peak discharges range from 54.1 to 313.5 cfs, while fall values range between 2.2 and 23.8 cfs. Due to moderately high elevation (ranging from 6,000 to 8,200 feet above MSL), Black Mesa experiences mild summer and cold winter temperatures. The average annual temperature is about 49.8 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF). Summer temperatures generally range from the mid-50s to the low 80s. Temperatures in excess of 100ºF are rare.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-42

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Lincoln

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-9_Meterological.pdf(par)

Map 3-9
Montezuma County San Juan County

Lincoln County

Saint George

Washington County

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Kane County

San Juan County

Utah
Site 9

Colorado

Nevada


Meteorological Monitoring Stations
Black Mesa Project EIS

Utah


Arizona
Page

Utah

LEGEND
Climatic Data Locations
Climate Study Area Meteorological Monitoring Station

Black

Site 8

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d
La

Kayenta

Me s

Betakin

Nevada

Arizona

Tsegi

a

an
ke
0 13

Clark County

Site 12

Thief Rock PS
Ra

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

0 12

Project Features
Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline
Apache County

we Po
ll

Clark

Site 1

Las Vegas

lora Co

d

r ive oR

i lr o

a d 10

0

PS #1
10
0 10

110

MP 91 PS
90
30

Buckskin Lo
90

20

Existing Route Realignment Alternative A Water-Supply System
New Mexico

Hopi Point #1 (GRCA1)

Tuba City

40
80

Tuba City
Moenkopi
50

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Railw a

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2
80

70
60

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

Arizona

Mohave County

Tusayan
y

60

70

C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route Western Pipeline Route PS = Pump Station

50

on ny

Ca

Valle
100

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110

40
40
30

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION

G rand

Tolani Lake PS

Tolani Lake PS Leupp Navajo County

Kingman Airport Union Pass
270
0 25
23 0

PS #4 Seligman
170

McKinley County

90

50

120

140

30

130

150

General Features
River Lake Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary State Boundary County Boundary

20

0 24

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

10

180

190

0 20

Kingman
20
260

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

Holbrook

Cibola County

Catron County

Riverside County Maricopa
 County


da a v a ni Ne ifor l Ca

220

10

Bullhead City

Kingman Area Reroute

Flagstaff
Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch
Winslow

Winslow Airport

Yucca

Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad
SOURCES: Peabody Energy 2006 URS Corporation 2005, 2006 Arizona State Land Department 2005

Little Colorad o River
Yavapai
 County


ifo Cal
San Bernardino County

o Ariz na
La Paz County

r ni a

November 2008
0
Gila
 County


25 Miles

50

Prepared By:

SOURCE: TRC Environmental Corporation 2005

Figure 3-4

Monitoring Site Locations at the Black Mesa Complex

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-44

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

In winter, early morning temperatures normally drop to the high teens or low 20s; however, the air usually warms rapidly and reaches the upper 30s or low 40s by early afternoon. The coldest month is January, with an average temperature of 31ºF. July is the warmest month, with an average temperature of 69ºF (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1974). For the period of July 7, 1985, through December 31, 2004, average temperature and wind characteristics recorded at sites 1, 9, and 12 are available by month, and are summarized by season in Table 3-11. Table 3-11 Seasonal Meteorological Conditions at the Black Mesa Complex
Spring Average 47.7 60.3 35.0 4.1 20.2 Summer Average 68.7 82.3 54.3 3.4 16.4 Fall Average 50.3 62.3 37.7 3.3 19.6 Annual Average 49.8 62.1 37.2 3.5 18.6

Winter Average Parameter Temperature conditions 32.3 Mean temperature (oF) Maximum temperature (oF) 43.3 21.7 Minimum temperature (oF) Wind speed Average wind speed (meters per second ) 3.1 Hourly maximum wind speed (meters per 18.2 second) SOURCE: Peabody Western Coal Company 2000

3.5.3

Climate Change

Based on current scientific research, there is growing concern about changes that may occur to the global climate. Through many complex interactions on a regional and global scale, the lower layers of the atmosphere experience a net warming effect. The Earth’s surface average temperature rose by about 1°F during the twentieth century, and the warming process has accelerated during the past two decades (USEPA 2000; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] 2001). There is an ongoing scientific debate about the cause of these trends. As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. This does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty, because they are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends. Current understanding of many other aspects of climate change ranges from “likely” to “uncertain.” Scientists know with virtual certainty the following: •	 Human activities are changing the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like CO2 in the atmosphere since preindustrial times are well documented and understood. •	 The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. •	 A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the twentieth century. Warming occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC 2001). •	 The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades. •	 Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet (USEPA 2006a).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-45

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Some greenhouse gases such as CO2 occur naturally and are emitted into the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are the following: •	 Carbon dioxide—Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees, and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide also is removed from the atmosphere (or sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle or sequestered by soil and water as part of the chemical carbon cycle. •	 Methane—Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in municipal solid-waste landfills. •	 Nitrous oxide—Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities. Note that N2O is not included in the grouping of regulated air pollutants known as NOx. •	 Fluorinated gases—Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are powerful synthetic greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are often used as substitutes for ozone [O3]-depleting substances (i.e., chloroflourocarbons and halons). These gases typically are emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as high-global warming-potential gases (USEPA 2006b). The greenhouse gas that garners the most attention in the scientific community and the media is CO2. Since this naturally occurring chemical also is generated by the continued burning of fossil fuels. It can last in the atmosphere for centuries and “force” more climate change than any other greenhouse gas (NRC 2001). In 2004, CO2 accounted for 85 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions produced in the United States, and electrical generation accounted for 40 percent of those CO2 emissions. In 2004, 2,525 million short tons (2,290.6 million metric tons or teragrams) of CO2 were produced in the United States from electrical generation (USEPA 2006c). According to USEPA’s Acid Rain Program database, the Mohave Generating Station (which currently is not operating) produced 10.7 million short tons of CO2 in 2004 or about 0.4 percent of the United States electrical-generation total. According to a USEPA website called eGRID, the Navajo Generating Station produced 20.2 million short tons of CO2 in 2004, or about 0.8 percent of the electrical-generation total for the United States (USEPA 2008). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (IPCC 2007). In short, a number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise and precipitation patterns will change. Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system, including precipitation patterns and storms (USEPA 2006a). Climate science is a relatively new field of study, and additional research is being conducted to better understand the mechanisms with the potential to affect climate change. Two examples of this research involve the role of aerosol particles in the atmosphere and the impacts of variations in the Earth’s solar-energy balance.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-46

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Aerosol particles influence radiative forcing directly through reflection and absorption of solar and infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Some aerosols cause a positive forcing, while others cause a negative forcing. Radiative forcing is the difference between the amount of incoming radiation energy (from the sun) and outgoing radiation energy (back from the Earth) in a specific climate system. Positive forcing warms the climate system, and negative forcing cools it. The direct radiative forcing summed for all aerosol types is believed to be negative. Volcanic eruptions are an important example of episodic, natural aerosol emissions. Explosive volcanic eruptions can create a short-lived negative forcing of two to three years on the climate system through the temporary increases that occur in SO4 aerosol in the stratosphere. Sources of anthropogenic aerosols include industry, transportation, and agriculture. Aerosols are also believed to cause a negative forcing indirectly through the changes they cause in cloud properties (IPCC 2007). These indirect effects on clouds include the radiative properties, the amount, and lifetime of the clouds. The IPCC denotes the indirect aerosol effects as “cloud albedo effect” and “cloud lifetime effect,” as these terms are more descriptive of the microphysical processes that occur (IPCC 2007). The sun is the Earth’s primary source of incoming energy; thus, solar activity is the most significant contributor to the Earth’s energy balance. To maintain the Earth’s energy balance at steady-state conditions (constant temperature), all the incoming solar energy must be radiated back into space. (There is no heat transfer from the Earth to space by conduction or convection.) Changes in solar-energy output result in a forcing on the Earth’s energy balance and climate system. The energy balance for the Earth is dictated by the amount of radiation received from the sun; thus, small variations in solar output can result in significant radiative forcings on the climate system. For example, Scafetta and West (2006) have recently shown that observed feedback associated with past changes in solar activity have resulted in radiative forcings greater than those predicted by climate models and that “most of the sun-climate coupling mechanisms are probably still unknown.” Their findings suggest the presence of a solar cycle driving the climate of the last millennium, with maximum solar irradiance occurring during the medieval period and at present day (Scafetta and West 2006). Scafetta and West further estimate that the sun has contributed as much as 45 to 50 percent of the warming observed from 1900 to 2000 (Scafetta and West 2006). Thus, variations in solar activity are an important factor in the Earth’s climate (including recent climate change) and continue to be the subject of ongoing climate research. Although the occurrence of global warming and climate change are acknowledged by climate scientists, it remains difficult to model and attribute observed temperature changes on a smaller scale (IPCC 2007). Natural changes in a local climate are difficult to relate to external forces. Consequently, estimation of the impacts of climate change on natural conditions within a particular geographic area would necessarily involve some degree of speculation. Similarly, estimation of the relative contribution of a proposed project on climate change, either within the region or globally, are miniscule, and not possible to quantify with certainty (IPCC 2007). Review of Science and Methods for Incorporating Climate Change Information into Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin Planning Studies, published in 2007 by Reclamation’s Climate Technical Work Group, was reviewed to identify predicted regional impacts from climate change. The report discloses that existing climate models are not capable of adequately resolving expected impacts on precipitation in mountainous areas. The Colorado River Basin is categorized as a midlatitude region in which there is a high level of confidence in the prediction of future temperature change, but less confidence in the projection of changes to precipitation. The models used today do not provide sufficient resolution about the ways ocean circulation patterns may change in the future, and this is a key element in predicting precipitation changes (Reclamation 2007).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-47

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The models also experience difficulty in resolving topography. This is important because the precipitation occurs when moist air rises over mountainous areas and condenses to form clouds. The report states that the most recent global climate model’s results for precipitation in the Colorado River Basin show somewhat consistent results across models and predict very little change in the average annual precipitation when compared to historical conditions. However, the models suggest that more of the annual precipitation in low- to midelevation areas that falls during winter may be in the form of rain, potentially decreasing runoff from snowpack (Reclamation 2007). The National Research Council (2001) of the National Academy of Sciences noted that: The warming trend is spatially widespread and is consistent with the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of ice on rivers and lakes, the accelerated rate of rise of sea level during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years, and the increase in upper-air water vapor and rainfall rates over most regions. A lengthening of the growing season also has been documented in many areas, along with an earlier plant flowerng season and earlier arrival and breeding of migratory birds. Some species of plants, insects, birds, and fish have shifted towards higher latitudes and higher elevations. The ocean, which represents the largest reservoir of heat in the climate system, has warmed by about 0.05°C (0.09°F) averaged over the layer extending from the surface down to 10,000 feet, since the 1950s. Among the predicted changes in the United States are “potentially severe droughts, increased risk of flood, mass migrations of species, substantial shifts in agriculture and widespread erosion of coastal zones” (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2000).

3.6

AIR QUALITY

The CAA and subsequent amendments provide the authority and framework for USEPA regulation of airemission sources. The USEPA regulations serve to establish requirements for the permitting, monitoring, control, and documentation of activities that affect ambient concentrations of certain pollutants that may endanger public health or welfare. The criteria used to assess the existing conditions within the air-quality study area include the following quantifiable indicators: •	 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as identified in the CAA and regulated by the USEPA (Table 3-12) •	 Observed levels of visibility in Class I areas Assessment data were available from Federal, State, and local air-quality-permitting authorities, including the USEPA, Arizona, California, and Nevada authorities. Project activity occurs in Arizona and Nevada, but not in California. The applicable Arizona and Nevada regulations pertain to control of fugitive dust. Section 4.19 addresses mitigation measures to be used to control fugitive dust. 3.6.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Under the CAA, USEPA has established NAAQS, which have historically applied to six criteria pollutants—sulfur dioxide (SO2), total suspended particulate (TSP), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), Pb, and O3. These standards are defined in terms of threshold concentration (e.g., micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m3]) measured as an average for specified periods (averaging times). Short-term standards (i.e., 1-hour, 8-hour, or 24-hour averaging times) were established for pollutants with acute health effects, while long-term standards (i.e., annual averaging times) were established for pollutants with chronic health effects. More recently, additional standards for 8-hour average O3
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-48 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

concentrations, PM10, and particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) were added. The NAAQS for TSP is no longer enforced. Table 3-12 summarizes the current NAAQS. Table 3-12
Pollutant

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Averaging NAAQS1 Period Primary Secondary 3-hour — 1,300 μg/m3 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) — 24-hour 365 μg/m3 Annual 80 μg/m3 — 150 μg/m3 Particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter 24-hour 150 μg/m3 (PM10) Annual 50 μg/m3 50 μg/m3 3 Particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter 24-hour 65 μg/m 65 μg/m3 3 (PM2.5) Annual 15 μg/m 15 μg/m3 — 1-hour 40,000 μg/m3 Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 10,000 μg/m3 — Annual 100 μg/m3 100 μg/m3 Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Lead (Pb) Quarterly 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3 3 235 μg/m3 1-hour 235 μg/m Ozone (O3) 8-hour 157 μg/m3 157 μg/m3 SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005b, 2005c, 2005d, 2005e, 2005f, 2005g, 2005h, 2005i 1 New NAAQS approved in 2008, but existing NAAQS will apply until the new regulation is issued. NOTES: μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Geographic areas are designated as “attainment,” “nonattainment,” or “unclassified” for each of the six criteria pollutants with respect to the NAAQS. If sufficient monitoring data are available and air quality is shown to meet the NAAQS, the USEPA may designate an area as an attainment area. Areas in which airpollutant concentrations exceed the NAAQS are designated as “nonattainment” for specific pollutants and averaging times. Typically, nonattainment areas are urban regions and/or areas with higher-density industrial development. Because an area’s status is designated separately for each criteria pollutant, one geographic area may have all three classifications. Two areas within the air-quality study area are designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS— the Clark County, Nevada, 8-hour O3 and San Bernardino County, California, PM10 nonattainment areas (Map 3-10). These areas are located more than 200 miles from the Black Mesa Complex. They are only mentioned here because earth-moving activity associated with construction of the western terminus of the coal-slurry pipeline may occur within or near these areas. The remaining portions of the air-quality study area, including all portions within Arizona, are designated as attainment or unclassified. An unclassified designation indicates that attainment status has not been verified through data collection. When permitting new sources, an unclassified area is treated as an attainment area. 3.6.2 Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program

Under the CAA, the USEPA established the PSD program. The PSD program was established to prevent unlimited increases in air pollution in areas that are already in compliance with the NAAQS (i.e., attainment areas). Certain Federal lands where the air quality is and should remain very good, such as national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas and other lands with special designations, are identified as Class I areas. Class I areas are afforded a higher degree of protection than other areas within the United States. The PSD program allows only minimal increases in air pollution in Class I areas. Class I areas that overlap the air-quality study area include the Grand Canyon National Park and the Lake Mead National Recreation Area to the north and the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area to the south (Map 3-11). Other nearby Class I areas include the Pine Mountain and Mazatzal Wilderness Areas to the south, and the Petrified Forest National Park to the southeast. All areas not designated as Class I are, by

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-49

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Lincoln

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-10_Non-Attainment.pdf(par)

Map 3-10
Montezuma County

Lincoln County

Saint George

Washington County

Kane County

San Juan County

Colorado

Nevada


Utah


Utah

Attainment Classification
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Classifications
Black Mesa Project EIS

Utah Arizona
San Juan County

Page

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d
La

LEGEND
Air Quality Data Locations
Air Quality Study Area Attainment Areas Unclassifiable/Attainment Nonattainment Areas Particulate Matter (PM10)

Black

Kayenta Tsegi

Me s

Nevada

Arizona

a

an
ke
0 13

Clark County

Thief Rock PS
Ra

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

0 12

Po
we
ll

Clark Las Vegas

lo Co

rad

iv e oR

r
MP 91 PS

ilr o

a d 10

0

PS #1
10
0 10

110

90
30

Carbon Monoxide

90

20

Tuba City Moenkopi
50

40
80

Moenkopi
 Wash
 Realignment
Hard Rock
70

Apache County

Ozone (8-Hour)


80

Oraibi PS

Project Features
Black Mesa Complex
New Mexico Arizona

R ail wa

Mohave County Coconino County

Tusayan
y

60

70

Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route
 Realignment
 Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route Western Pipeline Route PS = Pump Station

Cameron PS #2
80

70
60

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

50

on ny

Ca

Valle
100

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110

40
40
30

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
23 0

Grand

Tolani Lake PS

Tolani Lake PS Leupp Navajo County
20

PS #4 Seligman
170

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

10

McKinley County

90

50

120

140

30

130

150

0 24

270

180

0 25

Kingman
20
260

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

General Features
River Lake Hopi Reservation Boundary

190

0 20

210

Holbrook

Cibola County

Catron County

Riverside County Maricopa
 County


da a v a ni Ne ifor l Ca

220

10

Kingman Area
 Reroute


Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow

Navajo Reservation Boundary State Boundary County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad
SOURCES:
 URS Corporation 2005, 2006
 Arizona State Land Department 2005
 Environmental Protection Agency 2005


Little Colorad o River
Yavapai
 County


ifo Cal
San Bernardino County

o Ariz na
La Paz County

r ni a

November 2008
0
Gila
 County


25 Miles

50

Prepared By:

Lincoln

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-11_Class-1Areas.pdf(par)

Map 3-11
Montezuma County

Lincoln County

Saint George

Washington County

Kane County

San Juan County

Utah Arizona
Page

MONUMENT VALLEY
 VISITORS CENTER


San Juan County

NAVAJO NATIONAL MONUMENT
Black

Colorado

Nevada


Utah


Utah

Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas
Black Mesa Project EIS

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d
La

LEGEND
Air Quality Data Locations
Air Quality Study Area Federal Class I Area Sensitive Class II Area

Kayenta Tsegi

Me s

Nevada

Arizona

a

an
ke
0 13

Clark County

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

Thief Rock PS
Ra

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

0 12

Po
we
ll

Clark Las Vegas

Co

ad lor

iv e oR

r
MP 91 PS

ilr o

a d 10

0

PS #1
10
0 10

110

Project Features
Black Mesa Complex
Apache County

90
30

20
90

Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route
New Mexico

Tuba City Moenkopi
50

40
80

Moenkopi
 Wash
 Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

R ail wa

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2
80

70
60

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

Arizona

LAKE MEAD
 NATIONAL
 RECREATION AREA

Mohave County

Tusayan
y

60

70

Realignment Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route Western Pipeline Route PS = Pump Station

50

on ny

Ca

Valle
100

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110

40
40
30

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
23 0

Grand

Tolani Lake PS

McKinley County

90

50

120

140

30

130

Tolani Lake PS Leupp Navajo County

General Features
River
PETRIFIED FOREST
 NATIONAL PARK


150

PS #4 Seligman
170

20

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

10

Lake Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary

0 24

270

180

0 25

190

0 20

Kingman
20
260

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

SYCAMORE CANYON
 WILDERNESS


Holbrook

Cibola County

Catron County

Riverside County Maricopa
 County


da a v a ni Ne ifor l Ca

220

10

Kingman Area
 Reroute


Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

State Boundary
Winslow

County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad
SOURCES:
 URS Corporation 2005, 2006
 Arizona State Land Department 2005
 Environmental Protection Agency 2005
 Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation 2005


Little Colorad o River
Yavapai County

ifo Cal
San Bernardino County

o Ariz na
La Paz County

r ni a

PINE MOUNTA
 IN WILDERNESS


MAZATZAL
 WILDERNESS


November 2008
0
Gila
 County


25 Miles

50

Prepared By:

default, designated as Class II areas. The PSD program specifies limited air-pollution increases in Class II areas that are designed to allow economic development while still maintaining good levels of air quality in those areas. Two sensitive Class II areas, the Monument Valley Visitor Center and the Navajo National Monument (both located on Navajo tribal land), are shown on Map 3-11. All Class I and sensitive Class II areas in the vicinity of the proposed project are listed in Peabody’s Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Black Mesa EIS (McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. 2006). While the designation of areas and the attendant limitations under the PSD program are based on air pollution levels, the program also established air-quality-related values (AQRVs). One such AQRV is visibility. Permit applicants under the PSD program also must demonstrate that their project will not cause visibility degradation in excess of specified limits. See Section 3.6.8 for a discussion of regional visibility conditions. 3.6.3 Designation of Air Quality Study Area for Proposed Project

For the purposes of evaluating air quality within the vicinity of the Black Mesa Project, the air-quality study area encompasses a 31-mile (50-kilometer [km]) buffer from the locations where the elements of the Black Mesa Project would be sited. This study area is located primarily in Arizona with some small portions extending into Utah, Nevada and California. A 31-mile (50-km) buffer was chosen to be consistent with air-quality analyses required for major-source air-quality permitting (ADEQ 2003b). However, relative to actual or anticipated impacts of the Black Mesa Project within this study area, the following statements should be considered: •	 Any air-quality permitting likely to be required for the project will not involve major-source permitting because the magnitude of emissions increases associated with any air permitting will likely be less than significant, as defined in the PSD program regulations. Therefore, the selection of a 31-mile (50-km) buffer to establish a study area should not be construed as an implication that major-source permitting requirements apply to the project. •	 For major-source permitting, such a buffer is established around a proposed new source or major modification of an existing source to encompass the geographic area of impact typically resulting from air pollutants being discharged from elevated point sources, such as chimneys. In contrast, air-pollutant emissions from the Black Mesa Project consist of fugitive-process emissions along with fugitive dust. Such ground-level releases consisting of coarse particulate matter (PM) remain close to the ground and do not disperse significantly over large distances. Some of these emissions are associated with construction activity, are temporary, and are not subject to major source permitting requirements. •	 Selection of the 31-mile (50-km) buffer to establish the study area should not be construed as an implication that air-pollutant emissions from the project will overlap and intermingle with emissions from other major stationary air-pollutant sources within the study area. 3.6.4 Black Mesa Complex Ambient-Air Monitoring

The air pollutant (resulting from Black Mesa Complex operations) of primary concern is PM. Emission sources for PM include blasting, overburden removal, coal extraction/handling/storage, fugitive road dust, and operation of vehicles and equipment. Operation of vehicles and equipment also causes emissions of other criteria pollutants, including CO, SO2, NOx, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). NOx and VOC are precursors to the formation of O3 in the atmosphere. Pursuant to 30 CFR 816.95, OSM requires Peabody to develop and implement a plan to control fugitive dust effectively. In addition, pursuant to 30 CFR 780.15(a)(1), OSM requires Peabody to conduct airquality monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the fugitive-dust-control program. Air-quality data
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-52 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

collected from the Black Mesa Complex monitoring network during active mining operations are presented herein. Map 3-10 shows the locations of the Peabody air quality monitoring stations. These data should not be considered as representative of air quality throughout the study area or indicative of air quality impacts from the mining operations alone, as explained below. The monitoring network includes 12 PM10 samplers at 11 locations throughout the mining complex (Map 3-12). Although this PM10 monitoring network is operated in accordance with relevant USEPA requirements, including a quality assurance program, it was designed to monitor air-quality conditions on a microscale within the Black Mesa Complex to evaluate the effectiveness of the fugitive-dust-control program and is not required to satisfy rigorous USEPA siting requirements. Specifically, some monitors are located close to residences and unpaved roads used by local residents and consequently do not measure PM10 concentrations truly representative of local or regional air quality. Peabody has not proposed to revise the monitoring system. Quarterly monitoring reports are submitted to OSM and NNEPA. The record from these monitoring sites is very reliable for 2003 to 2005, in that 98 percent data completeness was achieved. Additional information regarding this monitoring program is provided in Peabody’s Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Black Mesa EIS. 3.6.4.1 Average Annual Ambient Air Concentrations

From 2003 to 2005, the ambient-air monitoring network at the Black Mesa Complex did not record any exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS of 50 µg/m3. Table 3-13 presents the annual monitoring results for each site for this three-year period. Several monitors on the northern and eastern sides of the Black Mesa Complex (3R, 6R, 7R, and 200R) show consistently lower ambient PM10 concentrations than the other sites. This is attributed to the location of these sites being generally upwind of and distant from any mining activities. Consequently, these can be viewed as the best representation of background conditions outside the influence of mining activities. Table 3-13
Monitor ID1 1 2R 3R 4R 5R 6R 7R 8R 12 200 201 202

Annual Average Ambient PM10 Monitoring Data (in µg/m3) at Black Mesa Complex (2003 to 2005)
Monitored Annual Average PM10 Concentration (μg/m3) 2003 2004 2005 33.6 31.4 22.5 37.7 28.8 35.3 13.1 9.3 11.9 37.2 28.2 33.4 36.4 28.8 34.4 15.8 12.0 13.2 19.1 11.8 13.7 30.6 20.4 27.8 23.6 23.7 23.4 16.6 11.0 12.6 21.5 19.3 26.7 19.7 15.7 16.8

Relative Position Within Mine Complex1 Southwest Southwest Northwest West West (co-located with 4R) Northeast North East South Southeast South Southwest

SOURCE: McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. 2006 NOTE: 	 1 Refer to Map 3-10 for location of PM10 ambient monitors at the Black Mesa Complex. PM10 = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ID = identification

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-53

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Lincoln

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-12_Station_Type.pdf(par)

Map 3-12
Montezuma County San Juan County

Nevada


Lincoln County

Saint George

Washington County

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Utah


Kane County

San Juan County

Utah
4R/5R 6R

Utah

3R

7R

Colorado

Air Monitoring Stations
Black Mesa Project EIS

Arizona

Page - Navajo Generating Station (PNGS)
Page

LEGEND
Air Quality Data Locations
Air Quality Study Area Air Quality Monitoring Stations Air Quality Monitoring Station

Black

8R

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d
La

Kayenta Tsegi

Me s

Nevada

Arizona

a

an

201 2R 12 1
e Riv do r

Clark County

ke

0 13

Thief Rock PS
Ra

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

0 12

Project Location
Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline
Apache County

we Po

200R
ra

ll

i lr o

a d 10

0

PS #1
10
0 10

110

Clark Las Vegas

202

lo Co

MP 91 PS
90
30

20
90

Existing Route
 Realignment
 Alternative A Water-Supply System
New Mexico

Boulder City (BCNV)
Mohave County Coconino County

Hopi Point #1 (GRCA1)

Hance Camp, Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA2)

Tuba City Moenkopi
50

40
80

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Arizona

Tusayan
Railw a
y

60

70

C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route Western Pipeline Route PS = Pump Station

Grand Canyon National Park - Hance Camp (GCNP)

Cameron PS #2
80

70
60

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

50

on ny

Ca

Valle
100

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110

40
40
30

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
270

G rand

Tolani Lake PS

Tolani Lake PS

Bullhead City (BC1)
240

PS #4 Seligman
23 0

McKinley County

90

50

120

140

30

130

150

Laughlin

Flagstaff Well Field Middle School Navajo Reservation (FLAG)
Ash Fork Williams

Leupp
10

Navajo County

General Features
River
 Lake

Petrified Forest National Park (PFNP) Petrified Forest National Park (PFNP)

20

170

180

0 25

190

0 20

Kingman
260

Bullhead City (BC2)

Bullhead City

Kingman Area Reroute

Sycamore Canyon (SYCA1)

Flagstaff

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

Holbrook

Cibola County

Springervill
 eCoyote Hills
 (SPRI)

Catron County

Riverside County Maricopa
 County


da a v a ni Ne ifor l Ca

220

20
10

Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary State Boundary County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad
SOURCES: Peabody Energy 2006 URS Corporation 2005, 2006 Arizona State Land Department 2005 Environmental Protection Agency 2005

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow

Little Colorad o River
Yavapai
 County


ifo Cal
San Bernardino
 County


o Ariz na
La Paz County

r ni a

November 2008
0 25 Miles 50

Gila
 County


Prepared By:

The co-located samplers 4R/5R, and site 12 are located in the vicinity of mining activities and are probably more impacted by mining activities than any of the other samplers. However, they also are subject to impacts from tribal residential activities inside the mine permit area, activities such as travel on roads used solely for nonmining purposes and other off-site activities. 3.6.4.2 Short-Term (24-Hour) Ambient-Air Concentrations Table 3-14 lists the highest and second-highest measured PM10 concentrations at each of the 12 samplers surrounding the Black Mesa Complex for the three-year period from 2003 to 2005. Of the highest measurements, 14 samples exceeded the PM10 24-hour standard of 150 µg/m3 during the three-year period. These 14 elevated measurements account for 0.6 percent of 2,297 valid measurements taken during this period and occurred on six separate days, two in each year. The dates and circumstances related to the exceedances are indicated in the footnotes to Table 3-14. Additional information regarding this monitoring program is provided in Peabody’s Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Black Mesa EIS. Evaluation of meteorological conditions during the six days when values above the 24-hour average PM10 NAAQS were recorded suggests that mining activities are not the primary cause of these exceedances. Nonmining activities such as vehicular traffic on local unpaved roads both within and outside of the mine property can cause fugitive dust that contributes to elevated short-term PM10 concentrations at nearby monitors. More significantly, long-term dryness in the region tends to counteract the effects of mitigation, including extensive application of dust suppressants on roads and other dust-control measures that are practiced within the Black Mesa Complex. Table 3-14 24-Hour Average Ambient PM10 Monitoring Data (in µg/m3) at Black Mesa Complex (2003 to 2005)
2005 First High 150 125 41 358e 335e 40 47 63 150 36 130 81 Second High 138 112 28 168f 175f 39 46 60 138 36 78 37

2003 2004 Monitor First Second First Second ID High High High High 1 144 140 258a 141 85 160c 130 2R 231b 3R 106 47 33 27 137 123 89 4R 267d 5R 228d 125 170c 99 b 6R 175 36 51 30 62 41 39 7R 215b b 73 57 54 8R 352 12 119 79 121 77 46 50 34 200 175b 201 142 55 67 56 202 104 65 74 36 SOURCE: McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. 2006
NOTES:
a b

August 8, 2004: Cause was long-term dryness; particulate originated off site to the west. October 30, 2003: Causes were extreme winds and long-term dryness. c June 2, 2004: Cause was long-term dryness throughout the area. d September 24, 2003: Causes appeared to be drought, and mining activities may have contributed. e August 26, 2005: Causes were high winds and long-term dryness. f August 20, 2005: Causes were high winds and long-term dryness. PM10 = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ID = identification

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-55

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.6.5

Coal-Slurry Pipeline

Other than insignificant air-pollutant emissions due to periodic coal-slurry pipeline maintenance, there are no air-quality emissions associated with the existing coal-slurry pipeline. 3.6.6 C Aquifer Water-Supply System

The C aquifer water-supply system has not yet been constructed, so there are no historic air-pollutant emissions. The area proposed for the C aquifer water-supply system is within the air-quality study area described above. 3.6.7 Other Emission Sources in the Region

A number of diverse major point sources are located within and near the air-quality study area, including industrial, commercial, and local government facilities such as gas- and coal-fired power plants, natural­ gas-pipeline compressor stations, various manufacturers, and landfills. Table 3-15 provides a summary of these sources. Table 3-15 Major Sources Located within and near the Air-Quality Study Area (Northern Arizona Region)
Facility Type Cabinet manufacturer Coal-fired power plant Landfill Gas-fired power plant Landfill Lime plant Gas-fired power plant Landfill Natural-gas compressor station Natural-gas compressor station Natural-gas compressor station Natural-gas compressor station Natural-gas compressor station Natural-gas compressor station Natural-gas compressor station Natural-gas compressor station Gas-fired power plant Natural-gas compressor station Landfill Coal-fired power plant Cabinet manufacturer Steel manufacturer Location1 Kingman Joseph City Parker Bullhead City Kingman Peach Springs Lake Havasu City Flagstaff Dilkon Lake Havasu City Flagstaff Hackberry Leupp Seligman Topock Williams Griffith Topock Mohave Page Mohave McConnico Permitting Authority ADEQ ADEQ ADEQ USEPA Region 9 ADEQ ADEQ ADEQ ADEQ USEPA Region 9 ADEQ ADEQ ADEQ USEPA Region 9 ADEQ ADEQ ADEQ ADEQ ADEQ ADEQ USEPA Region 9 ADEQ ADEQ

Owner American Woodmark Arizona Public Service Company (Cholla Power Plant) BFI Waste Systems (La Paz County Regional Landfill) Calpine-South Point Energy Center Cerbat Landfill Chemical Lime Company Citizen’s Utilities Company City of Flagstaff (Cinder Lake Landfill) El Paso Natural Gas Company (Dilkon Compressor Station) El Paso Natural Gas Company (Dutch Flats) El Paso Natural Gas Company (Flagstaff) El Paso Natural Gas Company (Hackberry) El Paso Natural Gas Company (Leupp Compressor Station) El Paso Natural Gas Company (Seligman) El Paso Natural Gas Company (Topock) El Paso Natural Gas Company (Williams) Griffith Energy, LLC Mohave Pipeline Operating Company (Topock) Mohave Valley Landfill Navajo Generating Station Norcraft Companies, LLC North Star Steel Company

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-56

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Owner Facility Type Peabody Western Coal Company Coal mine Phoenix Cement Company Cement plant Printpack, Inc. Packaging-material manufacturer Snowflake Recycled Paper Mill Paper mill (Catalyst) Southern California Edison Coal-fired power plant (Mohave Generating Station) Transwestern Pipeline Company Natural-gas compressor station (Flagstaff) Transwestern Pipeline Company Natural-gas compressor station (Kingman) Natural-gas compressor station Transwestern Pipeline Company (Leupp) USA Waste (Pen-Rob Landfill) Landfill Waste Management of Arizona Landfill (Gray Wolf Regional Landfill) SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005a 1 NOTE: All locations are in Arizona. ADEQ = Arizona Department of Environmental Quality USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Location1 Kayenta Clarkdale Prescott Valley Snowflake Laughlin (Nevada) Flagstaff Kingman Leupp Joseph City Dewey

Permitting Authority USEPA Region 9 ADEQ ADEQ ADEQ NDEP ADEQ ADEQ USEPA Region 9 ADEQ ADEQ

Minor point sources within and near the study area include industrial and commercial operations of many kinds. Prevalent types of portable sources include rock- and construction-product industries (e.g., portable crushing and screening plants), hot-mix asphalt plants, and concrete batch plants. Stationary industrial sources in this category include a broad range of consumer-goods manufacturing facilities, mortuaries, and dry cleaners. Several significant area sources exist within the study area, as well. Prevalent types of area sources include sand-, gravel-, and cinder-mining operations, unpaved roads, concentrated livestock operations, and controlled range/forest burns. Vehicle emissions consist of NO2, CO, and PM10, which may warrant consideration in an assessment of ambient-air quality in the study area. Monitoring data in and around the study area indicate that air quality is, for the most part, in compliance with the NAAQS. 3.6.8 Visibility Conditions

The Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere operates a network of visibility-monitoring stations in or near mandatory Class I areas (Map 3-12), and publishes Integrated Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) data. Map 3-10 shows the locations of the IMPROVE visibilitymonitoring stations. The purpose is to identify and evaluate patterns and trends in regional visibility. Data from four IMPROVE monitors in and near the study area show that fine and coarse particulates were the largest contributors to the impairment of visibility (including both primary PM emissions and particulates formed from SO2, NOx, and VOC). These particulates impact the standard visual range—the distance that can be seen on a given day—from each monitor location. Standard visual ranges for each of the four monitors on their best (highest visibility), worst (lowest visibility), and intermediate (average visibility) visibility days are provided in Table 3-16.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-57

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-16
Monitor1,2

Standard Visual Ranges from IMPROVE Monitors in and near the Air-Quality Study Area

Best Visibility Days Intermediate Visibility Worst Visibility Days (miles [km]) Days (miles [km]) (miles [km]) Petrified Forest National Park 127 (212) 92 (153) 61 (102) Sycamore Canyon 122 (204) 79 (132) 49 (82) Hance Camp, Grand Canyon National Park 162 (270) 106 (177) 70 (116) Hopi Point No. 1 144 (240) 102 (170) 73 (121) SOURCE: Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 2005 NOTES: 1 Refer to Map 3-12 for locations. 2 The period used for the Petrified Forest National Park is 1999 to 2003, for Sycamore Canyon it is 2001 to 2003, for Hance Camp at the Grand Canyon National Park it is 1999 to 2003, and for Hopi Point No. 1 it is 1993 to 1997. IMPROVE = Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments, km = kilometers

As shown in Table 3-16, the standard visual range from Sycamore Canyon, located on the south-central edge of the study area, is consistently the lowest in each category. The two monitors that recorded the best standard visual range, Hance Camp and Hopi Point No. 1, are located on the north-central edge of the study area. 3.6.9 Air-Quality Monitor Data

Numerous monitors are located in several areas in and surrounding the air-quality study area for different criteria pollutants that are representative of conditions in the vicinity (refer to Map 3-10). Table 3-17 summarizes the data from these monitors, as reported in annual Air-Quality Reports published by the ADEQ (ADEQ 2002, 2003a, 2004) and in the Clark County Network Review (Clark County Department of Air Quality Management 2002). As shown in Table 3-17, average NO2, SO2, and PM2.5 concentrations were all below the NAAQS. However, the Boulder City, Nevada, monitor recorded exceedances of the 8-hour average O3 concentra­ tion (0.084 ppm as compared to NAAQS of 0.08 ppm) and the 24-hour average PM10 concentration (371 μg/m3 as compared to NAAQS of 150 μg/m3). This monitor is located northwest of the air-quality study area, in proximity to Las Vegas, Nevada, and these concentrations most likely are attributed to the metropolitan Las Vegas area.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-58

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-17
Identifier

Measured Air-Quality Concentrations from Monitors in and near the Air-Quality Study Area (Highest Recorded from 2003 to 2005)

NO2 (μg/m3) SO2 (μg/m3) O3 (μg/m3) PM10 (μg/m3) PM2.5 (μg/m3) 1-Hour 24-Hour Annual 3-Hour 24-Hour Annual 1-Hour 8-Hour 24-Hour Annual 24-Hour Annual Average Average Average Average Average Averagea Average a Average Average Average Average Average NAAQS NA NA 100 1,300 b 365 80 235 157 150 50 65 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60 20 16.9 5.7 FLAGc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.161 0.153 N/A N/A N/A N/A GCNPc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.165 0.151 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFNPc 0.082 0.036 0.004 15 8 3 0.147 0.128 27 9.8 N/A N/A PNGSd 0.048 0.012 0.002 73 13 0.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SPRId BC1c N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 121 20 N/A N/A 0.116 0.052 0.022 170 54 7 N/A N/A 114 23f N/A N/A BC2d e 0.213 0.066 0.018 N/A N/A N/A 0.177 0.165 371 21 27.0 6.0 BCNV SOURCES: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2002, 2003a, 2004; Clark County Department of Air Quality Management 2002 NOTES: a These values may have been reported for purposes of compliance with State ambient standards; there are no 1-hour or 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for nitrogen dioxide. b Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards c Data are from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2004 Air-Quality Report. Data are from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2002 Air-Quality Report or 2003 Air-Quality Report. Data are from the Clark County Department of Air Quality Management 2002 Air-Monitoring Network Review. f These data do not satisfy the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s summary criteria, usually meaning that less than 75 percent of valid data recovery was available in one or more calendar quarters. d New NAAQS approved in 2008, but existing NAAQS will apply until the new regulation is issued. e NA = not applicable N/A = not available NO2 = nitrogen dioxide SO2 = sulfur dioxide O3 = ozone PM10 = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter FLAG = Flagstaff Middle School GCNP = Grand Canyon National Park-Hance Camp PFNP = Petrified Forest National Park PNGS = Page-Navajo Generating Station SPRI = Springerville-Coyote Hills BC1 = Bullhead City BC2 = Bullhead City BCNV = Boulder City

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-59

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.7
3.7.1

VEGETATION
Black Mesa Complex Vegetation Types

3.7.1.1

The Black Mesa Complex is located within the Great Basin conifer woodland biotic community (Map 3-13) (Brown 1982; Brown and Lowe 1980). Detailed vegetation data have been collected at various times for coal-mine permitting (Peabody 2004), and baseline vegetation sampling of the coalresource areas was conducted in 2003 (ESCO Associates 2000a, 2000b, 2003). The Black Mesa Complex mining-operation areas generally are located within four native plant communities: piñon/juniper woodland, sagebrush shrub, saltbush shrubland, and greasewood shrubland, which are described below. A reclaimed-lands plant community is created where mine lands have been revegetated, which also is described below. Piñon/juniper woodland is the dominant plant community within the Black Mesa Complex and occupies approximately 65 to 70 percent of the undisturbed land area. Piñon pine (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) are dominant, with tree canopy cover ranging from 14 to 18 percent. Common shrubs include big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), cliffrose (Cowania mexicana), Douglas rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), and shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia). Grasses and forbs provide a small amount of cover, with the most common grasses being bottlebrush squirreltail (Sitanion hystrix), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), and muttongrass (Poa fendleriana). Some piñon/juniper stands appear to have very little understory vegetation, while others have a moderate presence of shrubs. Total vegetation cover in the various stands sampled by ESCO Associates (2003) ranged from 11 to 22 percent. Species density ranged from 12 to 20 species per 1,076 square feet (100 square meters). Piñon/juniper woodland has extensive areas of bare soil, rock, and litter below trees. It occurs at an elevation range of 6,300 to more than 7,200 feet above MSL in the area of the mines. Piñon tends to be dominant over juniper at higher elevations, and juniper is dominant at lower elevations. Sagebrush shrub is the second most dominant vegetation type at the Black Mesa Complex, covering 30 to 35 percent of undisturbed land areas. This community occurs on flatter areas and in valley bottoms within the matrix of piñon/juniper woodland. It is dominated by big sagebrush and blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis). There is varying and sometimes substantial presence of other shrubs and subshrubs, especially fourwing saltbush, Douglas rabbitbrush, Greene rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus greenei), and rubber rabbitbrush (C. nauseosus). Along with blue grama, galleta (Hilaria jamesii) is a common warm-season grass. Cool-season grasses are less common and include big squirreltail (Sitanion jubatum), bottlebrush squirreltail, needle and thread (Stipa comata), Indian ricegrass, and western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii). Total vegetation cover ranges from about 8 to 17 percent, with the highest cover associated with dominance by big sagebrush (ESCO Associates 2005). Bare ground occupies 47 to 75 percent of the ground, with 2 to 15 percent rock cover. Species density ranges from 12 to 19 species per 1,076 square feet (100 square meters). Sagebrush extends to 7,000 feet above MSL within the Black Mesa Complex. Saltbush and greasewood shrublands are two additional upland shrub communities that occupy relatively small areas. Saltbush and greasewood shrublands occupy the margins of terraces associated with the primary, secondary, and occasional tertiary drainages. The terraces are mostly 5 to 20 feet above the drainage channel floodplains where alluvial soil materials may be as much as 30 feet deep. Fourwing saltbush and greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) are dominant in these communities, with sparse to dense understories of annual forbs and grasses.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-60

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-13_NatVeg.pdf(par)

Nevada

Utah

Lincoln County

Washington County

Kane County

Map 3-13
San Juan County

Utah Arizona
Page

Vegetation
Black Mesa Project EIS

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d

LEGEND
Kayenta Tsegi

Blac k

Vegetation
Great Basin Conifer Woodland Great Basin Desertscrub

Me s

Nevada

Arizona

a
an

Clark County

La

ke

0 13

Thief Rock PS
Ra
ilr o a

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Mohave Desertscrub Petran Montane Conifer Forest

0 12

we Po
ll

Clark

90
30

Apache County

lora Co

d

r ive oR

d 100

PS #1
10

Petran Subalpine Conifer Forest Plains and Great Basin Grassland

110

MP 91 PS
20

Tuba City Moenkopi
50

40
80

90

0 10

Semidesert Grassland

Project Features
Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route


Moenkopi
 Wash
 Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Ra ilwa

Mohave County Coconino County

Tusayan
y

60

70

Cameron PS #2
80

70

Hotevilla
60

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

Realignment
 Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route

Moenkopi PS

50

on

ny

Ca

Valle
100

90

50

Subalternative along Eastern Route Western Pipeline Route PS = Pump Station

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110
120

40
40

General Features
30

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
23 0

Grand

Tolani Lake PS

River
 Lake

Navajo County

140

30

130

150

Tolani Lake PS Leupp
20

PS #4 Seligman
170

Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary

Laughlin

240

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

270

10

180

0 25

190

0 20

Kingman
260
20

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

Ne da a va rni

State Boundary County Boundary

220

Ca

o lif

10

Kingman Area
 Reroute


Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow

Little Colorad o River
Holbrook

Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005, 2006 Brown, Lowe, and Pace 1979

n ifor Ca l
San Bernardino County

Ariz ona
La Paz County Yavapai
 County


November 2008
0 20 Miles 40

ia

Prepared By:
Gila County

Reclaimed-land areas occupy thousands of acres of mined land in the Black Mesa Complex (10,275 acres of the Kayenta mining operation and 5,075 acres of the Black Mesa operation through 2007). This community is dominated by native and introduced grasses and shrubs. Cool-season native grass species include western wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass (Agropyron dasystachyum), Indian ricegrass, needle and thread, big squirreltail, and bottlebrush squirreltail. Common warm-season native grass species are blue grama, galleta, and alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides). The most abundant introduced perennial grass species is Russian wildrye (Elymus junceus), and crested wheatgrass (Agropyon desertorum) and intermediate wheatgrass (Agropyron intermedium) also are present. Fourwing saltbush is the dominant shrub species, but several other species are common. Several weedy annuals occur primarily in newer reclamation areas, including kochia (Kochia scoparia), Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Total vegetation cover ranges from about 10 to 45 percent, with average cover about 23 percent in 2004 (ESCO Associates 2005). Bare ground typically occupies 30 to 70 percent of the ground surface, with 1 to 10 percent rock cover in most areas. Species density ranges from 10 to 30 species per 1,076 square feet. Biomass production averaged 539 to 816 pounds/acre in 2004, and woody stem density averaged 3,260 to 7,178 stems per acre. Elevations of the Black Mesa Complex generally decrease from northeast (7,200 feet above MSL) to southwest (6,100 feet above MSL); therefore, the western and southern areas of the Black Mesa Complex have lower cover of piñon/juniper woodland and a higher cover of sagebrush shrub in unmined areas. In addition, the greasewood and tamarisk (salt cedar, Chinese tamarisk [Tamarix pentandra]) communities are more common because these communities occur where drainages are larger and more developed. The 40-acre coal-slurry preparation plant site is occupied by approximately 20 acres of shrubland dominated by big sagebrush and broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), 19 acres of disturbed land, and about 1 acre of reclaimed land (BMPI 2005). The sagebrush/snakeweed shrubland is typical of sagebrush shrubland in the Black Mesa Complex. The disturbed land has very little vegetation, and the reclaimed land is a former airstrip that has been seeded with the revegetation seed mix used for the Black Mesa Complex. The proposed coal-washing facility would be located near the existing coal-slurry preparation plant and coal-storage piles. Based on an aerial photograph, the vegetation consists primarily of sagebrush shrub and/or reclaimed land. Riparian habitat occurs along two major drainageways in linear stringers of vegetation. The stringers range from 10 to 20 feet in width, and extend from a few yards to more than 0.5 mile in length. This community occurs on the bottoms of the washes, typically occupying agrading portions such as sandbars. The dominant species is tamarisk. Small amounts of greasewood, fourwing saltbush, and coyote willow (Salix exigua) are associated with the tamarisk on stable sites. The herbaceous vegetation is composed of cheatgrass, European alkali grass (Puccinellia distans), stickseed (Lappula occidentalis), and desert seepweed (Suaeda torreyana). This community is the same as the Chinese-tamarisk community type in a general classification of riparian forest and scrubland types of Arizona (Szaro 1989). The largest areas mapped by ESCO Associates (2003) are on the Black Mesa mining operation area, in Moenkopi Wash and in Red Peak Valley. Similar riparian habitat occurs downstream from the mine area in Moenkopi Wash and Coal Mine Wash. Wetland and aquatic plants occur at some of the many impoundments, including freshwater ponds, sediment ponds, and internally draining ponds in reclaimed areas. Some larger ponds have wetland plants along the margin, including tamarisk, coyote willow, bulrush (Scirpus acutus) and cattail (Typha latifolia). Aquatic plants include common poolmat (Zanichellia palustris), pondweeds (Potamogeton filiformis and P. pectinata), and holly-leafed water nymph (Najas marina). The only aquatic macrophyte in most ponds is a blue-green alga (Chara sp.).
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-62 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.7.1.2

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

The Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) established a nationwide definition of noxious weeds. The State of Arizona designates weeds or invasive species as noxious under A.R.S. 3-201. Weeds that are not indigenous to Arizona, likely to be detrimental, destructive, and difficult to control or eradicate may be listed as noxious weeds by the State. Noxious weeds can out-compete native vegetation in areas of disturbance and can spread quickly in a short time span. Table F-1 in Appendix F provides a summary of noxious weeds associated with disturbed land at various project facilities. A number of noxious and invasive plant species are known or expected to occur in the Black Mesa Complex, including bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), common purslane (Portulaca oleracea), diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), and tamarisk (California Information Node 2005; ESCO Associates 2003; USGS 2004). Common purslane, bull thistle, and tamarisk are reported to be present in the mine permit area (Peabody 2004). The other species are mostly mapped along U.S. Highway 160 and Indian Route 41 in the mine vicinity (California Information Node 2005; USGS 2004). 3.7.1.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species

The analysis of threatened, endangered, and special status species included review of FWS county lists (FWS 2005), the Navajo endangered species list (Navajo Nation Fish and Wildlife Department [NNFWD] 2005b) and Arizona Natural Heritage Program lists (Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD] 2006a), and evaluation of habitats and ranges. There are no federally listed, proposed, or candidate plant species known or expected to occur within the Black Mesa Complex. No naturally occurring unique or ecologically sensitive areas have been identified on the Black Mesa Complex. The vegetation resources are well represented throughout the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau regions (Peabody 2004). 3.7.1.4 Culturally Important Plant Species

Numerous species of native plants have cultural significance to the Hopi and Navajo people for uses as food and medicine, in rituals, and for other uses such as for tools, construction, and baskets. Table F-2 in Appendix F presents a list of native plant species used for these purposes, based on published information about such uses (Begay 1979; Lomaomvaya et al. 2001; Mayes and Lacy 1989). No specific collection areas have been identified, and many of the species are widely distributed within their habitats, including the Black Mesa Complex. Cultural plants also are present in reclaimed areas as a result of an intensive reestablishment program and natural recolonization. 3.7.2 3.7.2.1 3.7.2.1.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route Vegetation Types

As mapped by Brown and Lowe (1980), the existing coal-slurry pipeline route crosses five major biotic communities: Great Basin conifer woodland, Plains and Great Basin grassland, Great Basin desertscrub, semidesert grassland, and Mohave desertscrub. The vegetation types intergrade, and there are few abrupt changes in vegetation type because elevational changes tend to be gradual. The distribution of vegetation types is largely related to elevation, which ranges from about 6,100 to 7,200 feet above MSL at the Black Mesa Complex to about 4,200 feet above MSL at the Little Colorado River near Cameron, and then increases to 6,050 feet above MSL at the southwestern edge of the Navajo Reservation near Mesa Butte. The elevation is constant at about 6,000 feet above MSL until CSP Milepost 159, generally ranges

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-63

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

between about 5,200 to 5,800 feet above MSL from CSP Milepost 159 to the Cottonwood Cliffs, and then drops across several basins and ranges to about 550 feet above MSL at Bullhead City. Great Basin conifer woodland occurs along the pipeline route at Black Mesa, the area north of the San Francisco Peaks, Juniper Mountains, Cottonwood Mountains, and Peacock Mountains. Great Basin conifer woodland has been described previously for the Black Mesa Complex. The piñon/juniper woodland association located in the central and western portions of the route is generally similar, with the addition of oneseed juniper (Juniperus monosperma). Much of the area mapped as Great Basin conifer woodland is dominated by or is exclusively juniper. The trees are relatively short and have a varying density from savanna to woodland to nearly closed-canopy forest. The understory in savanna and woodland areas is primarily composed of species present in adjacent scrub or grassland, such as blue grama, sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), broom snakeweed, and big sagebrush. Along the Moenkopi Wash terrace, the vegetation is mostly greasewood and fourwing saltbush, with narrow strips of tamarisk that vary in abundance and density. Adjoining hills and ridges are dominated by open stands of juniper or a combination of piñon and juniper. Plains and Great Basin grassland occurs on the Hopi Reservation, in the central portions of the route from Cameron to west of Seligman, and in portions of the Chino Valley and Seventyfour Plains. Plains and Great Basin grassland is dominated by short or mid-grasses. Dominant native perennial grasses include blue grama, wheatgrasses (Agropyron spp.), needlegrasses (Stipa spp.), Indian ricegrass, galleta, junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), and squirreltail. Cheatgrass, an introduced annual grass, may be abundant. Common shrubs include fourwing saltbush, winterfat, Whipple cholla (Opuntia whipplei), rabbitbrush, broom snakeweed, several species of prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), and soapweed yucca (Yucca glauca). Numerous species of forbs are present, including goldeneye (Viguiera spp.), groundsel (Senecio spp.), thistles (Cirsium spp.), prickly poppy (Argemone spp.), and sunflower (Helianthus spp.). Much of the Plains and Great Basin grassland in Arizona has been modified by grazing and other land uses, with resulting increases in shrub cover and decreases in grasses. Much of the degraded grassland has transitioned into Great Basin desertscrub. Grassland farther to the west has been invaded by junipers, sagebrush, and other shrubs. Great Basin desertscrub occurs from Red Lake to Cameron on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations. These areas include the Moenkopi Plateau, Echo Cliffs, and Painted Desert to near Gray Mountain. Great Basin desertscrub as mapped by Brown and Lowe (1980) occurs primarily in the lower elevations and more arid zones of the Hopi and Navajo Reservations. Dominant species include sagebrushes (Artemisia spp.), saltbushes (Atriplex spp.), and winterfat (Ceratorides lanata). Other common shrub species include rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), Mormon tea (Ephedra spp.), and horsebrush (Tetradymia spp.). Three species of sagebrush are common—big sagebrush, Bigelow sagebrush (Artemisia bigelovii), and black sagebrush (Artemisia nova). Perennial grasses may be common or rare. Introduced annuals are common and include cheatgrass, Russian thistle, filaree (Erodium spp.), and tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum). Shadscale is dominant in areas where precipitation is lower than in the sagebrush zone. Shale badlands are present in some areas and have little or no vegetation. Semidesert grassland occurs in two areas east of Kingman, including 4 miles between the Cottonwood and Peacock Mountains, and in the Hualapai Valley. About 6 miles of the alignment in the Hualapai Valley pass through urban areas. This vegetation type originally was dominated by perennial bunch grasses, but is now often dominated by shrubs, half-shrubs, cacti, and forbs (Brown 1982). Common species include black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda), other grama species, three-awns (Aristida spp.), and other grasses; seasonally abundant forbs such as filaree (Erodium cicutarium), lupines (Lupinus spp.), buckwheats (Eriogonum spp.) and globemallows (Sphaeralcea spp.); leaf succulents such as yuccas
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-64 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

(Yucca spp.); mesquite (Prosopis velutina), oneseed juniper, crucifixion thorn (Canotia holocantha), Mormon tea, false mesquite (Calliandra eriophylla), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), and other shrubs. Mesquite, one-seed juniper, creosotebush (Larrea tridentata), and snakeweed are common invaders. Other common species observed during field reconnaissance included desert marigold (Baileya multiradiata), golden paperflower (Psilostrophe cooperi), thistle, and beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris). Mojave desertscrub occurs from Kingman west to the Colorado River and the Mojave Generating Station. This area includes the Cerbat Mountains west of Kingman, Sacramento Valley, Black Mountains, and Mohave Valley to the Colorado River. About 1 mile in the Sacramento Valley and about 2 miles near Bullhead City are urbanized. The dominant species are creosotebush and white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa). In valley areas, the creosotebushes are widely spaced, and most of the openings between shrubs are bare ground most of the year or occupied by a variety of ephemeral herbaceous species following adequate rainfall. Other shrubs and perennial herbs are more common and diverse in rocky areas, along washes, and at higher elevations. Other common species include Anderson thornbush (Lycium andersonii), spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), paper bag bush (Salazaria mexicana), flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), ratany (Krameria parvifolia), and brittlebush (Encelia farinosa). Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), visually dominant in some parts of the Mojave Desert, was not reported to be present along the existing alignment (Entrix 2002). A number of cacti are present, including hedgehog (Echinocereus spp.), silver cholla (Opuntia echniocarpa), Mojave prickly pear (Opuntia erinacea), beavertail cactus, and many-head barrel cactus (Echinocactus polycephalus). The Black Mountains are relatively undisturbed, while the Sacramento Valley and Cerbat Mountain areas are somewhat developed, with patches of undisturbed habitat. African mustard (Brassica tournefortii), an invasive species, is very common along roads in the Sacramento Valley. 3.7.2.1.2 Wetlands and Riparian Habitats

A number of xeroriparian1 shrub species are present in areas receiving intermittent water supplies, including sandy arroyos, washes, and subirrigated bajadas2. These species include desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), Mormon tea, New Mexican forestiera (Forestiera neomexicana), red barberry (Berberis haematocarpa), and smoke tree (Dalea spinosa) (Entrix 2002). No wetlands are known to be present along the alignment, but small wetlands may occur in seepage areas along some washes. Narrow strips of riparian vegetation dominated by tamarisk are present along the banks of Moenkopi Wash, Begashibito Wash (with Russian olive [Elaegnus augustifolia]), Little Colorado River, and some minor washes east of Cameron (Entrix 2002). There are no wetlands or riparian habitat at the Colorado River crossing. 3.7.2.1.3 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species

Noxious weeds and invasive plant species known or likely to occur along the coal-slurry pipeline include African mustard, camelthorn (Alhagi camelorum), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), diffuse knapweed, field bindweed, Russian knapweed, Russian olive, Scotch thistle, and tamarisk (California Information Node 2005; U.S. Forest Service [Forest Service] 2003; USGS 2004). The known distributions of these species near the coal-slurry pipeline are as follows: • • African mustard occurs near Kingman and in the Sacramento Valley. Camelthorn occurs in the area from Tuba City to Cameron.

1 2

Species prevalent in dense vegetation along dry washes. 
 Broad sloping depositional surface at the base of a mountain range formed of coalesced alluvial fans. 
 3-65 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

•	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	

Dalmatian toadflax occurs along U.S. Highway 89 near Cameron. Diffuse knapweed occurs near Cameron. Field bindweed occurs in the vicinity of the existing route west of Valle. Russian knapweed and diffuse knapweed have been reported near Cameron. Russian olive was observed along Begashibito Wash during the field reconnaissance. Scotch thistle occurs near Tuba City, Cameron, and Valle, and has been observed along the route. Tamarisk occurs near the Colorado River and Little Colorado River at Cameron, and was 
 observed in Moenkopi and Begashibito Washes during the field reconnaissance.
 Endangered, Threatened, and Special Status Species

3.7.2.1.4

The analysis of endangered, threatened, and special status species included review of FWS county lists (FWS 2005), the Navajo endangered species list (NNFWD 2005b), Arizona Natural Heritage Program lists (AGFD 2006a), and Arizona BLM sensitive species list (BLM 2005a), and evaluation of habitats and ranges. Endangered, threatened, and other special status plant species known or expected to occur in the vicinity of the coal-slurry pipeline are listed in Table F-3 in Appendix F. Designations by several agencies are included. Two federally listed plant species are known to occur in the vicinity of the coal-slurry pipeline as follows: •	 Fickeisen plains cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae) is a Federal candidate species known to occur within 1 mile of the pipeline route near Cameron and westward (Hutchins 2005; NNFWD 2005b). This is a small globose cactus that occurs on gravelly soils in Great Basin desertscrub communities at elevations of 4,000 to 6,000 feet above MSL. It retracts into the soil during drought. •	 Welsh’s milkweed (Asclepias welshii) is a federally listed endangered species with potential to occur in the area near Tuba City (NNFWD 2005b). It occurs on active sand dunes derived from Navajo Sandstone. The nearest known location is north of Tuba City and about 0.2 mile of potentially suitable habitat is present along the route. Critical habitat is designated for about 4,000 acres of sand dune habitat on the Coral Pink Sand Dunes and Sand Hills area of Kane County, Utah (FWS 1987a). A number of other special status species occur or have the potential to occur along the route. Seven are known to or may occur on portions of the existing route that cross the Navajo Reservation. They include four species in Group 4 of the Navajo Endangered Species List, and one Forest Service sensitive species as follows: •	 Peeble’s blue star (Amsonia peeblesii), a robust perennial herb in the dogbane family, is known to occur within 1 mile of the route. It occurs in grassland and Great Basin desertscrub communities at elevations of 4,000 to 5,600 feet. •	 Round dunebroom (Errazurizia rotundata) has the potential to occur along the alignment, in sandy pockets between outcroppings of Moenave Sandstone at elevations of about 4,800 to 5,200 feet above MSL. •	 Parish’s alkali grass (Puccinelia parishii) has the potential to occur if wetlands are present with white alkali crusts. •	 Beath milkvetch (Astragalus beathii) occurs from Lees Ferry to south of Cameron, on roadsides and washes on seleniferous soils of the Moenkopi Formation (Arizona Rare Plant Committee 1994). This species is reported to occur within 3 miles of the route (Hutchins 2005).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-66

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

•	 Cameron water-parsley (Cymopterus megacephalus) is reported to occur within 3 miles of the alignment. This species is a stemless perennial forb in the Apiaceae family that occurs on sandy, gravelly, or shaley soil in Great Basin desertscrub and desert grassland. It is known to occur near Cameron. This is a Forest Service sensitive species, but the route does not cross land administered by the Forest Service within the potential range of the species. It is not included on the Navajo list. Additional special status plant species west of the Navajo Reservation include the following: •	 Tusayan rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus molestus) is a Forest Service sensitive species known to occur along the alignment within Kaibab National Forest south and east of Valle. It occurs on limestone-derived soils in piñon/juniper woodland and associated grassland at 5,500 feet above MSL and higher. •	 Two-color beardtongue (Penstemon bicolor spp. roseus) occurs in the Black Mountains and is a BLM sensitive species. Although there are no known occurrences near the pipeline alignment, suitable habitat is present and the species may occur. It occurs in dry washes in volcanic hills. •	 Chalk liveforever (Dudleya pulverulenta spp. arizonica) is considered vulnerable by the Nevada Natural Heritage Program (Miskow 2005) but has no status in Arizona. It occurs on rock outcrops and desert slopes. •	 The Arizona Native Plant Law provides protection for many species of native plants by requiring authorization for removal, sale, and possession. It is prohibited to remove native plants for sale or other use, and the Arizona Department of Agriculture must be notified in advance of any landclearing activities that would destroy native plants. 3.7.2.1.5 Culturally Important Plant Species

Culturally important native plant species that may occur along the portions of the existing route on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations are provided in Table F-2 in Appendix F. 3.7.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments

The vegetation of the pipeline realignments is generally the same as along the existing pipeline route. The pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash involve moving segments of the pipeline out of the active channel, and these segments are likely to be located primarily in saltbush and greasewood shrublands on the alluvial terraces above the wash, in proximity to the existing route. Small areas of tamarisk are present along the edge of the channel. The Kingman reroute would cross about 10 miles of semidesert grassland southeast of Kingman and 18 miles of Mohave desertscrub in the Sacramento Valley. Portions of the desert grassland habitat have been invaded by juniper on the lower slopes of the Hualapai Mountains. The noxious and invasive species; endangered threatened, and special status plant species; and culturally important plant species are the same as described for the existing route. 3.7.3 3.7.3.1 3.7.3.1.1 Water Supply C Aquifer Water-Supply System Water Withdrawal

Within the modeled drawdown area, riparian vegetation associated with the C aquifer occurs primarily along portions of lower Clear Creek, lower Chevelon Creek, and Little Colorado River. Riparian vegetation typically is dominated by tamarisk. Other species that occur include grasses, sedges, common

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-67

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

reed (Phragmites australis), cattail, tule (Scirpus acutus), coyote willow, Goodding willow (Salix gooddingii), velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii). About 285 acres of riparian vegetation that occur along the lower 1.7 miles of Chevelon Creek are dominated by tamarisk and Russian thistle (Lopez, Dreyer, and Gonzales 1998). Above this is about 7 miles of narrow canyon with very limited riparian vegetation. The upper part of the perennial reach has a diverse riparian community consisting of grasses, sedges, poison ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii), walnut (Juglans major), and willow. The lower part of Clear Creek has dense tamarisk. Most of the perennial reach is in a canyon. Velvet ash is tall but has relatively low densities. Tamarisk, common reed, cattail, and bulrush are common in some areas (Clarkson and Marsh 2005a). One Group 4 species on the Navajo Endangered Species List, Parish’s alkali grass, potentially could occur at streams or seeps within the well-field drawdown zone, although it is not known to be present. Parish’s alkali grass is a geographically widespread but rare annual grass whose populations vary greatly in time and space (Arizona Rare Plant Committee 1994). Information about the potential presence of endangered, threatened, and other special status species at all components of the C aquifer water-supply system is summarized in Tables F-12 and F-13 in Appendix F. Culturally important native plant species that may occur are listed in Table F-2 in Appendix F. 3.7.3.1.2 Infrastructure

3.7.3.1.2.1 Well Field The well field is located within two vegetation communities—Great Basin desertscrub on the northeast half and Plains and Great Basin grassland on the southwest half. These communities have been described previously in the discussion of vegetation along the coal-slurry pipeline. The well field does not contain any major drainages. There are no wetlands mapped by the National Wetland Inventory or known areas of riparian habitat within the well field. Noxious weeds and invasive species known or likely to occur within the well field area include camelthorn, halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), musk thistle, puncture vine, Russian knapweed, Russian olive, and tamarisk (California Information Node 2005; USGS 2004). The first five species are primarily problems in rangeland and therefore more likely to occur. The last two species invade washes and riparian areas and are unlikely to be common because of lack of suitable habitat. All these species have been reported in the well field or immediately adjacent areas along I-40 or near Leupp. No endangered, threatened, or other special status species are known or expected to occur in the well field area. 3.7.3.1.2.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline 3.7.3.1.2.2.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route The distribution of vegetation types along the Eastern Route is associated with elevation, which ranges from about 6,700 feet above MSL near the Black Mesa Complex to 4,700 feet above MSL at the Little Colorado River, and about 5,400 feet above MSL at Canyon Diablo. The Eastern Route would cross three biotic communities—Plains and Great Basin grassland, Great Basin desertscrub, and Great Basin conifer woodland. As mapped by Brown and Lowe (1980), grassland occurs along approximately 38 miles of the Eastern Route, including the southern 6 miles, and from WSP Milepost 52 to 84. This vegetation type is described above in the discussion of vegetation along the coal-slurry pipeline. Much of the grassland along the

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-68

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

eastern pipeline route is transitional to Great Basin desertscrub. Areas with shallow soils and rocky outcrops have open stands of Great Basin conifer woodland. Alluvial valleys and terraces close to a wash (within about 10 feet vertically of the wash bottom) are dominated by species such as greasewood and fourwing saltbush. Great Basin desertscrub occurs along a total of 55 miles. Most occurs near the Little Colorado River, the Painted Desert, and upland areas near Oraibi Wash, and the remaining along Dinnebito Wash. This com­ munity also is described above for the coal-slurry pipeline. Shale badlands within this community have little or no vegetation. Great Basin conifer woodland occurs for 19 miles at the Eastern Route’s northern end on Black Mesa. This community is the same as described for the Black Mesa Complex. No wetlands are known to be present along the Eastern Route, but small wetlands may occur in seepage areas along some washes. Narrow strips of riparian vegetation dominated by tamarisk are present along the banks at the Little Colorado River crossing and other drainages. Noxious and invasive plant species known to be present in the vicinity of the Eastern Route include camelthorn, halogeton, musk thistle, puncture vine, Russian knapweed, Russian olive, and tamarisk (California Information Node 2005; USGS 2004). The first five species occupy rangeland and the last two species are trees that occur primarily along washes and in riparian areas, including the Little Colorado River near Leupp. The available information on the distribution of these species is provided below, based primarily on USGS (2004) and California Information Node (2005): •	 Camelthorn is widespread in Great Basin desertscrub on the southern 40 miles of the Eastern Route. •	 Halogeton is known from a number of sites near the Little Colorado River and lower Oraibi Wash. •	 Musk thistle occurs in the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining areas and along Dinnebito Wash. •	 Puncture vine has been reported to occur at Dinnebito Wash. •	 Russian knapweed is known from a number of locations, including Dinnebito Wash, Kykotsmovi, and Leupp. •	 Russian olive occurs along the Little Colorado River near Leupp and in Oraibi Wash. •	 Tamarisk occurs along the Little Colorado River and in washes. No federally listed, proposed, candidate, threatened, or endangered plant species are known or expected to occur. Two Group 4 plant species from the Navajo Endangered Species List are known to be present within 3 miles of the alignment: •	 Round dunebroom is a low aromatic shrub in the pea family that occurs on exposed sites in desertscrub in the Little Colorado River Valley at elevations of 4,800 to 5,200 feet above MSL. The plants grow in sandy and gravelly soils associated with sandstone and calcareous outcrops (AGFD 2005b; Arizona Rare Plant Committee 1994). •	 Parish’s alkali grass could potentially occur between WSP Mileposts 92 and 96 if there are wetlands present that contain white alkali crusts (NNFWD 2005b). Culturally important native plant species that may occur are listed in Table F-2 in Appendix F.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-69

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.7.3.1.2.2.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route The Western Route would follow the same route as the Eastern Route for about the first 27 miles, and then diverge. It would cross about 6 miles of Plains and Great Basin grassland and 21.5 miles of Great Basin desertscrub. Although it would follow a different route for the remaining distance, it would cross the same vegetation types as the Eastern Route. Plains and Great Basin grassland occurs along the Moenkopi Plateau, and a section in the Klethla Valley along U.S. Highway 160. Great Basin desertscrub occurs for a total of 68 miles, along Painted Desert and Ward Terrace, Moenkopi Plateau, and from Coal Mine Canyon to near Cow Springs. Great Basin conifer woodland occurs along 21 miles of the Western Route, along U.S. Highway 160 and Indian Route 41 on Black Mesa. Several miles are within or adjacent to mined areas in the Black Mesa mining operations. No wetlands are known to be present along the Western Route, but small wetlands may occur in seepage areas along some washes. Narrow strips of riparian vegetation dominated by tamarisk are present along the banks at the Little Colorado River crossing, Moenkopi Wash, Begashibito Wash, and several other locations. Noxious weeds and invasive plant species known or likely to occur along the Western Route include bull thistle, camelthorn, diffuse knapweed, field bindweed, halogeton, musk thistle, puncture vine, Russian knapweed, Russian olive, spotted knapweed, and Scotch thistle. The known distributions of some of these species are as follows, based primarily on USGS (2004) and California Information Node (2005): •	 Bull thistle occurs along U.S. Highway 160. •	 Camelthorn has been reported at many locations along the southern two-thirds of the route. •	 Diffuse knapweed has been reported at a number of locations, including along U.S. Highway 160 and near Leupp. •	 Puncture vine occurs along the portion of U.S. Highway 160 paralleled by the pipeline. •	 Field bindweed is reported for a number of locations along U.S. Highway 160 and Indian 
 Route 41. 
 •	 Halogeton has been reported only for the southern portion that the Western Route shares with the Eastern Route. •	 Musk thistle occurs along U.S. Highway 160 and in the mining operations area. •	 Russian olive occurs along U.S. Highway 160, and near Leupp and Oraibi Wash. •	 Scotch thistle has been reported at several locations where the Western Route would parallel U.S. Highway 160. •	 Spotted knapweed occurs along U.S. Highway 160. •	 Tamarisk is reported for the Leupp area and washes in the Black Mesa Complex area. Table F-4 in Appendix F provides a summary of endangered, threatened, and other special status species that may occur along the Western Route. One federally listed threatened plant species, Welsh’s milkweed, has a potential to occur if there are sand dunes derived from the Navajo Formation (NNFWD 2005b).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-70

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Two special status plant species also may occur: •	 Round dunebroom is considered to have a potential for occurrence from WSP Milepost 43 to 62 (NNFWD 2005b). •	 Parish’s alkali grass is known to occur within 3 miles of the Western Route from about WSP Milepost 119 to 127 (NNFWD 2005b). Culturally important native plant species that may occur are listed in Table F-2 in Appendix F. 3.7.3.2 N Aquifer Water-Supply System

Drainages receiving groundwater discharge from the N aquifer include Chinle and Laguna Wash on the northeast side of Black Mesa, and Pasture Canyon, Moenkopi Wash, Dinnebito Wash, Oraibi Wash, Polacca Wash, and Jeddito Wash on the west and south sides of Black Mesa (GeoTrans 2005). Riparian vegetation along these washes is supported by baseflow and runoff, and includes tamarisk, coyote willow, occasional cottonwoods, and Russian olive. Both tamarisk and Russian olive are considered to be invasive species. Groundwater discharge occurs only in the unconfined portions of the aquifer and is constant throughout the year, but is typically only present as surface flow in the winter when evapotranspiration is at a minimum. One federally listed threatened species—Navajo sedge (Carex specuicola)—is known to occur within the study area. This is a grasslike species restricted to seeps and hanging gardens on vertical cliffs and alcoves of the Navajo Formation (Arizona Rare Plant Committee 1994), and it occurs at a number of locations north of U.S. Highway 160 near Tsegi as well as on the Hopi Reservation near where Moenkopi Wash, Begashibito Wash, and Ha Ho No Geh Canyon overlap the unconfined portion of the N aquifer. This species has not been affected to date by pumping from the N aquifer (Peabody 2004). In addition, Parish’s alkali grass has been reported from near Tuba City and Shonto but could potentially occur at any alkaline seep, spring, or seasonally wet area within the region.

3.8
3.8.1

FISH AND WILDLIFE
Black Mesa Complex Summary of Habitats

3.8.1.1

The vegetation types of the Black Mesa Complex are described in Section 3.7. The major types are piñon/juniper woodland, which occupies about 65 to 70 percent of the coal-resource areas, sagebrush shrub, which occupies 30 to 35 percent of the areas, and reclaimed areas that are grasslands and shrub grasslands. Saltbush and greasewood shrub communities and riparian communities dominated by tamarisk occupy relatively small areas along drainages. Mixed conifer woodland occurs in very limited areas within the Black Mesa Complex at elevations between 6,800 and 8,200 feet above MSL. Other habitats include sandstone bluffs and aquatic and wetland habitat in some impoundments. All the major drainages in the Black Mesa Complex are intermittent. However, about 2 miles of Moenkopi Wash that are downstream from the confluence of Coal Mine Wash intersect the groundwater table and have extended periods of stream flow each year. Common wildlife species associated with each habitat type are listed in Table F-11 in Appendix F. 3.8.1.2 Wildlife

Twenty-six mammal species were recorded in the Black Mesa Complex during baseline wildlife studies conducted in 1979 through 1983 (Peabody 2004). Updated information on wildlife distribution and habitat was collected during a 2003 field reconnaissance (BIOME Ecological and Wildlife Research [BIOME] 2003). A 1979-1980 census for ungulates recorded two observations of mule deer (Odocoileus

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-71

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

hemionus), both north of the Black Mesa Complex. In 2003, 10 mule deer and numerous pellet groups of mule deer and elk (Cervus elaphus) were observed during biological surveys for birds and threatened and endangered species (BIOME 2003). Mule deer may be present throughout the year, but they are not common or abundant. The elk population has steadily increased at the Black Mesa Complex since the early 1980s, and it is not uncommon to see groups of 5 to 10 elk on reclaimed areas in the Black Mesa Complex; this is based upon personal observations of Peabody environmental staff stationed at the Black Mesa Complex. The sagebrush shrubland and piñon/juniper woodland support the largest populations of small mammals. Deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) are the most common species trapped in the Black Mesa Complex. Piñon/juniper woodland supports piñon-mice (Peromyscus truei), brush mice (Peromyscus boylii), Ord’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ordii), Stephen’s woodrat (Neotoma stephensi), and Colorado chipmunk (Tamias quadrivittatus). Gunnison’s prairie dogs (Cynomys gunnisonii) occur in grassland habitats. Similar small-mammal populations including the Navajo Mountain Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus navaho) occur on reclaimed lands at the Black Mesa Complex. Black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) and desert cottontails (Sylvilagus audubonii) occur in all habitats at Black Mesa as do coyotes (Canis latrans), red foxes (Vulpes fulva) and grey foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Bat studies were conducted in reclaimed areas and piñon/juniper habitat on Black Mesa in the summer of 1999. Nine bat species were identified through mist netting and the use of an Anabat II detection unit to gather acoustic records of bats. The documented species included the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), silver-haired bat (Lasionyctris noctivagans), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidas), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), big freetailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus), and an unknown myotis species (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2000). Only the first six species listed above were found in piñon/juniper habitat, while all nine detected species were found in reclaimed areas. The silver-haired bat is listed as a sensitive species by the Navajo Nation. Extensive bird surveys on Black Mesa have recorded a total of 235 species with 6 additional species identified from archaeological records. LaRue (1994) summarized comprehensive bird-censusing studies conducted in the northern Black Mesa region from the late 1970s to 1993. A number of these species were the first recorded for the region and represent a diverse variety of species from the greater roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus) to osprey (Pandion haliaetus). The highest number of birds and the greatest diversity of species are observed in summer, partly due to fledged offspring (Peabody 2004). The more common species and their habitats are presented in Table F-5 in Appendix F. Raptor studies in the 1980s recorded 22 raptor species with 9 of those likely to nest in the Black Mesa Complex. Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) were the most abundant raptor species; Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii) and sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter striatus) were relatively common in coniferous woodland habitats. Raptor surveys in 2003 recorded American kestrel (Falco sparverius) and Cooper’s hawk. A historic red-tailed hawk nest remained inactive in 2003 (BIOME 2003). Other less common species that may breed in the area include northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), western screech owl (Otus kennicottii), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), northern pygmy-owl (Glaucidium gnoma), and long-eared owl (Asio otus). Comprehensive raptor studies have been conducted on and adjacent to the Black Mesa Complex for red-tailed hawk, peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida). The results have been reported to OSM. A high diversity of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds utilize the larger impoundment ponds. Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) are likely the only nesting species, though redheads (Aythya americana), ruddy ducks (Oxyura jamaicensis), and American coots (Fulica americana) also may nest in the vicinity (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). Many other species may utilize the ponds during migration, such as
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-72 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), green-winged teal (Anas crecca), cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), gadwall (Anas strepera), American wigeon (Anas americana), and lesser scaup (Aythya affinis) (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) are the only shorebirds that may nest in the Black Mesa Complex (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). Both osprey and bald eagles have been observed at the ponds during migration. Reptile species observed during 2003 field reconnaissance include whiptail lizard (Cnemidophorus spp.), collared lizard (Aspidocelis collaris), sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), fence lizard (Sceloporus undulates), and side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) (BIOME 2003). Other common reptiles and amphibians that may occur are listed in Table F-11 in Appendix F. The 40-acre coal-slurry preparation-plant site is dominated by Great Basin desertscrub consisting of sagebrush/snakeweed shrubland, disturbed land with little vegetation, and a small portion of reclaimed land (BMPI 2005). Operational ponds present on the site are used by deer, small mammals, shorebirds, and other avian species (BMPI 2005). Bats may be present during foraging episodes over water tanks or small ponds, but the area is not considered significant habitat for bats. Mule deer are the only big-game species identified in the coal-slurry preparation-plant area, but they occur in low numbers (BMPI 2005). The other principal game species in the area are waterfowl, mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), jackrabbits, and rabbits. Others include coyote, bobcat, red fox, and gray fox (BMPI 2005). Other wildlife are similar to those described for the Black Mesa Complex, but occurrence is limited due to disturbed habitats and human activity. The proposed coal-washing facility would be located near the coal-slurry preparation plant, coal-storage piles, and other buildings supporting the Black Mesa mining operation. Based on an aerial photograph, the vegetation consists primarily of sagebrush shrub and/or vegetation on reclaimed land. Due to the disturbed nature of the area in and immediately adjacent to the facility, though some species of wildlife may occur on the site, such as desert cottontails, rodents, or occasional coyotes or foxes, the area is not likely a significant source of habitat for wildlife in general. The proposed new coal-haul road corridor would be located in piñon/juniper woodland, and the site has wildlife typical of this habitat. 3.8.1.3	 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitats No natural fisheries or aquatic habitats are present at the Black Mesa Complex. Sedimentation ponds, internally draining ponds in reclaimed areas, and permanent impoundments currently provide some aquatic habitat. There are currently 158 sedimentation ponds to support the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations, and Peabody proposes 117 additional ponds as part of the LOM revision. Of these 267 impoundments, Peabody proposes to retain 51 as permanent impoundments in the postmining reclaimed landscape. 3.8.1.4	 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Other Special Status Animal Species Seventeen special status wildlife species are known to occur or have the potential to occur in the area of the Black Mesa Complex, either as residents or as migrants/transients (Tables F-6 and F-7 in Appendix F). Three of these species—the Mexican spotted owl, black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus)—are federally listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-73

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) may occur occasionally, especially as the reintroduced population grows and expands its range. Condors are naturally curious and may be attracted to human activity. Designated critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl includes 3,983,042 acres statewide, most of which is on Forest Service lands. No designated critical habitat occurs on tribal, state, or private lands. Mexican spotted owls are known to occur on Black Mesa and have been intensively studied and monitored from 1994 to 2001. The nearest Protected Activity Center occurs about 0.7 mile from the active N-10 mine area, and there are no records of nesting within the permit boundary. The owls occur in mixed conifer forest, a habitat that is not present within the mine-permit area. There is also no evidence that the owls use mine reclamation or adjacent undisturbed habitat in the permit area. The closest records are in Yellow Water Canyon and in side canyons of Coal Mine Wash and Moenkopi Wash. Suitable habitat (prairie dog towns) is present for black-footed ferret, but the species is not expected to occur and there are no known naturally occurring populations in Arizona. Peabody conducts censusing and reporting of prairie dog towns on and adjacent to the Black Mesa Complex annually. Critical habitat was designated formally for the southwestern willow flycatcher on October 19, 2005, and included 15 management units totaling 737 miles of river corridor in Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico (70 Federal Register [FR] 60886). In Arizona, critical habitat was designated in portions of Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal, Pima, and Yavapai counties (FWS 2005a). No critical habitat occurs within 30 miles of any Black Mesa Project feature. At least three subspecies of willow flycatcher may be present in the area during migration (including the endangered southwestern subspecies), but none have been documented to breed in the region (AGFD 2002a; Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). All drainages that support dense stands of Tamarix sp. with surface water or saturated soil may be considered suitable habitat for the migrating birds. Potentially suitable habitat exists on the extreme western and northwestern portions of the Black Mesa Complex (BIOME 2003). The bald eagle (Haliateetus leucophalus) has been delisted and is no longer protected by the ESA. Primary bald eagle conservation laws are the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Act. Bald eagles have been observed occasionally. Two adults were observed in the southern portion of the Black Mesa Complex at an impoundment pond in 1985, and an individual was observed in the northern portion during the 1999 field season (BIOME 2003). Additional sightings occurred in 1982, 1984, 1988, and 1993 (LaRue 1994). The Black Mesa Complex does not contain suitable nesting habitat for bald eagles, but does provide occasional foraging habitat for migratory or wintering birds at impoundments in the form of carrion, fish, or small mammals. 3.8.2 3.8.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route

Most of the vegetation types that occur in the study area are crossed by the existing coal-slurry pipeline route. A more detailed description of vegetation types can be found in Section 3.7. Wildlife habitats include the vegetation types crossed by the pipeline and urban areas: • • • • • • Great Basin conifer woodland Mohave desertscrub Semidesert grassland Great Basin desertscrub Plains and Great Basin grassland Urban (Kingman and Bullhead City)
3-74 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

Typical wildlife associated with these habitats is listed in Table F-11 in Appendix F. The desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and wild burro (Equus asinus) herds in the Black Mountains are considered important resources of national significance (BLM 1995b). The Hualapai Mountains (6 or more miles south of the existing alignment) provide crucial habitat for the federally listed endangered Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis), which primarily occupies dry grass/forb habitats in ponderosa pine forest and moist grass/sedge habitat along streams (BLM 1995b). The coal-slurry pipeline crosses six AGFD game management units (GMUs) from the Navajo Reservation to the Colorado River (AGFD 2005a) (Map 3-14). From east to west, the GMUs are 7, 8, 10, 15B, 15D, and 18A. The primary game species hunted within GMUs crossed by the pipeline include mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope (Antilocarpa americana), javelina (Tayassu tajacu), bighorn sheep, mountain lion (Felis concolor), mourning dove, and Gamble’s quail (Callipepla gambelli). Arizona GMU descriptions provide the following information (AGFD 2005a). Mule deer occur throughout, although populations are low from the Cerbat Mountains west to the Colorado River. Elk and pronghorn antelope hunting occurs from the Navajo Reservation to Kingman (GMUs 8 to 18A). Elk winter in piñon/juniper habitat within this area and pronghorn occur in open grassland. Javelinas are considered common in GMU 18A, which stretches from west of Seligman to the Cottonwood Mountains. Bighorn sheep occur in the Black Mountains. Mountain lions are hunted mostly in GMUs 18A and 15B from Seligman to Kingman. Mourning dove hunting occurs mostly in GMUs 15B and 15D in the Sacramento, Hualapai, and Mohave Valleys. Gamble’s quail occur mostly in the Peacock Mountains and the desert west of Kingman. On BLM-administered land, big game is managed cooperatively by AGFD and BLM’s Kingman Field Office (BLM 1995b). Wildlife movement corridors occur west of Kingman in the Cerbat and Black Mountains (Union Pass). The entire area west of Kingman is within BLM’s Cerbat Wild Horse and Burro Management Area. The Black Mountains (BLM’s Black Mountains Herd Management Area) have been identified as the largest block of contiguous desert bighorn sheep habitat in Arizona and are therefore critical to the continued existence of that species. The existing pipeline alignment bisects about 7 miles of medium- and high-quality desert bighorn sheep habitat (BLM 1995b). The species are highly sensitive to human disturbance, communicable disease, and inter- and intraspecific competition for food, water, and habitat (BLM 1995b). Desert bighorn sheep compete for habitat with mule deer and wild burros in the Black Mountains (BLM 1995b). The existing coal-slurry pipeline crosses five areas identified as conservation priorities by the Nature Conservancy: the Moenkopi Plateau east of Cameron, Aubrey Valley northeast of Seligman, Peacock/Cottonwood Mountains, Sacramento Wash, and Black Mountains South (Colorado Plateau Ecoregional Planning Team 2002; Marshall et al. 2004; Nature Conservancy 2001). These areas were identified for conservation-planning purposes based on occurrence of natural communities and rare species, and have no official status. The Nature Conservancy’s conservation priority areas are identified in Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2005-2015 (AGFD 2005a) as a source to be used in place of a comprehensive statewide landscape analysis, until AGFD completes its own analysis. Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) are known to nest near the existing coal-slurry pipeline route. Other potential nesting raptors include red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), American kestrel, prairie falcon, great horned owl, western screech owl, and Cooper’s hawk. Other common raptors likely to occur during wintering or foraging include turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), northern harrier (Circus cyanus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), and rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-75

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-14_AZGFD_Hunt_Units.pdf(par)

Nevada

Utah

Lincoln County

Washington County

Kane County

Map 3-14
San Juan County

Utah Arizona
Page

Nevada

Arizona

13A
 13B
 12AW
r ive oR

12B


NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d

Arizona Game and Fish Department Game Management Units
Black Mesa Project EIS

Blac k

Kayenta Tsegi

Me s
a
an

LEGEND
BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Clark County

La ke

Management Areas
14

0 13

0 12

Thief Rock PS
Ra
ilr o

ll

a d 10

0

PS #1
10

Clark

MP 91 PS
90
30

12AE 15BW
 15A
Mohave County

Tuba City Moenkopi
50

40
80

90

Apache County

lora Co

d

AGFD Game Management Unit and Number BLM Area of Critical Environmental Concern BLM Wild Horse and Burro Herd Area

Ra ilwa

14


Tusayan
y

60

we Po
70

Moenkopi
 Wash
 Realignment
Hard Rock
70

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2

70

Hotevilla
60

Moenkopi PS

110

0 10

Project Features
Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route
 Realignment
 Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route

20
80

Oraibi PS

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

9

80
50

on

Ca

15BE

CERBAT WILD HORSE AND BURRO HERD AREA

ny

Valle
100

90

50

Western Pipeline Route PS = Pump Station

Peach Springs Truxton

PS #3
110

7E

40

40

11

General Features
Tolani Lake PS

10

160

Black Mnts.
270

120

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION

Grand

15C


30

18A

23 0

PS #4 Seligman
170

7W


Tolani Lake PS Leupp Navajo County
20

River
 Lake
 Hopi Reservation Navajo Reservation

140

30

130

Laughlin

240

tM Cerba nts.

150

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams

10

180

0 25

190

0 20

Kingman
260
20

Bullhead City

6B 8


Flagstaff

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

da a va ni Ne ifor l Ca

State Boundary County Boundary

220

10

15D


Kingman Area Reroute
a Hualap i Mnts

5BN
 17A 18B
 19B 5A 6A 17B
Yavapai County

2A

Winslow

Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 Bureau of Land Management 2005 Arizona Game and Fish Department 2004

Little Colorad o River
Holbrook

BLACK MOUNTAINS ACEC

.

16B

n ifor Ca l
San Bernardino County

19A
 5BS

Chevelon Creek State Wildlife Area

Ariz ona

16A


4A

4B


3A
November 2008
0 20 Miles 40

ia

20A
 20C
 43A
La Paz County

21 20B

22

Gila County

3C
 23
 25/26


3B


Prepared By:

44A


3.8.2.1.1

Fisheries and Aquatic Habitats

The only perennial water crossed by the coal-slurry pipeline is the Colorado River, near Bullhead City. Game fish present in this section of the Colorado River include rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) (AGFD 2005c). 3.8.2.1.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Animal Species

The potential for occurrence, habitat, and status of federally listed and other special status species are summarized in Tables F-8 and F-9 in Appendix F. Federally listed threatened or endangered species potentially present where the coal-slurry pipeline would cross under the Colorado River near Bullhead City include razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and bonytail chub (Gila elegans) (AGFD 2005c; Miskow 2005). Critical habitat for the razorback sucker was designated by the FWS on March 21, 1994 (59 FR 13374) and included 15 reaches covering some 1,724 miles of river within the Colorado River Basin. These reaches occur in the Green, Yampa, Duschesne, Colorado, Whie, Gunnison, and San Jaun rivers in the Upper Colorado River Basin and portions of the Colorado, Gila, Salt, and Verde rivers in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Critical habitat for the razorback suckeroccurs upstream of Davis Dam north of the coal-slurry pipeline location on the Colorado River. Critical habitat designated for bonytail chub by the FWS on March 21, 1994 (59 FR 13374) included seven reaches of the Colorado River system, totaling 312 miles of river in Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California, and Arizona. In Arizona, critical habitat was designated along the Colorado River from Hoover Dam to Parker Dam, including the area near Bullhead City and downriver from the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge to Parker Dam. Possible bonytail chub individuals are present between Davis Dam and Parker Dam (AGFD 2001e). Designated critical habitat is found north of the coal-slurry pipeline crossing of the Colorado River. The bonytail chub is listed as a species of speciala concern by the State of Arizona. The Mohave population of desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is not likely to occur on the short section of pipeline route in Nevada, as the habitat is mostly disturbed and unsuitable. Willow flycatchers could occur occasionally during migration in riparian habitat in Moenkopi Wash and at the crossing of the Little Colorado River, but the subspecies of migrating willow flycatcher has not been documented. Bald eagles may migrate along the Little Colorado River, and California condors may occur occasionally, but no key habitat features are present. Black-footed ferrets have been reintroduced into the Aubrey Valley. The Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area extends along U.S. Highway 66 to Chino Point, just north of the existing coal-slurry pipeline (Van Pelt and Winstead 2003). A prairie dog colony providing potential habitat for black-footed ferrets occurs approximately 6 miles north of Seligman (Van Pelt and Winstead 2003). Prairie dog towns of sufficient size to support black-footed ferrets are not present along the pipeline route. Other special status species known or likely to be present include ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, and western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea); several species of bats near Kingman; banded Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum); Sonoran desert tortoise; northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens); and flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis) (Table F-9 in Appendix F). The flannelmouth sucker was extirpated from the Colorado River below Lake Mead, but was reintroduced in the mid-1970s below Davis Dam, where populations persist until today (AGFD 2001a). Other special status species that occur include pronghorn antelope (Navajo Nation threatened species), Wupatki Arizona pocket mouse (Perognathus amplus cineris), milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), Maricopa tier beetle (Cinindela oregona maricopa), and Navajo Jerusalem cricket (Stenopelmatus navajo).
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-77 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Forest Service management indicator species within Ecosystem Management Area 3 are listed in Table F-10 in Appendix F, based on information provided by Kaibab National Forest. The only indicators applicable to this project are juniper titmouse (Baoelophus ridgwayi), mule deer, and pronghorn antelope. The Forest Service management indicator species are only applicable on the approximately 5 miles of Kaibab National Forest traversed by the pipeline. 3.8.2.2 3.8.2.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments Habitat and Wildlife

The habitat and wildlife of the realignments are mostly the same as those described in Section 3.8.2.1 above. No fisheries or perennial aquatic habitat would occur along either of the pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash or Kingman area reroute. The pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash would be in proximity to the existing pipeline route and would move segments of the pipeline out of the active channel. Habitat and wildlife species are mostly the same as along the existing route. The major habitats present along the pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash are Plains and Great Basin grassland and Great Basin conifer woodland. Typical wildlife associated with these habitats is presented in Table F-11 in Appendix F. The Kingman reroute would cross about 10 miles of semidesert grassland southeast of Kingman and 18 miles of Mohave desertscrub in the Sacramento Valley. Typical wildlife of these habitats is presented in Table F-11 in Appendix F. Game species in areas along the Kingman reroute include mule deer, mourning dove, Gamble’s quail, and perhaps elk. Major habitats present along the Kingman reroute are Mohave desertscrub, semidesert grassland, and Great Basin conifer woodland. Typical wildlife of these habitats is presented in Table F-11 in Appendix F. The threatened, endangered, and special status animal species are the same as described for the existing route (Table F-9 in Appendix F). Several BLM sensitive species of bat may occur on BLM land along the Kingman reroute south and southeast of Kingman. In addition, desert tortoise and banded Gila monster would have several additional miles of suitable habitat along the Kingman reroute. 3.8.3 3.8.3.1 3.8.3.1.1 Water Supply C Aquifer Water-Supply System Water Withdrawal

Groundwater levels in the C aquifer primarily reflect the topography and the locations of recharge and discharge areas. Discharge areas for the C aquifer include portions of the Little Colorado River from Lyman Lake downstream to Hunt Valley and from Woodruff to Joseph City, as well as Silver, Chevelon, Clear, and East Clear Creeks. The nearest perennial streams where the C aquifer discharges to the stream channel are upper East Clear, lower Clear, and lower Chevelon Creeks, located approximately 41, 26, and 33 miles, respectively, south and southwest of the proposed well field. East Clear Creek is located in the same watershed above Clear Creek and becomes Clear Creek at its confluence with Willow Creek. Based on USGS water-quality studies from June 30 to July 5, 2005, perennial flow in lower Clear Creek begins about 10 miles above the confluence with the Little Colorado River, and perennial flow in Chevelon Creek begins about 12 miles above the confluence. The winter of 2003-2004 was wetter than usual, and those baseflow conditions may not be typical of average years. Some, but not all, of East Clear Creek and its tributaries are perennial (Brown 1982). Groundwater levels near the areas with perennial flow are nearly equal to the stream elevation, indicating a marginal connection between the C aquifer and East Clear Creek (S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. [SSPA] 2005). The Little Colorado River is both a gaining and losing reach between the mouth of Chevelon Creek and Clear Creek. The gains in flow appear to be the result of upwelling of C-aquifer water to the river where outcrops of fractured Moenkopi
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-78 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Formation are located at land surface in the channel. The losses are a result of evapotranspiration by phreatophytes and reinfiltration of some of the water to the stream-channel alluvium, based on USGS baseflow evaluation of Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River during June and July 2005 and 2006 (written communication, D.J. Bills, USGS, 2006). East Clear, Clear, and Chevelon Creeks have their headwaters on the Mogollon Rim and flow north and northeast to join the Little Colorado River near Winslow (Map 3-15). The lower portions of both Clear and Chevelon Creeks are perennial because groundwater discharge from the C aquifer maintains baseflow during the dry season (early summer). Their primary source of water is snowmelt and runoff from precipitation, and flows are much higher than at other times of the year. The middle portions of the streams are interrupted perennial and mostly dry during the summer, but contain permanent or semipermanent pools. Channel substrates within the perennial reaches of lower Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek are primarily bedrock-dominated but include boulders, gravels, sands and organic detritus. Native fish species recorded within the Clear Creek watershed in 2004 and 2005 (Clarkson and Marsh 2005a, 2005b) include Little Colorado River sucker (Catostomus sp.) and roundtail chub (Gila robusta). Nonnative fish include green sunfish, fathead minnow (Pieapheles promelas), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), plains killifish (Fundulus zebrinus), and common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Other fish recorded within these streams include native speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) and nonnative golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucus), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and brown trout (Salmo trutta) (Young, Lopez, and Dorum 2001). Species recorded in lower Chevelon Creek are similar but also include native Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata), bluehead sucker (Pantosteus discobolus), nonnative black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis), and channel catfish. Riparian vegetation potentially related to discharge from the C aquifer occurs in the lower portions of Clear and Chevelon Creeks, and along much of the Little Colorado River. These areas are used by migrating songbirds and some breeding birds, as well as reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. Federally listed threatened or endangered species that may occur within upper East Clear, and lower Clear and lower Chevelon Creeks are listed in Table F-12 in Appendix F. The only federally listed fish species known to occur or to be potentially present in these streams is the Little Colorado spinedace. Critical habitat was designated for the Little Colorado spinedace in 1987 (FWS 1987b). The reaches that were designated as critical habitat include 18 miles of East Clear Creek in Coconino County, 8 miles of Chevelon Creek in Navajo County, and 5 miles of Nutrioso Creek in Apache County (FWS 2005b). Habitat degradation and destruction—including degradation of water quality, depletion of water quantity from water impoundments and groundwater withdrawals, and the introduction of nonnative aquatic species—have resulted in declines in populations of Little Colorado spinedace. The lower 8 miles of Chevelon Creek are designated as critical habitat (25 miles southeast of the C aquifer well field), and Little Colorado spinedace are known to occur both within the critical habitat and in adjacent areas upstream. Little Colorado spinedace have not been found in lower Clear Creek since 1960, but are considered potentially present because this stream reach is its historical habitat and is downstream from known occupied habitat, and because this species is notorious for extreme population fluctuations when it seemingly disappears from an area for years or decades and then is found in abundance at a later date. Spinedace may be present in lower Clear Creek after high flows, but are unlikely to persist because of abundant predatory nonnative fish and other limiting factors. East Clear Creek is generally outside of the C-aquifer groundwater-discharge area, but is known to have populations of this species and contains designated critical habitat. Critical habitat for spinedace within the Clear Creek watershed occurs along approximately 18 miles of stream extending from its confluence with Clear
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-79 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Creek at Leonard Canyon, upstream to the Blue Ridge (recently renamed C.C. Gragin) Reservoir Dam, and approximately 13 miles of stream extending from the upper end of Blue Ridge Reservoir upstream to Potato Lake. Several other federally listed aquatic species occur within waters that receive discharge from the C aquifer. Humpback chub (Gila cypha) and razorback sucker occur in the lower Little Colorado River below Blue Springs. Razorback sucker, Gila chub, and Page springsnail (Pyrgulopsis morrisoni) occur in streams or springs within the watersheds of the Salt, Gila, and Verde Rivers. Willow flycatcher could occur in riparian habitat along lower Clear Creek, lower Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River during migration, but the subspecies of migrating birds is not known, and breeding southwestern willow flycatchers were not documented in recent surveys at the Chevelon Creek Wildlife Area (personal communication, S. Blackman, AGFD, 2006). Bald eagle also may occur in riparian habitat during migration and winter. Several special status aquatic species occur within the general region surrounding the project area. They include the following: •	 Bluehead sucker occurs in Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River (Young et al. 2001), but was very uncommon in Chevelon Creek during sampling in 1995 and 1996 (Lopez et al. 1998). Bluehead sucker occupy a variety of habitats from headwater streams to large rivers, and from cold, clear streams to warm, very turbid rivers (AGFD 2003a). •	 Roundtail chub had been petitioned for Federal listing as threatened or endangered, but the FWS determined on May 3, 2005, that listing of that distinct population segment in the lower Colorado River Basin was not warranted. It is known to occur in Clear Creek and in Chevelon Creek (Voeltz 2002). Populations of roundtail chub in Chevelon Creek are considered to be “unstable­ threatened” because they are uncommon and have an extremely limited range within the creek (Voeltz 2002). In addition, at least 18 nonnative fish species have been recorded. All areas below Chevelon Lake are considered unsuitable for sustainable populations because of lack of perennial flow and pool habitat and the presence of predatory nonnative fish. Populations in East Clear Creek are considered to be “stable-threatened” (Voeltz 2002). Roundtail chub were found to be common during sampling in 1999 and 2000, but were mostly found in intermittent reaches of the creek. Most individuals were found above Clear Creek Reservoir. One individual was found in lower Clear Creek during sampling in the fall of 2004 (Clarkson and Marsh 2005a), and a large population was found in a permanent pool just above the perennial portion of lower Clear Creek (Clarkson and Marsh 2005b). Roundtail chub occur in cool to warm waters of midelevation rivers and streams, and often occupy the deepest pools and eddies of large streams. •	 Little Colorado River sucker is known to occur in Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek including lower reaches, and Little Colorado River (AGFD 2001b; Young et al. 2001). This species is found in creeks and small- to medium-sized rivers, mostly in pools with abundant cover. •	 The northern leopard frog may occur along Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River, all of which are within its historic habitat. The Chiricahua leopard frog historically was found in Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River, although it appears to be extirpated from this portion of its historic range (FWS 2002).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-80

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Valle
P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-15_CCC_Watershed.pdf(par)

Map 3-15
e
Co
lora

do

Ri

Clear and Chevelon Creek Watershed Features
Black Mesa Project EIS

l Li t t

k

Williams Flagstaff

Leupp
Well Field Navajo Reservation

od

wo

r ve

LEGEND
Watersheds
Lower Colorado River - Lake Mead Little Colorado River Lower Gila River Verde River

W
Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

as

h

Winslow
Littl

o Co t t

n

Watershed Features
Little Colorado Spinedace Critical Habitat
9399000

Stream Gage Station Perennial Streams
 Ephemeral Streams
 C-Aquifer Boundary
 Confined Area of C-Aquifer

9399000

Clear Creek
 Reservoi
 r

C olorado Rive

r

9397300


9398000
ee k

Holbrook

Silver Cree

u
P

c o R iv e r er

e

Project Features
Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field

ek

ev

9398500

ee k

Z u nEastern Pipeline Route
Subalternative along Eastern Route Western Pipeline Route

Ri i

ev Wes el o t nC re e

k

Ch

C an

l W es t C

ea

st C l Ea

Willow Creek

r Creek
Potat
 o
 Lake

ea

r

yo n

Cr

9397500


Leonard

Ch

Chevelon Canyon
 Lake


Snowflake


General Features
Lake Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary County Boundary

Blue Ridge Reservoir

9398300

ve

r

Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route

Show Low
Woods Canyon Lake

SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005, 2006 Arizona State Land Department 2005 U.S. FWS Critical Habitat Portal 2005 Arizona Department of Water Resources 2004 - Modified by URS 2005

Cree

k

Ton to

0

ve

C

el

r Cr le a

on

e

Cr

r

Existing Route

k

Ve r d
eR

i

November 2008
10 Miles 20

Prepared By:

3.8.3.1.2

Infrastructure

3.8.3.1.2.1 Well Field Two vegetation types are present in the well field—Great Basin desertscrub on the northeast half and Plains and Great Basin grassland on the southwest half. The well field does not contain any major drainages. Wildlife species associated with these habitats are listed in Table F-11 in Appendix F. Golden eagles are known to nest within or near the well field. Other potential nesting raptors include redtailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, American kestrel, prairie falcon, and great horned owl. Other common raptors likely to occur during wintering or foraging include turkey vulture, northern harrier, red-tailed hawk, ferruginous hawk, and rough-legged hawk. No aquatic habitat is present in the well field area. The nearest drainage is Canyon Diablo, which is intermittent, and there is no information on fish populations (Young et al. 2001). The potential for occurrence of other special status species is presented in Table F-13 in Appendix F. The golden eagle, a Navajo-listed species, is known to nest within 1 mile of the proposed well field. The western burrowing owl, pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pllescens), pronghorn antelope, kit fox (Vulpes velox), and milk snake may occur. Some other species have potential to occur occasionally, including the ferruginous hawk. 3.8.3.1.2.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline 3.8.3.1.2.2.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route Habitats present along the Eastern Route include Plains and Great Basin grassland, Great Basin desertscrub, and Great Basin conifer woodland at the higher elevations. Typical wildlife associated with these habitats is listed in Table F-11 in Appendix F. Big-game species occurring along the Eastern Route include mule deer, but no information on herd numbers is available. Raptors include golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and western burrowing owl, which are discussed as special status species in Table F-13 in Appendix F. Other potential nesting species include red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, prairie falcon, great horned owl, western screech owl, and Cooper’s hawk. Other common raptors likely to occur during wintering or foraging include turkey vulture, northern harrier, redtailed hawk, ferruginous hawk, and rough-legged hawk. No fisheries or perennial stream habitats would be crossed by the Eastern Route. The Little Colorado River is intermittent in the study area. Threatened, endangered, and other special status animal species potentially present in the study area are presented in Tables F-12 and F-13 in Appendix F. Migrating bald eagle and willow flycatcher (unknown subspecies) may occur occasionally along Oraibi and Dinnebito washes. The bald eagle also may migrate along the Little Colorado River. The most important raptor species is the golden eagle, due both to its cultural significance to the Hopi people and in terms of known occurrence. Western burrowing owl also is likely to occur. There are historic records of black-footed ferret within 3 miles of the route. Other species that may occur include ferruginous hawk, mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), peregrine falcon, pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, pronghorn antelope, kit fox, and milk snake.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-82

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.8.3.1.2.2.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route From its beginning on the south end to about WSP Milepost 27, the Western Route would follow the same alignment as the Eastern Route and would cross Plains and Great Basin grassland and Great Basin desertscrub. It would follow a different path for the remainder of the route, but it would cross the same vegetation types as the Eastern Route; therefore, wildlife would be similar to those described for the Eastern Route. The species of raptors likely to occur along the Western Route are the same as those likely to occur along the Eastern Route. The potential for occurrence of threatened or endangered species would be the same as for the Eastern Route, except that Mexican spotted owl is known to occur within 3 miles of the northern portion of the proposed route. Migrating willow flycatchers (unknown subspecies) may occur occasionally in riparian habitat along streams that would be crossed by the Western Route, including Dinnebito Wash, Moenkopi Wash, and Begashibito Wash. Two special-status raptor species also occur along the Western Route, including golden eagle nests located within 1 mile of the route in both the southern and northern sections, and northern goshawk nests within 1 mile in the northern part of the route. 3.8.3.2 N Aquifer Water-Supply System

Several major washes have riparian vegetation and seasonal stream flow resulting from discharge of groundwater from the N aquifer, including Moenkopi Wash, Pasture Canyon, Dinnebito Wash, Oraibi Wash, Polacca Wash, Jeddito Wash, Begashibito Wash, Chinle Wash, and Laguna Creek (Map 3-16). All of these streams are intermittent and are not habitat for threatened, endangered, or special status fish species. The riparian habitats in these washes provide habitat for migrating songbirds. Southwestern willow flycatcher, a federally listed endangered species, occurs during migration but is not known to breed in the area. Bald eagles could occur occasionally. Northern leopard frogs are potentially present.

3.9

LAND USE

The study area examined for land use spans northern Arizona between Kayenta, Arizona, and Laughlin, Nevada, and includes five counties—Navajo, Coconino, Yavapai, and Mohave Counties in Arizona, and Clark County in Nevada (Map 3-17). Land use patterns have been influenced by a variety of factors, most notably by surface management and major transportation corridors. Land includes Federal land administered by the Forest Service (Kaibab National Forest) and BLM (Kingman Field Office, Lake Havasu Field Office, and Phoenix Field Office), State Trust land administered by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), privately owned land, and American Indian reservations held in trust by the Federal Government for the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. Both tribes own land outside the boundaries of their respective reservations—for example, the Hopi Tribe owns Hart Ranch near Winslow, Arizona, and the Navajo Nation owns Big Boquillas Ranch near Seligman, Arizona. Most Federal land, State Trust land, and tribal land in the study area, as well as much of the private land, is used for ranching and livestock grazing. The BIA and tribal grazing committees, ASLD, Forest Service, and BLM all manage grazing within the study area. The BIA issues grazing permits for large portions of land on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations. Descriptions of the range units and their respective carrying capacities are provided in Tables G-1 through G-5 in Appendix G.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-83

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Kane County
P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-16_PStreams.pdf(par)

San Juan County

Utah Arizona
Page
Navajo

Map 3-16

C reek

Riparian Areas Potentially Associated with N-Aquifer Discharge
Kayenta
any on rC
Lagu na C
k ree

W

Kaibito
lo

at e

oW

Coconino
 County


Po
ga

as

Ye

h

l

w

ibit

oa

Be

i

sh

as h

nW

ny o

s tu re

ito

Pa

Po

Hard Rock Tusayan Coconino INSET
 County
w

la

cc

W

Moenkopi

W

ep

o

W

as h

Colo

ra do

Ri v er

Tuba City	

Hopi Indian Reservation

Di nn

O

ra i

b

iW

eb

as

h

a

a

sh

Apache County

Ca

Wa

sh

Black
M es

Black Mesa Project EIS

LEGEND
Potential Riparian Areas Stream

Tsegi
La
k

Navajo
 Indian
 Reservation


aa
nd
e

al Co

M

h BLACK MESA as W COMPLEX in e
Reed Valley

INSET AREA
C h in

Aquifers
C-Aquifer (Saturated) N-Aquifer Confined Area of N-Aquifer

ll R we

Red Peak Valley

le Wash

a
lr
d

Project Features
Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field

M

as iW op nk oe

h
Yucca Fl at Was h

General Features
Lake Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary

a te rC an y

BLACK MESA
 Cameron COMPLEX

Hotevilla Kykotsmovi
o di t
Wa

on

State Boundary
s

W

County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005. USGS 2005 USGS Water Resources 2006 Bureau of Reclamation 2005

Y

o e ll
Co

n Mi al

e

W

as

h

Je

d

Re ed Val le y

Lit t

le C

ea

ligman
Re

a kV

lley

lor

a

Po la

a cc

W

a

Valle

sh

dP

ito

M Ash Fork

nk oe

Williams

at Wash

Wa sh

h as W pi o

u cca F l

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch
Flagstaff

Leupp

Navajo County
0

h

o

November 2008
10 Miles 20

do

Ri

r ve

Well Field Navajo Reservation

Di nn

eb

Y

Prepared By:

Winslow

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-17_Existing_LU.pdf(par)

Nevada


Utah


Lincoln County

Washington County

Kane County

Map 3-17 Map 2­1
San Juan County

Existing Land Use
Black Mesa Project EIS

Utah Arizona
Page

LEGEND
Existing Land Use*
Residential
Blac k

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d

See Map 3-17d
Kayenta Tsegi

Commercial/Mixed Use Industrial Extraction - Mining Public/Quasi-Public School/Educational Air Facilities Agricultural (Includes livestock corral, and water tanks) Parks/Recreation/Preservation Pipeline Pipeline Pump Station (Natural gas or coal-slurry)
 Utilities (Includes power
 substations and water tanks)

*Note: Land uses are shown for areas within
 2 miles of an alignment.


Me s

Nevada

Arizona

a
an

Clark County

La ke

0 13

Thief Rock PS
Ra
ilr o

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

0 12

we Po
ll

Clark

lora Co

d

r ive oR

a d 10

0

PS #1
10

110

MP 91 PS
90
30

Tuba City Moenkopi
50

40
80

90

Moenkopi
 Wash
 Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Apache County

0 10

20

Project Features
Black Mesa Complex Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route
 Realignment
 Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route

Ra ilwa

Mohave County Coconino County

Tusayan
y

60

70

Cameron PS #2
80

70

Hotevilla
60

Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi

50

on

ny

Ca

Valle
100

90

50

See Map 3-17c

Peach Springs Truxton
tM Cerba
160

PS #3
110
120

40
40

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
270

Grand

30

Tolani Lake PS

Western Pipeline Route PS = Pump Station
Navajo County

140

30

130

150

Tolani Lake PS Leupp
20

PS #4 Seligman
23 0

See Map 3-17b

General Features
River
 Lake
 Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary

nts.

170

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

180

0 25

190

0 20

Kingman
260
20

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

da a va ni Ne ifor l Ca

220

See Map 3-17a
Holbrook

10

Kingman Area
 Reroute


Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow

Little Colorad o River

State Boundary County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005

n ifor Ca l
San Bernardino County

Ariz ona
La Paz County Yavapai
 County

0

ia

November 2008
20 Miles 40

Prepared By:
Gila County

With grazing the predominant land use, most of the land within and near the entire study area is unoccupied, or is occupied by either dispersed residents or by those living remotely in small- to mediumsized communities. The majority of the Hopi population lives within mixed-use community areas that include residential, commercial, industrial, and public facilities—such as in Kykotsmovi, Moenkopi, and Hotevilla. Public facilities such as schools and health care centers are not well integrated into the communities, but are located on the peripheries (Hopi Office of Community Planning & Economic Development 2001). The Navajo people have traditionally lived in dispersed, remote locations surrounded by ample land, but today many Navajo people live in large, mixed-use communities such as Leupp, Hard Rock, Kayenta, Cameron, and Tuba City. The notable exceptions to the pattern of dispersed residential use on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations occur mostly off the reservations in western Arizona, and in areas along major transportation routes. In these areas, residential uses appear to be more clustered and associated with the communities of Kingman and nearby Sacramento/Golden Valley, Bullhead City, and South Mohave Valley, Arizona; and Laughlin, Nevada. Commercial land uses, such as gas stations and small convenience stores, are dispersed throughout the study area along major transportation corridors (U.S. Highway 160, U.S. Highway 89, U.S. Highway 180, Arizona Highway 66, and I-40) and in association with residential uses. Commercial uses are greater in the western portion of the study area and are largely associated with the communities of Kingman and nearby Sacramento/Golden Valley, Bullhead City, South Mohave Valley, and Laughlin. The most prominent industrial land uses in the study area are the mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex, the coal-slurry pipeline (which currently is not in operation), and the Mohave Generating Station (which currently is not in operation). In addition, there are airports and other industrial uses in Kingman and Bullhead City. Most of the agriculture in the study area is associated with residences (i.e., small family gardens) and with small fields on the Hopi Reservation. Most Hopi farmers use a cultivation method known as “dry farming,” typically growing corn, beans, squash, and melons. There are several small fields in different locations, such as at the base of mesas, on sand slopes, in small canyons, along alluvial plains in washes, or in the valleys between mesas. 3.9.1 Black Mesa Complex

The Black Mesa Complex is located on approximately 101 square miles of land leased from the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation (Peabody 1986). The lease area covers 64,858 acres on the northern part of the Black Mesa just south of Kayenta, with additional grants-of-easement for approximately 361 acres (Peabody 1986). Approximately 1,860 acres in the northeast corner of the lease area are neither in the permanent program permit area nor the proposed permit area. The Hopi and Navajo Reservation land within the complex includes approximately 40,000 acres of the former Navajo Hopi Joint Use Area, where the tribes have joint and equal interests in the underlying minerals but where the surface land has been partitioned—approximately 6,130 acres to the Hopi Tribe and 33,860 acres to the Navajo Nation. The remaining acreage within the lease area (approximately 24,850 acres) is on the Navajo Reservation, where the Navajo Nation holds exclusive rights to surface and mineral interests. Table 3-18 shows the number of acres of Hopi and Navajo Reservation land in the Black Mesa Complex divided by chapter, within the permanent program permit area and the currently initial program area.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-86

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-18

Acres of Hopi and Navajo Reservation Land in the Black Mesa Complex
Initial Program Area (acres) 9,500 5,750 800 2,850 18,900

Permanent Program Permit Area Navajo Chapter/Hopi (acres) Reservation Chilchinbito Chapter 25,700 Forest Lake Chapter 15,400 Shonto Chapter — Hopi Reservation 3,000 44,100 Total1 NOTE: 1 Reported acres are approximate.

The permanent program permit area of the Black Mesa Complex comprises approximately 3,000 acres of the Hopi Reservation and 41,100 acres of the Navajo Reservation. The lease area contains 68 residences (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005). A map of residence locations (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005) indicates that about 50 residences are located within the permanent program permit area. Coal facilities at the mine include three coal preparation areas. Peabody obtained a grant-of­ easement in August 1996 for two parcels on the permanently permitted area, totaling about 78 acres for an overland conveyor, overland conveyor maintenance roads and transfer facilities, 69kV transmission line, and seven sedimentation ponds, including access roads (OSM 1990). The initial program area of the Black Mesa Complex is located on approximately 2,850 acres of the Hopi Reservation and 16,050 acres on the Navajo Reservation. According to the map of residence locations (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005), approximately 18 residences are located within the initial program area. Peabody obtained a grant-of-easement in August 1996 for two parcels (about 284 acres) on the initial program area, where a haul road (Indian Route 41), a 69kV transmission line, water and telephone lines, utility access roads, two sedimentation ponds, a rock-borrow area, and an access road to the Navajo water well are located. The site for the proposed coal-washing facility is located adjacent to industrial structures associated with the coal-slurry preparation plant. The closest residence is approximately 1,500 feet to the north of the site, just outside the complex (Peabody 1986). Within the complex, the closest residence is approximately 4,500 feet south of the site (Peabody 1986). Grazing and perhaps plant collection for construction, heating, medicine, ceremonial items, and food occur in the vicinity. The coal-slurry preparation plant occupies 40 acres of land leased by BMPI from both the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. The proposed coal-haul road would pass through land used year-round for livestock grazing. The sole exception to this land use is one residence, located approximately 250 feet north of the proposed road alignment. The Black Mesa Complex is surrounded by land used for the same purposes—primarily grazing, with intermittent residences (OSM 1990). There are two rights-of-way held by Peabody outside the Black Mesa Complex that are associated with the mining operation. The first is designated for an overland conveyor and rail-loading site, located north of the mining complex. The site occupies a total area of approximately 88 acres. The second accom­ modates a 69kV power line, located generally between two coal-resource areas, extending southeast and off the Black Mesa Complex, and then to the west. The approximate area is 9 acres (OSM 1990).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-87

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Residences on the Black Mesa Complex consist of individual family dwellings or extended family camps with several dwellings—there are no concentrated population centers (Peabody 1986). Land within the Black Mesa Complex is currently home to approximately 68 individual households (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005). Households are relocated at Peabody’s expense as areas become affected by surface-mining activities (Peabody 1986). Thirty residences have been relocated since mining within the Black Mesa Complex began (Wendt 2005). In a few cases, families have been relocated more than once. Grazing within the complex continues year-round. There are four range units (Hopi and Navajo) on or adjacent to the Black Mesa Complex, with a combined total of 50,852 sheep units (refer to Tables G-1 and G-2 in Appendix G). All classes of livestock are grazed. The presence of wildlife habitat and associated species on the Black Mesa Complex encourages recreational activities such as hunting. There is little commercial development on or within 5 miles of the Black Mesa Complex. A gas station with a convenience store is located north of the complex at the intersection of U.S. Highway 160 and Indian Route 41. The closest commercial area with food and lodging is at Tsegi on U.S. Highway 160 north of the Black Mesa Complex. The next closest commercial area is Kayenta, approximately 15 miles northeast of the complex. Peabody’s mining operations, including transportation and support facilities, are the sole industrial uses currently in operation within the Black Mesa Complex (Peabody 1986). Family gardens associated with residences occur frequently within the Black Mesa Complex, and there are 31 small fields within the complex that are or have been used for the production of adapted crops, particularly corn for domestic use (Peabody 1986). The total area of all plots equals 138 acres, with individual plots averaging approximately 5 acres (Peabody 1986). The land on the Black Mesa Complex has received a negative determination as prime farmland from the NRCS (Peabody 1986). The Hopi and Navajo people use the plants in the area of the Black Mesa Complex for construction, heating, medicine, ceremonial items, and food (OSM 1990). Unknown quantities of the piñon pine, Utah juniper, and one-seed juniper trees that dominate the Black Mesa Complex are harvested for firewood, fence posts, and construction materials. 3.9.2 3.9.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route

The existing pipeline route crosses land under Federal, State, and tribal jurisdictions. It crosses the Navajo Nation’s Big Boquillas Ranch between CSP Mileposts 158 and 170. The ranch, which is owned in fee by the Navajo Nation, is located near Seligman in Chino Valley beyond the Navajo Reservation boundary. Land along most of the route is used for livestock grazing. The pipeline passes within 1 mile of dispersed residences (including hogans) along some portions of the route, and crosses some moderately dense residential areas outside urban areas and along major transportation routes (i.e., outlying areas of Seligman, Kingman, Golden Valley, Bullhead City, and Laughlin) (refer to Maps 3-17a and 3-17b). Residential developments within 250 feet (or a 500-foot corridor) of the existing route are dispersed along the route.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-88

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Permitted livestock grazing is prevalent along the existing pipeline route, except in more developed areas, and corrals and water tanks associated with grazing are dispersed throughout the study corridor. Tribal land crossed by the existing route is used primarily for livestock grazing. The existing pipeline route crosses grazing allotments on the Kaibab National Forest, used by two permit holders that collectively use approximately 46,550 acres (with approximately 2,500 animal unit months [AUMs]). All State Trust Land in the study area—in Coconino, Yavapai, and Mohave Counties—is used for grazing (with the exception of a small area near Bullhead City). The existing route crosses 20 grazing allotments on State Trust land (with a total of 105,373 AUMs), and approximately 6 allotments on BLM-administered land (4,713 AUMs) (refer to Tables G-1 through G-5 in Appendix G). A large area of BLM land, just east and south of Bullhead City, is closed to grazing due to special designations, and most of the land west of Kingman is closed to domestic sheep and goat grazing. The more densely populated areas along the route—Seligman, Kingman, Golden Valley, and Bullhead City—have the typical development associated with urbanization, including commercial and public buildings (e.g., office buildings, post offices). The pipeline passes within 500 feet of a hotel isolated from the denser urban area near CSP Milepost 81 along U.S. Highway 89, and within 500 feet of schools in denser urban areas such as Kingman. Industrial land uses occur within the Black Mesa Complex where the existing route begins at the coal-slurry preparation plant (currently dormant) and at the pump stations along the coal-slurry pipeline. General industrial areas are located within the more developed areas such as Kingman and Bullhead City. No agricultural fields were identified within 250 feet of the existing route, with the exception of family gardens associated with residences on the Navajo Reservation. American Farmland Trust identified highquality farmland on private and State Trust land within a low-density development area near Seligman in Yavapai County, Arizona, crossed by the pipeline for approximately 10 miles (between CSP Mileposts 170 and 180). However, consultation with NRCS resulted in a negative determination of prime and unique farmland occurring at any of the project components, including that segment of the pipeline. Multiple high-voltage power lines ranging from 69kV to 500kV cross and parallel the existing pipeline route between CSP Mileposts 75 and 80, CSP Mileposts 174 and 179 and the pipeline’s approach to the Mohave Generating Station (near CSP Mileposts 202, 217, and 227, and sporadically between CSP Mileposts 240 and 271). A 230kV power line crosses the existing route near CSP Milepost 257 within BLM’s Black Mountain Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The pipeline crosses through the Kaibab National Forest within a utility corridor designated by the Forest Service between CSP Mileposts 113 and 117 (Forest Service 1996). It follows a utility corridor designated by the BLM within the Black Mountain and abuts the Mount Nutt Wilderness Area (BLM 1993). The pipeline crosses the Blue Canyon Special Management Area (between CSP Mileposts 30 and 32), an area dedicated by the Hopi Tribe to serve outdoor recreation and conservation purposes. However, the area remains undeveloped for outdoor recreation uses at this time. Most of the land within the Hopi Reservation is planned for agriculture and range use, with the exception of the major washes that cross the reservation, which are identified as conservation areas with recreational opportunities (Hopi Office of Community Planning & Economic Development 2001). The planned land use places development constraints on these areas. On the Navajo Reservation, the draft Forest Lake Chapter Land Use Plan did not identify future uses for the area crossed by the pipeline (Navajo Nation Division of Community Development 2003). The area crossed by the pipeline within the Shonto Chapter (0.9 mile) has been identified for open space used for grazing. The Chilchinbito, Tuba City, Coal Mine Mesa, and Cameron Chapters have not developed land use plans as of July 2005.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-89

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

{
238

! !

Ö × Ö × Ö êê Ö × Öê# ×" Ìê Ö ê ÖÖ × Ö Ö × ê ê Ö×Ö ×"×# × " Ö ×××× Ö êêê ÖÖÖÖ Ö ×××× × Ö×Ö êê ê× "ê "êê Ö Ö Ö × × × " " " Ö Ö ÖÖ × × ×× × " Ö ÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ Ö Ö ×× ×× ×× × × Ö × Ö × ÖÖÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ Ö Ö ×××× ×× ×× × × Ö Ö × × Ö × ! Ö× ×Ö ÖÖ ×× # ÖÖ ×× Ö Ö × × " × Ö × × Ö × Ö Ö Ö Ö × × Ö× # k×Ö Ö Ö × × × ê× × Ö Ö Ö j× jÖ ÖÖ××× × Ö× Ö ××ÖÖÖ Ö ×Ö × Ö × × Ö # ÖÖ ×× Ö × Ö × " ÖÖÖ× Ö ××#×Ö × ×× Ö Ö × Ö × ×Ö × ×Ö× × ×× Ö k Ö Ö Ö ÖÖ × Ö Öê × ×× Ö × Ö Ö × Ö Ö × j Ö × Ö× × Ö × ÖÉ × ×õ Ö Ö ! ÖÖ × Ö × j ×× Ö × Ö ÖÖ ×× Ö× × × Ö Ö× × ×Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö ê× Ö Ö× Ö ×× × " j j j É Ö × jj j j j × Ö Ö × × × × ×j jjjjjjjjjj × Ö Ö Ö Ö jjõ"jjjõj Ö × j jj É j j j j Ö jÖj j × j Éj õj j Ö Ö×× Ö jÖ × ×ÖÖ ×jj × jj j j ê " ê Ö j × jÖ j õ É Ö ×Ö × × Ö ×Ö × Ö Ö × × Ö × j j Ö × j Ö × Ì j ÖÖ Ö ×× × j Ö × k × k Ö Ö × × jj " jjj Ö Ö × Ö × " Ö × Ö × Ö × " Ö × ÖÖ ×× ÖÖ ×× ! Ö × Ö ×× × ÖÖ Ö × Ö × Ö × × Ö
246 244
8 24

¸

240

"

Ö ×

× Ö × Ö × Ö × ÖÖ × ×Ì # ×Ö Ö ÖÖ ×× Ö × ××× ÖÖÖ ! " Ö × ³ ² Ö ×# êê " " Ö × "Ö ê Ö× Kingman ×" "
!

#

Ö ×

"

k

# # ê j ×# jÖ# jê ÖÉ Ö × ×õ ÖÖ ×× ÖÖ ×× j Ö j× Ö × Ì j Ö × #Ì j " "

# ê Öê ê ×ê ê ê " ê ê" ê #
õ É

8

Ì

#

Kingman Area Reroute

e

¯
0 1 Miles 2

LEGEND Existing Land Use*

!

Parks/Recreation/Preservation Industrial Extraction - Mining Pipeline Pump Station (Natural gas or coal-slurry) Utilities (Includes power substations and water tanks)

Residential Air Facility Parks/Recreation/Preservation Industrial *Note: Land uses are shown for areas within 2 miles of an alignment.

Ö ×
"
³ ²

Residential Commercial/Mixed Use Public/Quasi-Public School/Educational Agricultural (Includes livestock corral and water tanks)

ê Ì
k

Existing Land Use: Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Kingman Area Existing Route (Alternative A) Reroute
Project Features General Features
Interstate/U.S. Highway/ State Route Railroad

Black Mesa Project EIS
November 2008

Prepared By:
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 Map created with TOPO!(tm) (c)2002 National Geographic Holdings (www.topo.com)

å õ É

#

Map 3-17a

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-17a_Existing_LU_z3.pdf(par)

0 23

" "² ³ " " " ³ "² å " Ö ÖÖÖ²Ö × ÖÖ³ ³ × Ö× × ××׳×"²×ײ ² å ×êê" Ö × "Ö²× ×ê"Ö Ö × ÖÖ"" ×Ö ÖÖ² Ö × "ÖÖ ×³× kÖ × Ö "×³Ö Ö²³ Ö × É Öõ Ö "å Ö × Ö"Ö × # × ×"× ×³××× Ö ×ê Ö Ö × Ö × ³" ²" " ! ³ ² Ö" ×" " " " ³ " " ê² ê "

«
ê

236

234

232

× Ö

24 2

22 8

#

254

252

0 25

256

" #

e

2

18

28

8 25

4

26

24

22

20

6

16

14

10

12

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-17b_Existing_LU_z1.pdf(par)

22

C tle Lit
o lo

Tolani Lake
d ra

Leupp

o
r ve Ri

20

18

Little Colorado River Crossing: North Subalternative (Horizontal bore under river)
LEUPP

16

14

12

Little Colorado River Crossing: South Subalternative (Historic highway bridge)

10

Bird Springs

8

Well Field Navajo Reservation

Existing Land Use*
6

Residential
4

Commercial/Mixed Use Public/Quasi-Public School/Educational Air Facility

2

Agricultural (Includes livestock corral and water tanks) Utilities (Includes power substations and water tanks) Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch Residential Public/Quasi Public *Note: Land uses are shown for areas within 2 miles of an alignment.

LEGEND
Project Features
0 1 Miles
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 Map created with TOPO!(tm) (c)2002 National Geographic Holdings (www.topo.com)

2

Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route

Existing Land Use: General Features Well Field and River Leupp Area Navajo Reservation Boundary
Leupp

Prepared By:

Navajo Reservation Black Chapter Boundary and Name Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad

Mesa Project EIS
November 2008

Map 3-17b

In Coconino County, the existing pipeline passes through land zoned for residential development with associated agricultural uses (CSP Mileposts 96 to 170). In Yavapai County, it passes through unincorporated land zoned for rural residential development (CSP Mileposts 170 and 194) (Yavapai County 2003). It passes through unincorporated land in Mohave County (intermittently between CSP Mileposts 194 and 272) that has been identified for rural, industrial, and commercial development (Mohave County 2005). The land uses identified by the Mohave County General Plan are land use categories that are more general than zoning districts. According to the Kingman General Plan, industrial development is planned near the airport industrial park (north of the existing route), and residential development is planned south of the existing route near CSP Mileposts 231 to 234. The plan designates land for development of new commercial and medical facilities, parks, and residential areas, including higher-end infill housing and multiple-family developments, to be interspersed within areas of older, affordable housing. The largest concentration of residential growth is expected on the east side of Kingman. The Cerbat Foothills Recreation Area has been identified for open-space preservation and includes land owned by the City of Kingman and land managed by BLM. The existing route crosses this open space land between CSP Mileposts 240 and 244 (City of Kingman 2005). According to the Bullhead City General Plan, future residential uses are planned (CSP Mileposts 268 to 269), as are future industrial/commercial uses (CSP Mileposts 269 to 273). The proposed Colorado River Heritage Trail passes through the pipeline right-of-way within Bullhead City (near CSP Milepost 275) (Bullhead City 2002). Land within the existing pipeline route is planned for future public/industrial/commercial development (CSP Mileposts 270 to 272). BLM has identified non-Federal land along the existing route for acquisition, near I-40 between Kingman and Bullhead City (between CSP Mileposts 239 and 243) (BLM 1993). This land is located within and near the Cerbat Mountains in Sections 11, 10, 16, and 17 of Township 21 North, Range 17 West. ASLD has developed conceptual land use plans that have been incorporated into the City of Kingman and the Bullhead City general plans. Two planning classifications have been identified by ASLD for particular parcels of State Trust land—conceptual plans and development plans. Within the Kingman area, the existing pipeline parallels, within 500 feet, land of both classifications (between CSP Mileposts 232 and 238). Near Bullhead City the pipeline parallels conceptually planned residential parcels and public/quasipublic parcels (near CSP Mileposts 267, 269, and 270). 3.9.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments

The pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash could cross Federal land, State Trust land, and tribal land, where land is used primarily for livestock grazing. The Navajo Nation Shonto Chapter Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies Shonto Chapter land along the route of the realignments as open space for future grazing. The Kingman reroute would pass within 500 feet of developed areas in the following locations: residential (near reroute Mileposts 6 and 17 and between reroute Mileposts 22 and 28); commercial (reroute Milepost 17, near reroute Milepost 23, and between reroute Mileposts 26 and 27); and industrial (reroute Mileposts 6, 7, 23, and 24, between reroute Mileposts 13 and 16). Between reroute Mileposts 0 and 11, it would pass areas zoned for parks and open space and residential development. Between reroute Mileposts 11 and 16, Mohave County has identified land for industrial and commercial development. Between reroute Mileposts 16 and 17, land is zoned for various levels of rural/urban and suburban development (City of Kingman 2003).
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-92 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Golden Valley Ranch, a large development approved in December 2005, will be located south of the 
 reroute (from reroute Milepost 17 to 21, in Sections 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, and part of 14 of 
 Township 20 North, Range 18 West) and will include residential, commercial, and educational facilities, 
 and parks and recreation areas. Parks and commercial and residential developments are planned adjacent 
 to the reroute (with one park located north of Shinarump Road near Township 21 North, Range 18 West). 
 As of March 2006, land located southwest of reroute Milepost 18 is being cleared for this development. 
 BLM has identified several areas along the Kingman reroute for land tenure adjustments: land for 
 acquisition near reroute Mileposts 11 and 12 (in Sections 2 and 3 of Township 20 North, Range 17 West); 
 land for disposal near reroute Milepost 2 and between reroute Mileposts 13 and 16 (in Section 13 of 
 Township 21 North, Range 16 West, and in Sections 6, 8, and 9 of Township 20 North, Range 17 West); 
 and land for recreation and public purposes near reroute Milepost 15 (in Section 6 of Township 20 North, 
 Range 17 West). 
 3.9.3 3.9.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System Well Field

Most of the well field area is within the Navajo Reservation, except for approximately 2,750 acres that extend south of the BNSF rail line into the Hart Ranch, which is owned in fee by the Hopi Tribe (Map 3-17b). (Portions of the ranch are managed by ASLD.) Of the 2,750 acres, approximately 1,500 acres of the Hopi Hart Ranch are owned by the Hopi Tribe, and 1,250 acres are managed by the State. Hart Ranch and State Trust land within the well field are under the jurisdiction of Coconino County ordinances and are zoned for rural residential development (Coconino County 2003). Dispersed housing, corrals, windmill wells, and water tanks associated with livestock grazing are located within the well field area. This is consistent with the Leupp Chapter Land Use Plan. The Canyon Diablo Railroad ghost town is located within the well field just north of the BNSF rail line. This has been designated by the Leupp Chapter as a historical site that is open to visitors. As part of the C aquifer water-supply study, carried out by Reclamation and USGS, wells were drilled within the well field area in 2005. These wells, which are located within the immediate vicinity of existing windmill wells, were used to estimate the effects of long-term pumping from the C aquifer for the proposed project. Currently these wells are not in use. 3.9.3.2 3.9.3.2.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route)

The Eastern Route would cross the Hopi and Navajo Reservations. Residences (including hogans) are dispersed throughout the pipeline study corridor, most along primary transportation routes. Dispersed residences outside of a populated community within approximately 250 feet of the alignment are located at WSP Mileposts 2, 8, 10, 15, 35, 59-62, 68, 69, 92, 97, and 100. The route would skirt residential areas by at least 500 feet as it passes through the community of Leupp (refer to Map 3-17b). It would continue through the populated Kykotsmovi area within a road right-of-way where residential, commercial, and quasipublic facilities exist within 250 to 500 feet of the route. On its way through the Hopi’s planned community of Tawaovi, the route would avoid all existing residences by at least 500 feet. Most of the land along the Eastern Route is permitted for livestock grazing, with water tanks and corrals dispersed throughout. Refer to Table G-2 in Appendix G for grazing districts crossed by the Eastern Route.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-93

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Leupp schools, churches, several small commercial sites (such as convenience stores), and public/quasi­ public facilities (including a youth center) are located at least 500 feet from the Eastern Route, with the exception of a church and cemetery located just outside of Leupp within 250 feet of the alignment. The west Kykotsmovi subalternative (the Hopi’s preferred alternative) would parallel Indian Route 2 (the pipeline buried in the road right-of-way) through the community of Kykotsmovi between WSP Mileposts 59 and 62. Residential, commercial, and quasipublic facilities (e.g., a hospital, two schools, and government offices) exist within 250 to 500 feet of the route. High-voltage power lines traverse the area, crossing the subalternative multiple times. The study area contains multiple agricultural plots within 250 feet of the Eastern Route, including a large field, along both sides of Indian Routes 2 and 22 (with dry farms on the Hopi Reservation and small family gardens on the Navajo Reservation). A 12/69kV power line parallels State Route 99 and Indian Route 2, with a slight departure approximately 1 mile to the west before rejoining the roadway for a final 2 miles. Another 12/69kV power line parallels and crosses the Eastern Route several times before it ends in the Black Mesa Complex. The route would cross two gas pipelines near the community of Leupp, and a 230kV high-voltage power line within Leupp. Near the community of Hard Rock, it would cross under a 500kV high-voltage power line. The Hopi Strategic Land Use and Development Plan (2001) has identified a majority of Hopi land for continued agricultural and grazing use. The major washes, such as the Dinnebito Wash, are planned for conservation throughout the Hopi Reservation. These conservation areas have been identified within the land use plan as areas with development constraints. One area along the Eastern Route planned for future residential growth is in the Kykotsmovi community. A planned community development district is located between WSP Mileposts 74 and 79. The district is a planning area designed to integrate new community development with the existing development in accordance with the management practices for the Hopi Partitioned Land (as implemented by various offices in the U.S. Department of Natural Resources). On the Navajo Reservation, the Leupp Chapter identified a wildlife area that traverses the Little Colorado River for future open space. The Eastern Route would cross the wildlife area near WSP Milepost 13. The Hard Rock Chapter did not identify any planned land uses within the studied corridor. 3.9.3.2.1.1 Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives The area where the Eastern Route would cross the Little Colorado River is used for grazing. No residences, schools, or other public facilities exist within 500 feet of the alternative alignments. A major gas pipeline crosses the Little Colorado River near the locations where the pipeline would cross. 3.9.3.2.1.2 Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives The east Kykotsmovi subalternative would parallel Indian Route 503 and State Route 264 (the pipeline buried in the road’s right-of-way) as the roads bypass Kykotsmovi on its eastern edge. While there are no adjacent residences, there are residences within 250 feet of the east Kykotsmovi subalternative between subalternative Mileposts 0 and 1 (Map 3-17c). Adjacent commercial land uses (such as art and cellular retail services) are located within 500 feet of subalternative Milepost 2 through 2.5. A public safety building where police and fire personnel are staffed is located less than 250 feet from the route near Milepost 1. Two schools near Milepost 2.5 are located approximately 650 feet from the alignment, to the north and south of State Route 264.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-94

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.9.3.2.2

C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route

The Western Route passes entirely through the Navajo Reservation. Residences (including hogans) are dispersed along the Western Route, with the majority next to transportation corridors. Residential development occurs within 250 feet of the route in 13 locations (WSP Mileposts 2, 8, 10, 15, 40, 56, 59, 94-96, 99, 104-108, 110, 114, and 126). The route skirts residential areas and associated development by at least 500 feet as it passes through Leupp. As it travels along U.S. Highway 160, it would pass areas of dense residential development (Map 3-17d). Approximately five moderately dense residential areas occur between WSP Mileposts 94 and 100, and approximately seven moderately dense residential areas occur between WSP Mileposts 104 and 119. Most of the land along the alignment is permitted for livestock grazing with water tanks and corrals dispersed throughout. Refer to Tables G-1 and G-2 in Appendix G for grazing districts/range units that would be crossed by the water-supply pipeline. The communities of Leupp and Red Lake have schools, small commercial sites, and public/quasipublic facilities (such as churches and youth centers). All are beyond 500 feet of the Western Route, with the exception of a church and cemetery located just outside Leupp within 250 feet of the route. The route would parallel U.S. Highway 160 as it enters the community of Red Lake; commercial uses such as convenience stores and gas stations occur along the highway near WSP Mileposts 96, 106, and 126. Schools are located along U.S. Highway 160 near WSP Mileposts 96, 108, and 117. The majority of agricultural uses within the study corridor are smaller plots associated with residential areas. Agricultural plots occur within 250 feet of the alignment in several areas. Electrical distribution lines would cross the route near WSP Milepost 86 and between WSP Mileposts 130 and 139, and two gas pipelines cross the route near Leupp. High-voltage power lines (500kV) would parallel and cross the Western Route at four points (near WSP Mileposts 67, 87, 121, and 130) and would parallel it until it terminates at the Black Mesa Complex. The Western Route would cross the Leupp Chapter’s designated wildlife area along the Little Colorado River near WSP Milepost 13. According to the Shonto Chapter Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Western Route would cross three designated growth areas: (1) Blue Lake Center near the western boundary of the chapter (WSP Milepost 110); (2) Mesa View, located near the intersection of U.S. Highway 160 and Arizona Route 98 (WSP Milepost 114); and (3) Black Mesa, located near the intersection of Arizona Highway 564 and U.S. Highway 160 (WSP Milepost 126). New, clustered residential subdivisions are planned at the growth centers of these areas. The Blue Lake Center (WSP Milepost 110) is planned for mixed use.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-95

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

63

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-17c_Existing_LU_z2.pdf(par)

Hopi Reservation

62

West Kykotsmovi Subalternative

KYKOTSMOVI

61
2

60

1

East Kykotsmovi Subalternative

59

Existing Land Use*
Residential Commercial/Mixed Use Industrial Public/Quasi-Public School/Educational Agricultural (Includes livestock corral, and water tanks)

58

Utilities (Includes power substations and water tanks) *Note: Land uses are shown for areas within 2 miles of an alignment.

LEGEND
Project Features
Alternative A Water-Supply System Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route

Existing Land Use: Kykotsmovi Area
Black Mesa Project EIS
November 2008

0

0.125 0.25 Miles

Prepared By:

General Features
Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route

57

SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 Map created with TOPO!(tm) (c)2002 National Geographic Holdings (www.topo.com)

Map 3-17c

126

124

122

128

Bla ck Me sa and Lake Po w ell

120

Railr o

ad
116

118

114

112

110

108

106

104

2 10

0 10

98

96

4

94

6

92

8

10

12

14

90

24
16

26

22

18

28

20

88

38

30

42

86

LEGEND
Existing Land Use*
Residential Utilities (Includes power substations and water tanks) *Note: Land uses are shown for areas within 2 miles of an alignment.

84
0 1 Miles 2

Commercial/Mixed Use Public/Quasi-Public School/Educational Agricultural (Includes livestock corral, and water tanks)

82

Prepared By:
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 Map created with TOPO!(tm) (c)2002 National Geographic Holdings (www.topo.com)

Project Features General Features Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Hopi Indian Reservation Existing Route Navajo Reservation Boundary Alternative A Water-Supply System County Boundary Western Pipeline Route Interstate/U.S. Highway/ State Route Railroad

Existing Land Use: Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Alternative
Black Mesa Project EIS
November 2008

Map 3-17d

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-17d_Existing_LU_z4.pdf(par)

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The cultural environment includes those aspects of the physical environment that relate to human culture and society, along with the social institutions that form and maintain communities and link them to their surroundings (King and Rafuse 1994). Public and agency scoping identified issues related to potential impacts on two aspects of the cultural environment: archaeological and historical resources, and traditional cultural lifeways and resources. These issues were addressed pursuant to Federal, tribal, State, and local government laws and regulations protecting cultural resources. Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). To be eligible for the National Register, properties must be at least 50 years old (unless they have special significance) and have national, State, or local significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. They also must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet at least one of four criteria: •	 Criterion A — are associated with events that have made significant contributions to the broad pattern of our history •	 Criterion B — are associated with the lives of persons significant is our past •	 Criterion C — embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, a master, or that possess high artistic values,or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction •	 Criterion D — have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 CFR 60.4) To address the identified issues, studies were undertaken to inventory, evaluate, and assess impacts on the following elements of the cultural environment: •	 Archaeological and historical resources that are tangible links to the cultural heritage of the region. •	 Traditional cultural lifeways and resources significant to the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, and Hualapai Tribe, as well as other tribal groups with traditional cultural affiliations with land in the project vicinity, including the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Havasupai Tribe, Fort Mojave Tribe, Pahrump Paiute Tribe, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, and Pueblo of Zuni. The area of potential effects (or region of influence) is the geographic area within which a project may cause effects on resources. The area of potential effects varies for each type of potential impact on the cultural environment. For direct disturbance due to mining and construction activities, the area of potential effects was defined to include: •	 The LOM revision area for the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations (approximately 100 square miles), which includes about 5 acres where a coal-washing facility would be constructed just north of the existing coal-slurry preparation plant. •	 About 127 additional acres for a right-of-way for a new coal-haul road to be built between the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. •	 The 40 acres leased by BMPI within the Black Mesa Mine for the existing coal-slurry preparation plant (all previously disturbed).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-98

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

•	 The corridor that could have been disturbed by reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline (which currently is not in operation), which is about 65 feet wide and 273 miles long (approximately 2,319 acres). •	 The construction zones for development of the C aquifer water-supply system (including the wells, collector lines, delivery pipeline, pumping stations, storage tanks, power lines, substation, and access roads) (approximately 900 acres). •	 Areas of C and N aquifers where water levels may be lowered by groundwater pumping. There is limited potential for less direct impacts on cultural resources due to visual intrusions and increased noise. Such impacts stemming from mining or the construction of a coal-washing plant would be confined largely within the established Black Mesa Complex. The new coal-haul road corridor is an exception, but it is almost surrounded by the coal-mining lease areas. The area of potential effects for visual and noise effects for all linear features of the project was defined as extending 0.5 mile from the centerline of the alignments. (Although some of the features might be visible at greater distances, they are expected to result in only minor changes to views from 0.5 mile or farther away.) The area of potential effects where the C-aquifer well field would be developed was defined as approximately 70 square miles within which a maximum of approximately 21 wells would be drilled. Biological resources that could have traditional cultural significance include plants collected for food, medicine, ceremonies, crafts, and other traditional uses, as well as raptors (eagles and hawks) captured for ceremonial uses. Other natural resources that could have traditional cultural significance include minerals or clay deposits and sources of surface water or shallow groundwater used for traditional purposes. The area of potential effects for impacts on plants, minerals, and clays would be the same as for construction impacts. Impacts on animal species are likely to result from increased noise or visual intrusions, and the area of potential effects was defined as extending 0.5 mile from the various project components. Hydrogeological modeling indicated that pumping groundwater from the C aquifer could have potential impacts on surface water in two locations—the perennial reaches of lower Clear Creek and possibly lower Chevelon Creek. Continued pumping from the N aquifer could have potential impacts on Laguna Creek, Moenkopi Wash, Dinnebito Wash, Oraibi Wash, Polacca Wash, Jaidito Wash, Begashibito Wash, and Pasture Canyon Spring (GeoTrans 2005). These areas were defined as being the area of potential effects for potential impacts on traditional cultural values associated with surface water or shallow groundwater. Potential impacts on traditional lifeways and knowledge could affect entire traditional cultures. Therefore the area of potential effects for those types of impacts encompasses traditional tribal territories. The Hopi heartland (Tutsqwa) encompasses much of northeastern Arizona, and the traditional land of the Navajo (Dine Bikeyah) covers parts of northeastern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, southeastern Utah, and southwestern Colorado bounded by four sacred mountains (Mount Hesperus, Blanca Peak, Mount Taylor, and the San Francisco Peaks). In northwestern Arizona, the coal-slurry pipeline primarily crosses the traditional territories of 7 of the 14 bands of the Hualapai and Havasupai. Archaeologists have documented that human occupation of the region began at least 11,500 years ago, and they divide the pre-Columbian era into the Paleoindian, Archaic, Early Agricultural, Formative, and Late Prehistoric periods (Bungart et al. 1998:2-6 to 2-32). These are followed by the temporally overlapping aboriginal Ethnohistoric period and the Historic period of Euro-American settlement. Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloan archaeological sites that were occupied between approximately A.D. 500 and 1300 are particularly common, as are sites that represent Navajo occupation during the late 1800s and 1900s. Sites in the western parts of the project area reflect the prehistoric Cohonina, Cerbat, and Patayan
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-99 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

traditions, and historic-era occupation by upland Pai groups, including the Havasupai and Hualapai, and farther to the south, the Yavapai. During the historic period, the Mojave lived along the valley of the lower Colorado River. Various bands of Southern Paiutes lived primarily north and west of the Navajo and Pai groups. The San Juan Southern Paiute lived among the Navajo primarily near Willow Springs and Navajo Mountain, and a Paiute band known as the Chemehuevi moved from the deserts of southeastern California to live among the Mojave along the Colorado River. The technical reports prepared to support the EIS provide additional information about the cultural history of the project area. To characterize the existing condition of the cultural environment, four study teams conducted cultural resource studies. The Hopi Cultural Preservation Office (HCPO) organized a team to study the project components on the Hopi Reservation, and the Navajo Nation Archaeology Department studied the project components on the Navajo Reservation. The Hualapai Tribe Department of Cultural Resources studied traditional Hualapai cultural resources (including those of the closely related Havasupai Tribe) along the coal-slurry pipeline. A URS Corporation team studied archaeological and historical resources along the portion of the coal-slurry pipeline located outside the Hopi and Navajo Reservations, and assisted OSM in consulting with other tribes. The study teams reviewed records and reports to compile information from prior studies, and undertook intensive pedestrian field surveys to inventory cultural resources within the area of potential effects. The Black Mesa and Kayenta mining operations had been surveyed for cultural resources in conjunction with prior SMCRA permits, and they were not resurveyed. The area of potential effects for construction impacts cannot be precisely defined for other components of the proposed project until final designs are prepared, but construction zones were estimated on the basis of conceptual and preliminary designs for the (1) construction of the C aquifer water-supply system, (2) reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline, and (3) building of a new coal-haul road between the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. If the Record of Decision approves the construction of these facilities, supplemental surveys would be conducted if needed during preparation of final designs pursuant to a Section 106 programmatic agreement. The agreement is being prepared to stipulate agency responsibilities and procedures for continuing to consider measures to assess and avoid, reduce, or mitigate any adverse effects on cultural resources if project implementation proceeds after the EIS process is completed. The studies of traditional cultural lifeways and resources addressed the area of potential effects for construction impacts as well as the broader regions of influence defined for potential impacts on traditional lifeways and cultural resources that are significant for retention and transmission of traditional cultures. The Hopi, Navajo, and Hualapai study teams conducted records and literature reviews; undertook field reviews; and interviewed local tribal officials, local residents, elders, and other individuals knowledgeable about cultural traditions. OSM contacted 10 other tribes to solicit information and concerns about potential impacts on traditional cultural resources that might be significant to them, and invited interested tribes to participate in the Section 106 consultations. The results of the cultural resource studies are documented in a technical report prepared to support the EIS. 3.10.1 Black Mesa Complex From 1967 to 1986, the 20-year Black Mesa Archaeological Project conducted research within the Black Mesa Complex to identify and study archaeological and historical sites and mitigate the impacts on those resources of mining coal. The Black Mesa Archaeological Project recorded 2,710 archaeological sites (1,671 preceramic and Puebloan and 1,039 historical Navajo), excavated 215 of those sites, and archaeologically tested, mapped, collected artifacts at 887 other sites (Powell et al. 2002). Through that program of research conducted under the initial regulatory program, OSM completed Section 106 requirements for the currently proposed LOM revision area for the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-100

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

operations. The proposed LOM revision would not require any additional Section 106 consultations regarding impacts of coal mining on properties eligible for the National Register. Pursuant to terms and conditions of the LOM Permit AZ-0001C issued on July 6, 1990, and incorporated into Permit AZ-0001D that was recently renewed on July 6, 2005, Peabody continues to:

•	 Report the discovery of any previously unrecorded cultural resources to OSM and to cease work
near discoveries until OSM determines appropriate disposition (Standard Permit Term 9).

•	 Identify and respectfully treat any human remains associated with archaeological sites pursuant to
the 1990 NAGPRA (Special Conditions 3 and 4).

•	 Take into account any sacred and ceremonial sites brought to the attention of Peabody by local
residents, clans, or tribal government representatives of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation (Special Condition 1). Since 1990, when the permit terms and conditions were stipulated, Peabody has made three cultural resource discoveries in the Kayenta mining operation area; eight prehistoric human burials found at those discoveries were treated in accordance with the permit terms. In 1997, Peabody reported two additional finds within the Kayenta mining operation area to OSM, but archaeological evaluation determined there were no cultural remains at those locations. No discoveries have been made in the Black Mesa mining operation area. Although the Black Mesa Archaeological Project excavated many burials, only a sample of the archaeological sites was excavated and additional burials could be present at unexcavated sites within the mining area. Since 1990, Peabody sponsored archaeological testing of 54 unexcavated sites identified as having potential associated human burials. The testing identified 74 burials within 25 of those sites, and they were documented and moved pursuant to the permit conditions before mining was initiated at those locations. Peabody’s effort to locate burials is an ongoing commitment. Traditional Hopis and Navajos consider all of Black Mesa (known as Nayavuwaltsa to the Hopi and Dziłíjiin to the Navajo) to be a significant traditional cultural resource because of its role in traditional stories and ceremonial and clan traditions. Because it is an area where traditional resources are obtained, they feel that development of the mines has adversely affected their traditional lifeways. Although Hopis and Navajos living anywhere might regard continued mining as an impact on their cultural traditions, the lifeways of the approximately 60 Navajo households that continue to reside within the Black Mesa Complex would be most directly affected by continued mining. Pursuant to permit conditions, Peabody also has addressed concerns about 18 sacred and ceremonial sites within the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operation areas. Survey of the corridor for the new coal-haul road identified two archaeological sites evaluated as eligible for the National Register—a scatter of Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloan artifacts and remnants of a historical Navajo sweat lodge. 3.10.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline 3.10.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route Cultural resource studies conducted in conjunction with the original construction of the coal-slurry pipeline in 1970 identified 58 archaeological and historical sites (although 11 of those were described as actually being of recent origin). Twenty-five of the sites were on the Hopi Reservation, 19 on the Navajo Reservation, and 14 west of the reservations. Excavations were conducted at 6 of the Anasazi/Ancestral

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-101

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Puebloan sites (5 on the Hopi Reservation and 1 on the Navajo Reservation) to mitigate the impacts of the construction of the coal-slurry pipeline (Ward 1976). Replacement of the coal-slurry pipeline would involve construction activity within the 50-foot-wide rightof-way for the existing line and an extra temporary workspace 15 feet wide along the northern side of the existing right-of-way. Intensive survey of this corridor identified 50 archaeological and historical resources (Table 3-19). Eight of those are on the Hopi Reservation, one on the Navajo Reservation, and 41 are west of the reservations in Arizona. None were identified in the 1.5-mile-long segment of the route that extends into the southern tip of Nevada. Fourteen of the 50 resources were evaluated as lacking significant historical values that would make them eligible for the National Register. Those are primarily scatters of prehistoric flaked stone artifacts with no chronological or cultural diagnostics, or scatters of historic-period trash of unknown origin. Twenty-three of the other 36 National Register-eligible sites reflect prehistoric occupation of the region, 12 historic-era uses, and 1 has both prehistoric and historical components. Table 3-19 Archaeological and Historical Sites Along the Coal-Slurry Pipeline1

Anasazi/ Cohonina Cohonina or Prehistoric/ EuroAncestral or Cerbat/EuroEuroSite Type Prehistoric Puebloan Navajo Cerbat American American American Totals Coal-slurry pipeline existing route Habitation 1 1 1 3 National Register eligible 1 1 1 3 Camp 1 1 National Register eligible 1 1 Field house 3 1 4 National Register eligible 3 1 4 Artifact scatter 14 5 4 6 1 30 National Register eligible 8 4 4 0 0 16 Artifact scatter and features 1 1 National Register eligible 1 1 Transportation related 9 9 National Register eligible 9 9 Mining related 1 1 National Register eligible 1 1 1 1 Military related National Register eligible 1 1 Totals 14 8 1 7 1 18 1 50 National Register eligible 8 7 1 7 1 12 0 36 Pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash Habitation 3 3 National Register eligible 3 3 Camp 3 3 National Register eligible 2 2 Artifact scatter and petroglyphs 3 3 National Register eligible 3 3 Totals 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 National Register eligible 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 Kingman reroute Artifact scatter 8 8 National Register eligible 0 0 Transportation related 1 1 National Register eligible 1 1 Mining related 1 1 0 0 National Register eligible

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-102

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Anasazi/ Cohonina Cohonina or Prehistoric/ Ancestral or Cerbat/EuroEuroEuroSite Type Prehistoric Puebloan Navajo Cerbat American American American Totals Transmission Line 1 1 National Register eligible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 Totals 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 National Register eligible NOTES: 1 Recommendations regarding eligibility are indicated; agency review is ongoing. National Register = National Register of Historic Places

The inventory of eligible prehistoric resources includes 7 Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloan sites, including 1 identified as a habitation and 1 as a temporary camp. The other sites are artifact scatters, sometimes with features. Farther to the west, 7 sites were identified as affiliated with the Cohonina or Cerbat cultures, and 8 other scatters of flaked stone may be related to those cultures or the earlier Archaic era. Features interpreted as remnants of field houses were found at 4 of the Cohonina or Cerbat sites, and were the only evidence of architecture. Eight of the sites are primarily scatters of flaked stone generated by knapping obsidian nodules within the Mount Floyd volcanic field. Exploitation of that tool stone source might have begun during the Archaic period. The inventory of eligible sites also includes 12 historic-period Euro-American resources. Nine of those are transportation-related and include the Grand Canyon Railway, which is listed in the National Register, and U.S. Route 66. Seven segments of Route 66 in Arizona are listed in the National Register, but those are not in the vicinity of the pipeline. The other sites are remnants of a mine and a homestead, both dating from around the 1910s to 1920s, and the World War II Kingman Army Air Forces Flexible Gunnery School Airfield. Records reviews, field surveys, and interviews inventoried 56 traditional cultural resources along a 1-mile-wide corridor centered along the route of the proposed coal-slurry pipeline reconstruction (Table 3-20). Seventeen of the resources are significant to the Hopi Tribe, 12 to the Navajo Nation, and 26 to the Hualapai Tribe. The resources include landscape features identified in traditional histories, water sources, petroglyph sites, trails, ceremonial places and shrines, areas where eagles are collected for ceremonial uses, burials, and ancestral archaeological sites as habitations. The tribes consider these resources to be eligible for the National Register. Table 3-20
Type

Traditional Cultural Resources Along the Coal-Slurry Pipeline
Hopi1 1 2 3 2 3 5 1 Cultural Affiliation Navajo2 5 4 Hualapai3 6 11

Totals Landscape features 12 Water sources 17 Petroglyph sites 3 Trails 1 2 5 Ceremonial places, shrines 3 Eagle (and other raptor) gathering areas 5 Ancestral sites, habitations 1 7 9 Burials/cemeteries 1 1 1 Totals 17 12 27 56 NOTES: 1 The Hopi consider these resources to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under Criterion A or Criteria A and D. 2 The Navajo consider these resources, except for the burial, to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion A or D. The burial is protected by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Navajo Nation Jishchaá policy. 3 The Hualapai consider one spring to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion A. The other resources may be eligible, but they require further evaluation. Agency review of eligibility is ongoing.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-103

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.10.3 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments The proposed reconstruction in the Moenkopi Wash would deviate up to 200 feet from the existing route along selected segments of the pipeline between CSP Mileposts 2 and 20 to move the pipeline away from the active channel of Moenkopi Wash. Because the specific alignment shifts to address erosion problems have not been designed at this time, a corridor 400 feet wide was surveyed along this segment of the route. Nine archaeological sites are located within this expanded corridor. They are all Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloan sites and include 3 habitations, 3 camps, and 3 artifact scatters with petroglyphs. Eight of the 9 sites are evaluated as eligible for the National Register. No additional traditional cultural resources were identified along the expanded Moenkopi Wash corridor. The only substantial proposed realignment is designed to remove the pipeline from the northern part of Kingman, which has been developed since the original pipeline was installed. The 28-mile-long reroute would follow other pipelines, transmission lines, and roads through less developed areas south of Kingman. This realignment would cross the historical Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad (originally the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad, and currently the BNSF Railway) and U.S. Route 66, as does the original route. Intensive survey identified 11 addition archaeological sites along the reroute, including a mining prospect pit, 8 scatters of historical trash, remnants of the Harris Station, and the Davis-Coolidge 230kV transmission line (refer to Table 3-19). Only the railroad station is evaluated as eligible for the National Register. One traditional Hualapai cultural resource was identified along the Kingman reroute. It is a historical cemetery located about 1 mile from the proposed reroute. 3.10.4 C Aquifer Water-Supply System 3.10.4.1 Well Field The potential well field encompasses about 70 square miles, but only a small fraction of that area would be disturbed by the proposed drilling of wells and construction of collector lines, power lines, and access roads. Because the number and layout of the wells has not been determined, the specific construction impact zones have not been defined or intensively surveyed for cultural resources. About 5 square miles within the well field were intensively surveyed for cultural resources prior to drilling three test wells and five observation wells (Jolly and Aguila 2004). That survey discovered 14 archaeological and historical sites. A records review documented that the test well survey was by far the most extensive cultural resource survey within the well field area, and only four additional archaeological and historical sites had been recorded by other surveys (Table 3-21). The 18 sites recorded in the well field include a variety of prehistoric and historic sites. Seven were evaluated as eligible for the National Register, and archaeological testing was recommended to complete evaluation of the eligibility of four other sites. The seven other sites were evaluated as lacking significant historical values that would make them eligible for the National Register. Many other similar sites are undoubtedly present within unsurveyed portions of the well field. 3.10.4.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route A total of 31 archaeological and historical sites were identified by intensive survey of areas that could be affected by construction of the proposed water-supply pipeline and associated pumping plants, access roads, and storage tanks (refer to Table 3-21). Most of the sites reflect Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloan or earlier prehistoric occupation of the region. Seven of the sites are classified as habitation sites, and the others reflect a variety of more limited activities. Twenty-three of the 31 sites were evaluated as having significant values that make them eligible for the National Register.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-104

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

One option for crossing the Little Colorado River involves horizontal boring beneath the river. One site is located along the route of that subalternative. The site is a twentieth-century Navajo habitation that is evaluated as ineligible for the National Register. The other subalternative crossing would use an abandoned, historical bridge that is evaluated as eligible for the National Register under Criterion C. Three Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloan artifact scatters were found along the west Kykotsmovi area subalternative, and two of these were evaluated as eligible for the National Register. No archaeological or historical sites were found along the east Kykotsmovi area subalternative. Ten additional archaeological sites were recorded within the subalternative routes and substation sites being considered for the electrical system needed to operate the water-supply system. One of these represents the remnants of a mid-twentieth-century Navajo habitation site, another site has remnants of Navajo corrals less than 45 years old, and the eight other sites are scatters of prehistoric flaked stone with no temporally or culturally diagnostic artifacts. None of those sites are evaluated as eligible for the National Register (refer to Table 3-21). Table 3-21 Archaeological and Historical Sites within the Area of Potential Effects for 
 Construction Impacts of the Proposed C Aquifer Water-Supply System1

Archaic/ Anasazi/Ancestral Ancestral Pueblo Archaic Pueblo EuroAmerican

Site Type

Prehistoric

Navajo

Totals 1 1

Well field Habitation 1 National Register eligible 1 Camp National Register eligible Artifact scatter 6 1 National Register eligible 52 1 Livestock related National Register eligible Artifact scatter, petroglyphs 1 National Register eligible 1 Road National Register eligible Teepee ring National Register eligible Subtotals 6 0 2 1 National Register eligible 52 0 2 1 C aquifer water-supply pipeline: Eastern Route Habitation 5 National Register eligible 5 Field house 3 National Register eligible 3 Artifact scatter 2 2 16 National Register eligible 0 1 13 Bridge National Register eligible Subtotals 2 2 0 24 National Register eligible 0 1 0 21 Substation and power line for water-supply system (outside water pipeline corridor) Habitation National Register eligible

1 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 0

1 0 9 6 3 3 1 1

1 0 1 0 5 2 2 0

1 0

2 0 1 0

4 1

18 11 7 5 3 3 20 14

1 1 2 0 1 0 1 1

1 1 31 23 1 0

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-105

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

EuroSite Type Prehistoric Navajo American Totals Livestock related 1 1 National Register eligible 0 0 Flaked stone (Tolchaco gravels) 7 7 National Register eligible 0 0 Flaked stone, petroglyph 1 1 0 0 National Register eligible Subtotals 8 0 0 0 2 0 10 National Register eligible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 2 25 9 5 59 Totals 5 1 2 22 2 2 34 National Register eligible NOTES: 1 The inventory is based on conceptual designs and does not include the locations of components such as the wells and collector lines. The survey did include options for locating the pipeline on either side of existing roads in some locations and alternative locations for the electrical substation and power line, so all of the sites probably would not be affected. Supplemental surveys would be conducted as needed pursuant to a Section 106 programmatic agreement during the post-Environmental Impact Statement preparation of final designs. Recommendations regarding eligibility are indicated; agency review is ongoing. 2 Testing is recommended at four of these sites to further evaluate their eligibility.

Archaic/ Anasazi/Ancestral Ancestral Pueblo Archaic Pueblo

Record reviews, field surveys, and interviews inventoried 87 traditional cultural resources within the well field and a 1-mile-wide corridor along the proposed water-supply pipeline and associated facilities (Table 3-22). Thirty-nine of the resources are significant to the Hopi Tribe and 48 to the Navajo Nation. The tribes consider these resources to be eligible for the National Register, or protected by the NAGPRA and the Navajo Nation Jishchaá policy. Table 3-22 Traditional Cultural Resources within Area of Potential Effects for 
 C Aquifer Water-Supply System1

Type Cultural Affiliation Hopi2 Navajo3 Totals 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 3 13 6 1 8 1 13 45 8 20 9 7 3 6 9 1 1 13 77

Well field Ceremonial places, shrines 2 Eagle (and other raptor) collecting areas 1 Landscape features Subtotal 3 Surface water (potentially affected by groundwater pumping from the C aquifer) Water sources 2 Subtotal 2 Surface water (potentially affected by continued groundwater pumping from the N aquifer) Water sources 2 Subtotal 2 Water-supply pipeline: Eastern Route Ancestral sites, habitations 5 Ceremonial places, shrines 7 Eagle (and other raptor) gathering areas 9 Landscape features 1 Trails 3 Water sources 5 Hunting and gathering localities 1 Traditional fields (numerous fields near Kykotsmovi) 1 Abandoned trading post Burials Subtotal 32

1 1

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-106

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Cultural Affiliation Type Hopi2 Navajo3 Totals Power line for water-supply pipeline (outside pipeline corridor) Ceremonial places, shrines 1 1 Burials 1 1 Subtotal 0 2 2 39 48 87 Totals NOTES: 1 The inventory is based on conceptual designs and would be supplemented as needed pursuant to a Section 106 programmatic agreement during the post-Environmental Impact Statement preparation of final designs. 2 The Hopi consider these resources to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under Criterion A or Criteria A and D. 3 The Navajo consider these resources, except for burials, to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion A or D. Burials are protected by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Navajo Nation Jishchaá policy.

The resources significant to the Hopi Tribe include ceremonial areas and shrines, areas where eagles and other raptors are collected for ceremonial uses, trails or clan migration routes, and Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloan village sites. In addition, the Hopi categorically consider all ancestral archaeological sites to be traditional cultural resources that represent the “footprints” of the Hopi across the landscape through time. In addition, 33 species of plants that the Hopi use for a variety of traditional purposes grow along the proposed water-supply pipeline. There also are a number of traditional fields located along the proposed water-supply pipeline in the vicinity of Kykotsmovi. Many other traditionally named places within the viewshed of the well field and water pipeline are important elements of the traditional Hopi cultural landscape, but they are not threatened by the proposed project. In addition to the impact of constructing the proposed C aquifer water-supply system, other traditionally important sources of surface water could be affected by the impacts of pumping groundwater. Hydrogeological modeling evaluated whether drawdown of groundwater around the proposed well field could affect baseflows that create perennial reaches at the lower ends of Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek. The Hopi consider all sources of surface water, whether in springs, or ephemeral or permanent streams, to have traditional cultural significance. A Hopi shrine is located at Clear Creek where water is collected for ritual use. The Hopi consider both creeks and the wildlife they support to have significant traditional values. The traditional cultural resources significant to the Navajo include locations where traditional ceremonies were conducted, remnants of corrals used in hunting game, abandoned house sites, an abandoned trading post, and geographic features named in traditional stories, including Black Mesa, the Little Colorado River, and Canyon Diablo (refer to Table 3-22). All of those resources are evaluated as eligible for the National Register. In addition, 14 burial locations were identified, and would need to be addressed pursuant to NAGPRA and the Navajo Nation Jishchaá policy if they were to be affected. 3.10.4.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route Because the Western Route for the water-supply pipeline is only conceptually defined at this phase of planning, the area of potential effects for construction impacts could not be defined with any accuracy, and no field survey was conducted along this alternative. A records and literature review identified more than 340 prior studies that had recorded almost 400 archaeological and historical sites within a 1-mile­ wide corridor along the Western Route. All but one of the sites are on the Navajo Reservation. The extent of prior survey within the corridor has not been quantified, but it covers only a small percentage of the area and many more unrecorded archaeological and historical sites certainly are present in the corridor. The Klethla Valley and Long House Valley crossed by the northern end of the Western Route are known to have some of the highest densities of archaeological sites in the region, and the types of sites tend to be larger and more complex than those along the Eastern Route.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-107

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Record reviews and interviews inventoried 37 traditional cultural resources along a 1-mile-wide corridor centered along the Western Route (Table 3-23). Twenty-two resources are significant to the Hopi Tribe and 15 to the Navajo Nation. The tribes consider these resources to be eligible for the National Register or to be protected by the NAGPRA and the Navajo Nation Jishchaá policy. The resources significant to the Hopi Tribe include areas related to ceremonial capture of eagles and other raptors, ceremonial places or shrines, landscape features named in traditional histories, trails, and water sources. One of the eagle-capturing areas also is a location where plants are collected for traditional uses. In addition, the Hopi categorically consider all ancestral archaeological sites to be traditional cultural resources that represent the “footprints” of the Hopi across the landscape through time. The traditional Navajo cultural resources include landscape features named in traditional histories, ceremonial places, and burials. More intensive interviewing of local residents and traditional land users along the route would probably identify many more specific traditional Navajo cultural resources, such as locations where traditional ceremonies were conducted, remnants of corrals used in hunting game, abandoned house sites, and burial locations. Table 3-23 Traditional Cultural Resources within Area of Potential Effects for 
 Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route1 

Type Well field Ceremonial places, shrines Eagle (and other raptor) collecting areas Landscape features Cultural Affiliation Hopi2 Navajo3 2 1 Totals 2 1 1 4

1 Subtotals 3 1 Surface water (potentially affected by groundwater pumping from the C aquifer) Water sources 2 2 Alternative water-supply pipeline (Western Route) Ceremonial places, shrines, petroglyphs 4 4 Eagle (and other raptor) collecting areas 8 8 Landscape features 3 6 9 Trails 1 1 Water sources 1 3 4 Burials 3 3 Subtotals 17 12 29 Power line for water-supply pipeline (outside pipeline corridor) Ceremonial places, shrines 1 1 Burials 1 1 Subtotals 0 2 2 22 15 37 Totals NOTES: 1 The inventory is based on conceptual designs and would be supplemented as needed pursuant to a Section 106 programmatic agreement during the post-Environmental Impact Statement preparation of final designs. 2 The Hopi consider these resources to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under Criterion A or Criteria A and D. 3 The Navajo consider these resources, except for burials, to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion A or D. Burials are protected by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Navajo Nation Jishchaá policy.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-108

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.10.5 N Aquifer Water-Supply System In the event the C aquifer water-supply system is developed, the N aquifer would be used as a temporary back-up supply in case the primary C-aquifer water supply failed for some reason. It is estimated pumping would be reduced by half. An option to the proposed development of a new water supply from the C aquifer is to continue to use existing wells within the Black Mesa Complex to pump groundwater from the N aquifer. The rate of pumping would increase to accommodate the proposed increased rate of mining. Hydrogeological review indicates that the N aquifer is connected to the baseflow in Laguna Creek, Moenkopi Wash, Dinnebito Wash, Oraibi Wash, Polacca Wash, Jaidito Wash, Begashibito Wash, and Pasture Canyon Spring. The Hopi and Navajo consider these water resources to be significant traditional cultural resources. 3.10.6 Summary The inventory identified 127 archaeological and historical resources within the area of potential effects for the applicants’ proposed project (Table 3-24). Approximately two-thirds of the resources are prehistoric sites, and most of those are Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloan. About 9 percent of the inventory is historical Navajo sites, and the remainder are Euro-American, mostly dating to the first half of the twentieth century. Eighty-two of the resources are evaluated as eligible for the National Register. A total of 129 traditional cultural resources plus 15 individual Navajo burials and a Hualapai cemetery also were identified. These resources are considered eligible for the National Register or protected by NAGPRA or the Navajo Nation Jishchaá policy. Table 3-24 Summary of the Cultural Resources Inventory
Coal-Slurry Pipeline 14 8 2 1 2 2 17 15 7 7 1 1 1 1 25 13 1 1 66 46 59 34 127 82 5 2 1 1 9 2 30 15 11 4 1 1 25 22 7 7 43 38 2 2 C Aquifer WaterSupply System 16 5 2 1 Totals 30 13

Mine/ Coal-Haul Road Type Archaeological and historical resources Prehistoric National Register eligible Archaic National Register eligible Archaic//Anasazi/Ancestral Pueblo National Register eligible Anasazi/Ancestral Pueblo 1 National Register eligible 1 Cohonina/Cerbat National Register eligible Cohonina/Cerbat/ Euro-American National Register eligible Navajo 1 National Register eligible 1 Euro-American National Register eligible Prehistoric/ Euro-American National Register eligible Totals 2 National Register eligible 2 Traditional cultural resources1 Hopi 1 Navajo 1 Hualapai 2 Totals

17 39 57 11 + 1 burial 34 + 14 burials 46 + 15 burials 26 + 1 cemetery 26 + 1 cemetery 54 + 1 burial 73 + 14 burials 129 + 15 burials + 1 cemetery + 1 cemetery NOTES: 1All considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or protected by Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Navajo Nation Jishchaá policy.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-109

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.11 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
In accordance with NEPA, the analysis of social and economic conditions addresses the relationships between the proposed project and the communities it may affect. The following characterization of current social and economic conditions describes demographics, employment, income, fiscal and budgetary information, and community facilities in the region that could potentially be affected by the proposed project. The study area includes areas that may be affected economically and socially by the proposed project due to their proximity to project facilities. For the regional analysis, data were collected for the Hopi and Navajo Reservations, and for up to six counties (depending on the project component), including Navajo, Coconino, Apache, Yavapai, and Mohave in Arizona, and Clark County in Nevada. Data also were collected to depict socioeconomic conditions at the local level. The local area for the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations comprises the Hopi village of Moenkopi and 14 Navajo chapters (see Section 3.11.2.1). A village is the Hopi unit of local government. A chapter is the Navajo unit of local government, and nearly all Navajo land is assigned to chapters. Much 1990 and 2000 census information appears for chapters and for Moenkopi. Portions of some chapters are unincorporated, yet densely populated communities, and are defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as census-designated places. Certain information, such as the unemployment rate, is shown for census-designated places. The populated local areas for the coal-slurry pipeline and the proposed C aquifer water-supply system include portions of the Hopi and Navajo Reservations, and the City of Kingman, Arizona. (Other than those areas, the pipeline routes traverse areas that are largely unpopulated.) Census information for 1990 and 2000 is available for the affected Navajo chapters. The rural Hopi land crossed by the coal-slurry pipeline is outside the villages and is administered at the tribal level. Information appears for tribal census tract geographic units in that area, where Hopi village information does not exist. Census tract information is available for the Kingman local areas. Tribal and county-level data used in this analysis overlap somewhat (i.e., where tribal and county boundaries overlap in Navajo, Coconino, and Apache Counties). The proportion of each county’s population in each of the two reservations as of the 2000 Census is shown in Table 3-25 to indicate the extent to which these data sources may be duplicated. Table 3-25 Population in Arizona Counties Residing on 
 Hopi Reservation, Navajo Reservation, or Off Reservation 

County, within Hopi County, within County Remainder Reservation Navajo Nation (Off Reservation) Total County Apache County 69,423 NA 54,521 (78.5%) 14,902 (21.5%) Navajo County 97,470 5,812 (6.0%) 26,881 (27.6%) 64,777 (66.5%) Coconino County 116,320 1,024 (0.9%) 23,350 (20.1%) 91,946 (79.0%) SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000, SF 1, Table P1 NOTES: 	 County totals and portions of the Hopi Reservation and off-reservation State Trust land, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah (part); Arizona and Navajo Reservation and off-reservation State Trust land, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah (part); Arizona. NA = not applicable

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-110

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.11.1 Regional Overview of Demographics and Economics Table 3-26 presents an overview of demographic characteristics for the two reservations, six counties, and the states of Arizona and Nevada. Arizona and Nevada were two of the fastest growing states in the nation in the 1990s. Mojave County, Arizona, and Clark County, Nevada, were the only counties within the region of influence whose growth rates exceeded those of their respective states. Rapid growth continued between 2000 and 2004 at the State, county, and tribal levels. Table 3-26 Key Population Characteristics – Regional
Tribal Areas Hopi Navajo Reservation1 Reservation2 State

Counties (Arizona and Nevada)

Apache Coconino Mojave Navajo Yavapai Clark Arizona Nevada Total population Census 1990 61,591 96,591 93,497 77,658 107,714 741,459 7,360 148,451 3,665,228 1,201,833 Census 2000 69,423 116,320 155,032 97,470 167,517 1,375,765 6,946 180,462 5,130,632 1,998,257 Percent change, 1990­ 12.7 20.4 65.8 25.5 55.5 85.5 -5.6 21.6 40.0 66.3 2000 2004 estimate 71,320 129,570 180,210 107,420 196,760 1,375,765 11,668 187,152 5,833,685 2,410,768 Median age, 27 29.6 42.9 30.2 44.5 34.4 29.1 24.0 34.2 35 2000 Dependency 67.1 44.2 66.0 64.6 64.5 48.2 68.9 69.7 54.9 48.6 ratio, 2000 Persons per household, 3.41 2.8 2.45 3.17 2.33 2.65 3.49 3.77 2.64 2.62 2000 SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau 1990, 2000, 2004; Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation 2006 1 NOTES: Surveys completed for the Hopi Strategic Land Use and Development Plan indicated a year 2000 population of 10,571, rather than the 6,946 reported in Census 2000. The Hopi Strategic Land Use and Development Plan also reported the population estimate shown for 2004. 2 The Navajo Nation reported the population estimate shown for 2004.

The median age of the population in the region is generally similar to that of the Nation. However, the Hopi and Navajo Reservations and those counties that compose portions of the reservations have lower median ages than the remainder of the region. The Hopi and Navajo Reservations, and Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties have relatively large numbers of persons per household. The dependency ratio is a statistic that compares the size of the economically dependent population age groups to the size of the working-age population. The sum of the under 15 and over 65 population is divided by the population aged 15 through 64. Areas with dependency ratios over 60 tend to have a proportionately small number of employed persons supporting the remainder of the residents. While both Arizona and Nevada have dependency ratios of less than 60, all but Coconino and Clark Counties have dependency ratios over 60, and both tribes’ dependency ratios are higher than any of the counties (refer to Table 3-26). Recently, unemployment rates in the study area generally have been higher than those for Arizona as a whole (Table 3-27). In 2004, while Arizona’s statewide unemployment rate was 4.8 percent, Mohave County had a rate slightly lower than the State (3.8 percent), and Coconino County had a rate slightly higher than the State (6.1 percent). Navajo County, which contains the bulk of the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations labor force, had a rate of 10.6 percent, and Apache County, farther from the mining operations, had a rate of 13.3 percent.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-111

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-27

Regional and Local Area Labor Force Characteristics
Unemployment 3,000 3,079 4,191 4,298 3,043 3,680 3,967 3,883 629 721 7,360 8,441 604 619 217 213 131,614 150,935 Percent (%) Unemployment Rate 13.3 14.1 6.1 6.4 3.8 4.9 10.6 10.8 18.2 20.9 20.6 23.5 16.2 16.9 9.6 9.8 4.8 5.6

Year Labor Force Employment Apache County, Arizona 2004 22,577 19,577 2003 21874 18,794 Coconino County, Arizona 2004 68,846 64,655 2003 66,940 62,642 Mohave County, Arizona 2004 79,741 76,698 2003 75,806 72,126 Navajo County, Arizona 2004 37399 33,432 2003 35,938 32,055 Hopi Reservation 2004 3,457 2,828 2003 3,451 2,730 Navajo Reservation (Arizona portion) 2004 35,799 28,439 2003 35,890 27,449 Tuba City census-designated place 2004 3,734 3,130 2003 3,652 3,033 Kayenta census-designated place 2004 2,267 2,050 2003 2,179 1,966 Arizona 2004 2,762,612 2,630,998 2003 2,690,294 2,539,359 SOURCE: Arizona Department of Economic Security 2005

The unemployment rates of the Hopi Reservation (18.2 percent) and the Navajo Reservation (20.6 percent, Arizona portion) were highest, according to the Arizona Department of Economic Security. Arizona Department of Economic Security data consider neither the unemployed whose unemployment benefits have run out nor those who are a part of the informal economy. The informal reservation economy focuses on non-business-related social, traditional, and avocational activity and reflects the production of traditional goods required to reciprocate in clan and family social obligations. A 1999 survey for the Hopi Strategic Land Use and Development Plan documented an unemployment rate of about 64 percent for the reservation. The Navajo Nation Department of Economic Development conducted surveys that indicated an unemployment rate of about 47.6 percent for 2003 (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005). The distribution of employment by industry sector in the study area appears in Table 3-28. In the year 2000, the services and information sector dominated employment, to a similar extent, in each of the counties, both of the reservations, and Arizona and Nevada at the statewide level. Retail and wholesale trade and manufacturing were the next largest sectors of Arizona’s economy, while they were generally smaller proportions of the economy in each part of the study area. The most marked differences between a sector’s share of employment in a state and in a part of the study area involved the reservations. Mining employs a much higher proportion of workers on the Navajo Reservation than statewide. Public administration employs a higher proportion of workers on both reservations than statewide.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-112

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-28

Regional Employment, Percent Share by Industry Sector, 2000
Industry as Percent (%) of Total Employment Public Administration 12.6 6.8 4.5 9.2 4.6 3.6 26.0 10.8 5.4 4.5 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting Retail and Wholesale Trade

Total Employment

Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities

Manufacturing

Apache 16,469 1.9 1.2 Coconino 55,510 1.3 0.4 Mohave 60,517 0.8 0.2 Navajo 29,575 2.3 1.4 Yavapai 68,098 1.6 1.6 Clark 637,339 0.1 0.2 Hopi Reservation 1,869 0.3 0.7 Navajo Reservation (Arizona portion) 21,907 1.0 2.7 Arizona 2,233,004 1.0 0.5 Nevada 933,280 0.5 1.1 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 
 NOTE: FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 
 Tribal areas Counties

10.9 7.7 9.7 11.1 11.7 9.7 10.5

2.6 5.2 7.0 5.4 7.0 3.7 5.5

9.1 14.8 15.9 14.7 16.1 13.5 8.6

7.2 5.4 5.7 7.0 4.1 5.1 1.4

51.7 54.5 51.5 45.1 47.8 57.2 45.2

12.9 8.7 9.2

3.3 10.2 4.9

8.4 15.6 14.0

6.0 5.0 5.2

52.7 45.8 54.2

3.11.2 Black Mesa Complex The Black Mesa Complex is within the jurisdiction of the Hopi and Navajo Reservations and Navajo County. The local area of influence is defined as the areas where the socioeconomic effects of mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex are most keenly felt. The population of the local area includes the residents of the Hopi Village of Moenkopi and 14 Navajo chapters. The area is large due to the long commuting distances—some mining workers return to their family households on weekends only. The Coconino County communities of Page and Flagstaff also are potentially affected by activities at the Black Mesa Complex, as they provide some mine-support services, trade activities, and some minerelated employment. The Hopi villages other than Moenkopi are not considered part of the local area because they have almost no mining employment, due partly to the lack of a direct paved road to the mines. The southern portion of the Hopi road project “Turquoise Trail” is under way, with a goal to extend Indian Route 4 from Second Mesa/Shongopovi north through the Black Mesa Complex, connecting with U.S. Highway 160 just northwest of the mines. 3.11.2.1 Population in the Local Area Table 3-29 identifies population since 1990 within the local area. The two largest communities within the local area are Kayenta Township (within Kayenta Chapter) and Tuba City (a census-designated place within Tuba City Chapter), both designated by the Navajo Nation as “primary growth centers” for economic development. Kayenta Township is the closest urban community to the Kayenta mining operation; the township is the only government structured as a municipality on the Navajo Reservation, with taxing authority and a sales tax of 5 percent.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

State

3-113

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

FIRE and Rental/Leasing 2.8 3.9 4.6 3.8 5.7 6.8 1.8 2.2 7.9 6.5

Construction

Services and Information

Mining

Table 3-29

Population and Households in the Local Area of Influence
Navajo Agency Population (1990) Population (2000) Population (est. 2004) Households (2000)1

Hopi Reservation area2 Moenkopi administration area NA 924 901 1,1505 242 3,4,5 Navajo Nation Chapters Black Mesa Chinle 455 398 410 126 Chilchinbito Western 1,177 1,325 1,378 333 Dennehotso Western 1,548 1,626 1,660 414 Forest Lake Chinle 444 573 606 174 Hard Rock Chinle 1,263 1,256 1,282 331 Inscription House Western 1,010 1,214 1,265 351 Kaibito Western 1,529 1,970 2,132 431 Kayenta Western 4,902 6,315 6,651 1,618 Oljato Western 1,913 2,292 2,395 563 Piñon Chinle 2,050 3,066 3,247 741 Rough Rock Chinle 1,009 919 949 217 Western 2,330 2,419 2,515 644 Shonto Tonalea Western 2,073 2,537 2,692 619 Tuba City Western 7,305 8,736 9,216 2,170 29,932 35,547 37,548 8,974 Total 1 A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence. NOTES: 2 Hopi Office of Community Planning & Economic Development 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 1990, 2000 3 1990 chapter populations are for the American Indian population only. 4 2000 and 2004 chapter populations include all races. 5 Navajo Nation Division of Community Development 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 1990, 2000 est. = estimated, NA = not applicable

The Navajo Nation and BIA each distribute a wide variety of services through the agency system, and residents tend to identify with their agency. Tuba City is the headquarters of the Western Navajo Agency. While most of the chapters in the local area of influence belong to the Western Navajo Agency, a few belong to the Chinle Agency (refer to Table 3-29). On the Navajo portion of the lease areas, there are 70 households with about 175 residents (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005). Some of the residents are ranchers whose livestock graze on both undisturbed and reclaimed land. (Refer to Section 3.9.1 for more information about grazing on the Black Mesa Complex.) 3.11.2.2 Unemployment in the Local Area Unemployment is a persistent problem in communities within the study area, particularly on the reservations. The overall unemployment rates for the Hopi and Navajo Reservations appear in Section 3.11.1, as reported by the Arizona Department of Economic Security and the tribes. The rates are much higher than the unemployment rates for the State of Arizona or for the entire counties in the study area. The Kayenta and Tuba City areas of the reservation have unemployment rates that are lower than those in the other parts of the reservation (refer to Table 3-27). Of the two areas, the Kayenta area’s 2004 unemployment rate was lowest, at 9.6 percent, less than half the overall Navajo Reservation rate. 3.11.2.3 Employment and Income in the Local Area The major employment sectors on the Hopi Reservation according to Census 2000 appear on Table 3-28. Information from the Hopi Tribe (Hopi Office of Community Planning & Economic Development 2001) indicates that manufacturing employment is at 40 percent of the labor force, compared with the U.S. Census Bureau’s figure of 5.5 percent. The difference is partly explained by some differences in the definition of employment. The Hopi Tribe counts as manufacturing employees many persons who
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-114 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

produced crafts—some for market and some for ceremonial purposes and exchange within extended families. The Hopi Tribe’s information indicates that services employ 37 percent of the labor force. The Hopi definition includes all jobs that the U.S. Census Bureau defines as public administration, plus a small number of the jobs that the U.S. Census Bureau defines as services jobs, so the figures from the Hopi Tribe and Census 2000 are consistent. The most numerous public administration jobs are with the Hopi tribal government (554 jobs), schools, and the Indian Health Services. The five largest employers on the Navajo Reservation in 2002 were government entities, comprising the Navajo Nation, the State of Arizona (including school districts), the Indian Health Services, the BIA’s Office of Indian Education Program, and the State of New Mexico (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005). That ranking of largest employers was consistent, in general, with Census 2000 figures which indicated that public administration and the services and information sectors accounted for over 60 percent of employment on the Arizona portion of the Navajo Reservation. Private industries, including mining, manufacturing, agriculture, and tourism, are few in comparison. After the five government entities listed above, Peabody was the sixth largest employer. The median family income for residents within the local area of influence was $27,435, above that for the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation, but below the median family income for Navajo County and the State of Arizona. The mining sector provides many jobs in the local area of influence. About 90 percent of all employees of the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations live on the Navajo Reservation, and less than 1 percent on the Hopi Reservation. The remaining 10 percent reside primarily in Flagstaff or Page. Figures regarding the place of residence of contractual staff are not available (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005). Figures were not available for the distribution of employees between the two mines. However, prior to the suspension of the Black Mesa mining operation, if the mining employment was assumed to be roughly proportionate to the coal produced, approximately 621 employees and 135 contract employees worked at the mining operations, with 64 percent of the employment at Kayenta mining operation (or 374 mine employees and 86 contract workers) (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005). Mining’s share of local employment is higher than its share of regional employment. While mining employed more than 5 percent of workers in the local communities in the year 2000, mining employed less than 3 percent of workers in the Arizona portion of the Navajo Reservation. In Chilchinbito and Kayenta, the employment in the mining sector is second to the services and information sector (Table 3-30). Some communities within the local area have relatively few residents who work at the mines, yet the income earned by those employees has a large influence on the communities. Just a few miners live in the Black Mesa, Forest Lake, and Hard Rock Chapters, where residents are hindered in seeking employment outside their home chapters by the limited paved roads and limited telephone service. Many young and elderly persons are supported by mine employees. The ratio of the dependent aged population to the working age population is 72.3 for the entire local area—higher than that for either reservation overall, and much higher than the Arizona ratio (54.9) (refer to Table 3-26).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-115

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-30

Local Area Employment: Total and Percent Share by 
 Industry Sector (Census 2000) 

Industry as Percent (%) of Total Employment
Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities

Total Employment

FIRE and Rental/ Leasing

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting

Retail and Wholesale Trade

Hopi Moenkopi 207 0.0 6.3 20.8 0.0 5.8 0.0 41.1 0.0 26.1 Navajo Nation Chapter Black Mesa 60 0.0 0.0 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.3 0.0 0.0 Chilchinbito 147 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 15.6 12.2 38.1 0.0 15.6 Dennehotso 269 0.0 13.0 9.7 0.0 9.7 1.9 50.9 1.5 13.4 Forest Lake 27 0.0 0.0 29.6 0.0 0.0 33.3 37.0 0.0 0.0 Hard Rock 187 2.1 0.0 21.9 0.0 1.6 10.2 48.1 0.0 16.0 Inscription House 257 0.0 11.7 30.7 5.1 17.1 3.5 30.4 0.0 1.6 Kaibito 400 0.0 0.8 18.5 6.8 14.0 6.5 44.3 1.3 8.0 Kayenta 1,524 0.9 12.3 8.9 1.2 10.0 4.0 57.9 0.0 4.7 Oljato 515 0.0 5.0 13.8 4.7 12.0 8.3 52.0 0.0 4.1 4.7 Piñon 615 0.8 3.7 4.4 2.6 12.4 12.4 57.7 1.3 Rough Rock 135 0.0 3.7 15.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.4 0.0 10.4 Shonto 511 1.2 12.5 16.2 5.7 2.7 5.3 51.5 1.6 3.3 Tonalea 434 0.0 0.0 24.0 2.3 6.0 10.1 47.2 3.9 6.5 Tuba City 2,908 0.5 1.6 8.8 2.1 8.6 4.3 61.1 2.7 10.4 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 NOTES: 1 While Tonalea, Forest Lake, and Hard Rock Chapters reported no mining employment in the Census 2000; Peabody has supplied employee residence location figures for 2004 that indicate there are currently miners from the three communities. FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate.

Residents of the area around the Black Mesa Complex generally enjoy greater prosperity than residents of the Hopi and Navajo Reservations. Incomes are highest for mining workers and for those employed in tourism or government. Typically, wages are low in other sectors, and those seeking work exceed the number of jobs available. A 2004 study of the area including the communities of Kayenta, Chilchinbito, and Oljato identified the mining operations as the driving force behind the local economy (Arizona State University [ASU] Center for Business Research 2004b) because coal sales to Navajo and Mohave Generating Stations bring money into the local economy. Jobs that exist due to a mine worker’s household spending, or the spending of a business that supplies the mines, would represent indirect jobs attributable to current mining operations. Similarly, income and spending that support the increase in household spending and supplier spending attributable to the two mining operations and the coal-slurry pipeline represent indirect economic impacts. The indirect effects on regional employment and income were estimated in a separate economic study using IMPLAN regional economic modeling software (URS Corporation 2005). IMPLAN is a computerized method to develop regional input-output models. Multipliers were derived from IMPLAN to assess the relationship between the Black Mesa Complex and the regional economy. Employment, income, and output multipliers for industries related to the mines and coal-slurry pipeline in the fourcounty study area range from 1.3 to 2.1 (Table 3-31). The direct industry effects are expressed as a multiplier of 1.0 in each of the three categories (output, income, and employment). Multipliers above 1.0 represent indirect effects of the industry. For example, at the Black Mesa Complex, as of 2005:

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-116

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Public Administration

Manufacturing

Construction

Services and Information

Mining1

•	 One job supported 1.1 jobs elsewhere in the economy. •	 Each dollar paid for produced coal supported 0.4 dollars of production elsewhere in the economy. •	 One dollar of income earned by mine workers supported 0.4 dollars of income elsewhere in the economy. Table 3-31 Industry Multipliers
Output 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 Income 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 Employment 2.1 2.1 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6

Industry Coal mining Power generation and supply Manufacturing and industrial buildings Highway, street, bridge, and tunnel construction Water, sewer, and pipeline construction Other new construction

SOURCE: IMPLAN 2005 NOTES: The study area is the combined four-county area of Navajo, Mohave, Coconino, and Apache counties in Arizona. These industries were chosen because they most closely represent the industries in which direct jobs associated with existing conditions, project construction, and project operation are categorized.

The Kayenta area has the highest per capita employment overall in the Hopi and Navajo areas, and among all the unincorporated areas in Arizona, Kayenta’s per capita employment overall and in the nonagriculture private sector was higher than average. Average nonfarm private-sector payroll per employee in the Kayenta area in 2001 was $43,800, which was approximately 40 percent more than the state average. This was the highest figure among Arizona unincorporated areas (Figure 3-5). High wages paid in the mining sector are largely responsible for the high average (ASU Center for Business Research 2004b). 3.11.2.4 Fiscal Conditions Peabody is responsible for many types of government payments, including taxes, fees, royalties, and others collected by Federal, State, and tribal agencies. OSM is responsible for collecting fees related to the Surface Mining Law, which provides for the restoration of land mined and abandoned or left inadequately restored before August 3, 1977. Under this program, production fees are collected from coal producers at all active coal mining operations. The fees are deposited in the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Reclamation Fund, which is used to pay the reclamation costs of abandoned mine land projects. The Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation receive grants on an annual basis funded by AML reclamation proceeds to fund reclamation of eligible mines (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005). A variety of projects have been funded by AML grants, including abandoned coal and uranium mine reclamation and assorted community development projects. Another Federal tax paid by Peabody is the Black Lung Excise Tax, the proceeds of which are provided to the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund. Peabody’s payments for both the AML and Black Lung Excise Tax, from both the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations, totaled almost $12 million in 2004.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-117

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Figure 3-5

Payroll per Employee, Private-Sector, 2001 Hopi and Navajo Areas

SOURCES: Arizona Department of Commerce/Arizona State University Center for Business Research, 2004a (estimated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Zip Business Patterns 2001). NOTE: 	 Apache County area data suppressed to avoid disclosure. Kayenta defined as all of ZIP Code 86033.

Peabody pays property and sales taxes to the State of Arizona (Table 3-32). The property taxes for the mines are paid to the State and redistributed through the county. It is estimated that about 85 percent of the property tax paid by Peabody is distributed back to Kayenta Unified School District. State sales tax is paid on coal sales, outside services, and materials and supplies. The revenue from the State sales tax is retained by the State and distributed through a number of funds based upon the approved State budget. Over the past few years, Peabody’s sales taxes have averaged nine times the amount of the property taxes (refer to Table 3-32). Various State services are provided to residents within the study area influence, most notably through distributions back to local school districts. Table 3-32 State of Arizona Taxes Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company

Property Tax Sales Tax Total ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) Year 2001 1.7 12.0 13.7 2002 1.5 18.4 19.9 2003 1.7 14.3 15.9 2004 1.7 16.4 18.1 2005 2.0 18.7 20.6 SOURCES: Peabody Western Coal Company 2006; SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005

The expected property tax amount for 2006 for the Kayenta mining operation would be $1.3 million, and the expected sales tax amount would be $10.5 million. This estimate assumes that the Black Mesa mining operation has closed, there would be no changes in the rates of any of the payments, and the payments would be 64 percent of the 2005 total Peabody payments (i.e., proportional to the amount of coal provided by Kayenta over the past several years). Peabody has been responsible for paying Navajo Nation taxes levied on the Black Mesa mining operation; however, Peabody has not paid taxes to the Navajo Nation for the Kayenta mining operation. This is because Peabody, as fuel supplier to the Navajo Generating Station, has taxes waived for the Kayenta mining operation under the Navajo Generating Station Indenture of Lease. This waiver is in full force through April 30, 2011, at which time there is a partial expiration.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-118

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The Office of Navajo Tax Commission administers the taxes that Peabody has paid for the Black Mesa mining operation (Table 3-33). The Possessory Interest Tax is a tax on the taxable value of a possessory interest granted by the Navajo Nation, which provides a right to be on Navajo land performing a particular activity. The most common types of uses are oil and gas leases, coal leases, rights-of-way, and business site leases. The Business Activity Tax is a tax on the net source gains (gross receipts minus deductions) from the sale of Navajo goods and services. The tax applies to goods that are produced, processed, or extracted within the Navajo Reservation, and on all services performed within the reservation. The Fuel Excise Tax went into effect in 1999, generating $0.18 per gallon. The Navajo Sales Tax became effective on April 1, 2002, with a rate of 3 percent of gross receipts. The tax is imposed on all goods or services purchased within the reservation. Table 3-33 Navajo Tribal Taxes Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company 1986 to 2005 (Black Mesa Mining Operation)1,2
Total ($ million) 17.8 25.6 21.5 5.0 6.1 3.2 3.5 4.5 87.3 4.4

Possessory Business Navajo Sales Navajo Fuel Interest Tax Activity Tax Tax Excise Tax Year ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) 1986 to 1990 9.1 8.8 NA NA 1991 to 1995 10.8 14.8 NA NA 1996 to 2000 9.8 11.8 NA NA 2001 2.6 2.0 NA 0.5 2002 2.2 3.2 0.1 0.5 2003 0.7 1.8 0.2 0.5 2004 0.7 2.0 0.3 0.5 2005 0.7 2.9 0.3 0.6 Total 36.6 47.3 0.9 2.6 Average per year 1.8 2.4 0.22 0.13 SOURCES: Peabody Western Coal Company 2006; SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005 NOTE: 1 No Navajo Nation taxes have been paid for the Kayenta mining operation (see text). 2 Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Because Peabody’s taxes are waived for the Kayenta mining operation, no Navajo Nation tax revenue is expected from Peabody in 2006. The coal produced from the mining operations also is subject to three coal-mining leases approved by the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, and Secretary of the Interior. The lease agreements provide for payment of royalties and bonuses to the tribes. The royalty rates were adjusted in 1987 and were again adjusted for the Hopi lease in 1997. The bonuses were established and were first paid to each tribe in 1998. Table 3-34 identifies historical revenues to the tribes for royalties and bonuses related to coal extraction. Table 3-34
Year

Coal Royalties and Bonuses Paid by Peabody Western 
 Coal Company (1986 to 2005)1 

Total ($ million) NA NA 5.3 37.4 4.7

Coal Royalties Coal Bonuses2 Hopi Hopi Lease Navajo Lease Navajo ($ Navajo 5743 8580 Lease 9910 Overall Total million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) 1986 (least) 3.7 1.9 3.7 9.3 NA NA 4.3 51.7 NA NA 1987 (most) 4.3 43.13 2005 (most recent) 14.7 28.9 43.6 1.8 3.5 Total 191.9 485.1 677.0 10.1 27.3 Average per year 9.6 24.3 33.9 1.3 3.4 SOURCES: Peabody Western Coal Company 2006; SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005 NOTES: 1 Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. 2 Bonuses began in 1998. 3 The $43.1 million coal-royalty payment included an adjustment for royalty rates back to 1984.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-119

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The expected amounts of royalties for 2006 for the Kayenta mining operation would be $9.4 million to the Hopi Tribe and $18.5 million to the Navajo Nation (both leases). The expected amounts of bonuses for 2006 would be $1.2 million to the Hopi Tribe and $2.2 million to the Navajo Nation. The lease agreements with the tribes provide for royalty payments for use of the N-aquifer water. The fees paid are based on the amount of water withdrawn from the aquifer. Table 3-35 summarizes the historical annual payments for water-use royalties to both tribes, which have averaged more than $1.7 million per year for each tribe. Payments in recent years have been about $2.3 million annually per tribe. Table 3-35 Water Royalties Paid by Peabody Western 
 Coal Company (1986 to 2004)1


Hopi Navajo Total ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) 1986 0.02 0.02 .045 1987 (least) 0.02 0.02 .037 2003 (most) 2.3 2.3 4.5 2005 (most recent) 2.3 2.3 4.5 TOTAL 33.5 33.5 67.0 1.7 1.7 3.4 Average per year SOURCES: Peabody Western Coal Company 2006; SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005 NOTE: 1 Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

While the Kayenta mining operation has yielded 64 percent of the coal, the Black Mesa mining operation has accounted for the majority of the water use, due to the coal-slurry plant and pipeline. In 2006, the Kayenta mining operation and the water necessary to keep the Black Mesa system in operating condition are expected to use about 26 percent of the amount of water used by the Black Mesa Complex in 2005, which would result in water royalties of $0.6 million for each tribe. The grand total of all the payments described above to the tribes from 1986 to 2005 is shown in Table 3-36. Table 3-36 Total Annual Payments to Hopi and 
 Navajo Tribes (1986 to 2005)1,2,3

Year 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Hopi Reservation ($ million) 3.7 4.5 9.8 10.3 9.4 11.0 10.5 10.6 12.5 13.8 12.1 11.9 14.5 12.8 13.7 15.1 13.9 Navajo Nation ($ million) 9.8 51.4 26.3 26.3 26.1 29.8 30.0 35.8 28.2 27.2 26.7 29.1 33.5 34.4 35.5 37.1 38.6

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-120

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Hopi Reservation Navajo Nation ($ million) ($ million) 13.6 35.0 16.2 36.5 18.7 39.2 Total 238.3 636.4 Average per year 11.9 31.8 SOURCES: Peabody Western Coal Company 2006; SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005 NOTES: 1 Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. 2 Total of the annual payments detailed in Tables 3-29 through 3-31. 3 Total does not include student scholarships nor grant payments made to the tribes by the Federal government from the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund. Year 2003 2004 2005

In some recent years, Peabody’s mining operations have been the single largest source of revenue in the Hopi and Navajo tribal budgets. Funds received by the tribes are distributed broadly to a number of tribal agencies, Hopi villages, and Navajo chapters. Coal revenues fund the bulk of the Hopi Government’s annual operating budget and the bulk of more than 500 jobs provided by the Hopi Tribe. On the Hopi Reservation, the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations historically have accounted for approximately 50 percent of tribal government revenues. In the 2003 preliminary budget, the figure is estimated to be about 54 percent of the total Hopi tribal revenues. Kayenta and Black Mesa mining revenues represented 26 percent of the total Navajo Nation nongrant budget in 2003; all mines on the Navajo Reservation taken together accounted for 40 percent of the 2003 budget. 3.11.2.5 Public Utilities The NTUA is the primary provider of water and electric utilities in most of the local area of influence. NTUA is an enterprise of the Navajo Nation, providing electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater treatment, and solar energy to residents and businesses of the Navajo Reservation and limited areas of service to the Hopi Reservation. Generally, NTUA is the original developer and owner of its electric systems. Indian Health Services funds and constructs community water systems, then dedicates them to NTUA, while commercial enterprises are responsible for construction of their own water connections. Community water systems exist in population centers such as Kayenta, Moenkopi, and Tuba City. NTUA is exploring the feasibility of establishing improved power and water distribution systems in the immediate area of the Black Mesa Complex, beyond the systems developed for the operation of the mines. Consideration would need to be given to the availability of rights-of-way and accessibility to the many dispersed home sites in the area (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005). Many of the homes in the Black Mesa area do not have running water. Peabody makes available potable water at two water stands on the Black Mesa Complex to area residents who must haul water. NTUA operates some centralized wastewater systems with lagoon treatment in the area, primarily for Navajo Housing Authority subdivisions, but the majority of homes on dispersed sites use individual septic systems. Kayenta, Tuba City, and Moenkopi are all served by community wastewater systems. NTUA purchases electrical power from outside the Navajo Reservation and transmits that power to homes across most of the reservation. APS provides electrical service to Tuba City and Moenkopi, where a high proportion of households have electric service.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-121

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations are a major user of power provided by NTUA. From 1986 through 2004, the mines were the source of 22 percent of NTUA’s electric-service revenue. As the overall NTUA system has grown, the mines’ annual share of NTUA revenue has declined from 25 percent or more to less than 20 percent. 3.11.2.6 Education The educational institutions at the kindergarten through high-school levels in the local area (Table 3-37) comprise four categories of schools: Arizona unified school districts, BIA schools, BIA contract schools (funded by BIA but managed by the tribes), and Arizona charter schools. Shonto Preparatory School is both a BIA contract school and an Arizona charter school. Table 3-37 Schools (Grades K-12) in the Local Area
Grade Levels K-12 K-12 K-12 K-12 K-8 K-8 9-12 K-8 K-8 K-8 K-8 K-8 K-12

Name of District or School Category Kayenta School District Arizona unified district Tuba City School District Arizona unified district Piñon School District Arizona unified district Shonto Preparatory School BIA contract and Arizona charter Kayenta Community School BIA Chilchinbito Community School. BIA contract Greyhills Academy (Tuba City) BIA contract Moenkopi Day School BIA Dennehotso Boarding School BIA Kaibito Boarding School BIA Tonalea Day School BIA Tuba City Boarding School BIA Rough Rock Community School BIA Contract SOURCES: Arizona Department of Education 2005; SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005 
 NOTES: K = kindergarten, K-12 = kindergarten through the twelfth grade 


Arizona schools’ five-year graduation rate in 2003 averaged 73 percent, compared to rates ranging from 51 percent to 87 percent for the schools in the mines’ local area for which the rate was available (Arizona Department of Education 2005). Tuba City, Kayenta, and Moenkopi have a higher proportion of high-school graduates among residents aged 25 and over than the overall rates for the Hopi (67.0 percent) or Navajo (57.0 percent). The State of Arizona’s rate is 80.9 percent. The proportion of college graduates in Tuba City and Kayenta exceeds the 8.0 percent college graduation rate for the Navajo Nation. The other local communities have lower educational attainment among adults than is the case for the Hopi Tribe or Navajo Nation overall. Peabody provides scholarship funds on an annual basis in the amounts of $173,000 to the Hopi Tribe and $186,000 to the Navajo Nation. The Hopi Tribe also has used $750,000 of its coal-bonus revenue for additional educational funding. 3.11.2.7 Health Care Indian Health Services provides support for health services on the Hopi Reservation, with a new facility, Hopi Health Care Facility, at First Mesa in Polacca. The facility brings health care nearer to Hopi communities than it was previously. The facility is partially dependent upon funding by the Hopi Tribe. The Navajo Area Indian Health Services Office, located in Window Rock, administers clinics, health centers, and hospitals, providing health care to members of the Navajo Nation. Comprehensive health care is provided to the Navajo people through hospitals, health centers, and health stations. School clinics and Navajo tribal health programs also serve the community. A major portion of the Navajo Nation
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-122 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

health-care delivery system is sponsored by the Navajo Nation itself, which operates the Navajo Division of Health in Window Rock. Facilities within the local area of influence include the Tuba City Indian Medical Center and the Kayenta Service Unit, both operated by Indian Health Services. At the mine complex, Peabody maintains a 24-hour emergency medical clinic that is designed primarily to service mine personnel, but also is available for emergencies of local residents. The clinic’s ambulance and the Peabody airstrip are used for medical-evacuation situations when the Kayenta airstrip may not be available due to inclement weather. 3.11.2.8 Public Safety: Law Enforcement and Fire Protection The BIA and the Hopi Tribe (the Rangers) provide police services on the entire Hopi Reservation. The Navajo Department of Law Enforcement provides services throughout the reservation. The Navajo Department of Fire and Rescue Services and the local Kayenta Volunteer Fire Department provide fire and rescue services to residents of the Navajo Nation. The county sheriffs and Arizona Department of Public Safety also provide some service to the main reservation highways. BIA provides fire-response service, which is primarily responsible for fire services to Federal buildings. Peabody responds to fire emergencies using its pumper truck, which is located at the mine complex medical clinic. The Hopi Fire Department and the Hopi Rangers also serve the residents of the Hopi Reservation. Wildland fire management on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations is primarily the responsibility of firemanagement officers at the BIA regional agency offices that serve the two reservations. Both offices have agreements with the other participants in national interagency fire-program management and wildland firefighting. In the Hopi and Navajo areas, the BIA works frequently with BLM and the Forest Service, since BLM and the Forest Service manage much of the nearby public land. 3.11.3 Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant The information describing existing social and economic conditions of the affected environment for the mines is applicable to the coal-slurry preparation plant (which currently is not in operation). The distribution of workers’ residences was very similar to that for the mining operations. The 34 employees at the coal-slurry preparation plant received wages averaging $28 per hour. BMPI pays various taxes and fees, levied upon the coal-slurry preparation plant, to a number of govern­ mental entities in the States of Arizona and Nevada and to the Navajo Nation. The information for the plant and pipeline is presented in Table 3-38. More complete descriptions of the taxation system for those taxes paid by industry are discussed in Section 3.11.2.4. BMPI has not yet been advised by any of the State or local taxing authorities as to the effect of its shutdown upon its future taxes. Table 3-38
State
Arizona Coconino Mohave Navajo Yavapai Nevada Clark SOURCE: Sauser 2005 187,000 59,9000 150,000 61,000 2,000

States of Arizona and Nevada Taxes Paid by Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc., in 2004
County Property Tax (rounded to nearest $1,000) Sales Tax (rounded to nearest $1,000)
37,000 NA NA NA NA NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-123

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.11.4 Coal-Slurry Pipeline The existing coal-slurry pipeline and proposed alignments cross portions of Navajo County (where the pipeline is entirely on the Hopi or Navajo Reservation), Coconino County (where the pipeline is partly on the Navajo Reservation), Yavapai, and Mohave Counties in Arizona; and Clark County in Nevada. The pipeline is now dormant until such time as the Black Mesa mining operation resumes. The coal-slurry pipeline (which currently is not in operation) is almost entirely underground, and ordinary operations require few work trips or deliveries of supplies to maintain it. Therefore, there is typically little interaction between the pipeline operation and the region. However, there would be noticeable economic and social activity during reconstruction. Seventeen staff members supported the pipeline operation while in operation, 10 with an office in Flagstaff. The employees of the pump station at the coal-slurry preparation plant are counted with the plant personnel. The other seven staff members operated the other three pump stations. The Kingman reroute would relocate the pipeline away from areas where future major developments are planned, to areas with less potential for growth. The social and economic characteristics of the local areas along the pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash and the Kingman reroute are the same as those in areas along the corresponding portions of the existing pipeline (Table 3-39), with the exception of Census Tract 9507.02 along the Kingman reroute, which has a higher proportion of persons in poverty than the remaining area. Table 3-39 Local Area Population and Households (Pipelines and Well Field)
Local Area Navajo Chapters Coal Mine Mesa Cameron Leupp Bird Springs Tolani Lake Hopi land Project Component(s)1 Coal-slurry pipeline; water-supply pipeline (western alternative) Coal-slurry pipeline Well field and watersupply pipeline Well field and watersupply pipeline Well field and watersupply pipeline Coal-slurry pipeline Total Population (2000) 374 1,231 1,605 829 755 Households (2000) 121 311 419 200 196

Tribal Census Tract 1,556 410 9411, BG2 Tribal Census Tract Coal-slurry pipeline 400 119 9410, BG4 Kingman areas Census Tract 9509 Coal-slurry pipeline 7,618 3,187 Census Tract 9507.02 Coal-slurry pipeline 7,332 2,856 Census Tract 9508 Coal-slurry pipeline 3,685 1,652 Census Tract 9506 Coal-slurry pipeline 6,513 2,658 Census Tract 9511 Coal-slurry pipeline 3,605 1,475 Census Tract 9510 Coal-slurry pipeline 10,376 3,783 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 NOTE: 	 1The project component(s) column indicates which facilities associated with the component(s) would be in the area.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-124

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.11.5 Water Supply 3.11.5.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System 3.11.5.1.1 Well Field The local area of influence for the well field (refer to Table 3-39) includes the Navajo Nation chapters of Leupp, Tolani Lake, and Bird Springs. The chapters share a community water system centered on Leupp. The ratio of the dependent-aged population to the working-age population is 71.3 for the three-chapter area overall, higher than for either reservation, and much higher than the ratio for Arizona statewide (54.9). The American Indian population is 98.3 percent of the total population of the three-chapter area. More information about the racial and ethnic makeup of the area is presented in Section 3.12. As indicated in Table 3-40, services and information are the dominant sectors in the local area for the proposed well field. Construction and manufacturing also are well represented. Tooh Dineh Industries in Leupp, which assembles printed circuit boards, is the leading manufacturing business. The local area was a part of the “Tuba City/Coconino County” Hopi and Navajo area that was the subject of an economic base study (ASU Center for Business Research 2004a). According to that study, the employment per 1,000 residents and the payroll per employee in private-sector jobs in the area lagged behind the Kayenta area, the state, and the nation. 3.11.5.1.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern and Western Routes The Eastern and Western routes would pass through areas with similar economic profiles. Both routes would cross the three chapters in the well field’s local area. The Eastern Route would cross Kykotsmovi and sparsely populated areas of the Hopi Reservation, and the Hard Rock and Forest Lake Chapters. The Western Route would cross Coal Mine Mesa, Tuba City, Tonalea, Shonto, Kayenta, and Forest Lake Chapters (refer to Tables 3-24, 3-26, 3-35). Health-care and public-safety services are reservationwide for the Hopi Tribe, so they are the same for the local area of the water-supply pipeline as they are for the local area for the mines, and are described in Section 3.11.2. There are some additional BIA schools in the local area of the water-supply pipeline. They include the following schools serving kindergarten through the eighth grade: Leupp School in Leupp, Hopi Day School and Rocky Ridge Boarding School in Kykotsmovi, Hotevilla Bacavi Community School in Hotevilla, First Mesa Elementary School in Polacca, and Second Mesa Day School in Second Mesa. Hopi High School serves the entire local area and is in Keams Canyon.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-125

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-40

Local Area Employment: Percent Share by Industry Sector (Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Project Water Supply)1
Transportation, Ware­ housing, and Utilities Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting

FIRE and Rental/ Leasing 0 3.4 0 4.9 2.6 0 0 2.1 3.2 4.4 2.9 2.1 3.4

Retail and Wholesale Trade

Coal Mine Mesa 0 0 Cameron 7.2 0 Leupp 0 0 Bird Springs 11.4 0 Tolani Lake 0 0 Hopi land Tribal Census Tract 9411, BG2 1.6 0 Tribal Census Tract 9410, BG4 0 0 Kingman areas Census Tract 9509 1.1 0.3 Census Tract 9507.02 0.2 0.3 Census Tract 9508 5.2 2.6 Census Tract 9506 1.3 0 Census Tract 9511 0 0.3 Census Tract 9510 0 0.2 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 
 NOTES: 1Pertinent project components are identified in Table 3-35. 
 FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate

Navajo Chapters

22.8 27.6 27.2 11.4 17.6 13.7 17.8 9.6 13.7 10.8 7.2 10.9 7.4

12.3 0 14.1 10.3 3.9 3.5 14.4 11.6 12.9 8 6.5 6.5 14.1

8.8 22.2 0 0 4.6 8 8.9 16.1 14.9 19.4 13.4 16.2 15.6

0 0 4.3 3.3 13.1 0 7.8 7.4 4.9 8.1 8.5 5.5 8.5

56.1 33.8 46.1 41.3 49 52.8 51.1 45.2 46.9 34.9 56.4 51.4 42.9

3.12

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, it is the responsibility of Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” The general purposes of the Executive Order are to (1) focus attention of Federal agencies on the human health and environmental conditions in minority and low-income communities with the goal of achieving environmental health; (2) foster nondiscrimination in Federal programs that substantially affect human health or the environment; and (3) give minority communities and low-income communities greater opportunities for public participation in, and access to public information on, matters relating to human health and the environment. One of the tasks in such an endeavor is to identify minority and low-income populations groups at geographic levels of analysis appropriate to the project under study. An environmental justice population can be defined by one of two criteria: (1) the number of minority and/or low-income persons within a defined area exceed 50 percent of the population, or (2) the number of minority and/or low-income persons within a defined area exceed the number of minority and lowincome persons in a larger community of which it is a part (e.g., a State, county, or other division) (Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] 1997). The study areas for this analysis are the same as those considered in the analysis of social and economic conditions (Section 3.11). Both the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation are minority communities. On the Hopi and Navajo Reservations, the share of population that is low income greatly exceeds the share of population that is low income in other communities, on the average, in the state or nation. The most recent available census data on race and ethnicity were analyzed to identify minority populations that might be disproportionately larger than the general population in the county or the state. The Hopi and Navajo Reservations are predominantly American Indian (95 percent and 96 percent respectively) (Table 3-41). The smaller communities that comprise the portions of the reservation in the
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-126 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Public Administration 0 5.8 8.3 17.4 9.2 20.4 0 6.6 3 6.5 3.7 7 8

Manufacturing

Construction

Services and Information

Mining

vicinity of the Black Mesa Project are also overwhelmingly minority populations, with a population that is 95.5 percent American Indian overall (Table 3-42). An analysis of county-level data, some of which overlap with the reservations, affirms the presence of large minority populations. The percentage of American Indian residents in Apache County (77 percent), Coconino County (29 percent), and Navajo County (48 percent) exceeds the overall proportion of American Indians in the Arizona population (5 percent) (refer to Table 3-41). Although Clark County includes a slightly larger percentage of residents that are Black or African-American, Asian, some other race, or two or more races, the minority community is not concentrated in Laughlin, in the project vicinity. An analysis of census tracts in the vicinity of the project facilities near Kingman, Arizona, does not identify any concentrated minority populations in that area (refer to Table 3-42). Hispanic populations also are considered to be minorities, and the census data tabulate Hispanic ancestry as an ethnicity. Therefore, Hispanic people may be of any race. As illustrated in Table 3-41, Clark County has a larger percentage of Hispanic residents (22 percent) than the State of Nevada overall (19.7 percent), but the Laughlin area does not have a large Hispanic population. The share of Hispanic residents in the project’s various local areas is much smaller than the state-level comparison populations (refer to Table 3-42). Census data also were used to identify low-income populations, using thresholds for poverty as defined by the CEQ guidance. Census data were compared to other reliable estimates of poverty to assess poverty trends regionally and locally. According to the Census 2000 data, the Hopi and Navajo Reservations have disproportionately low-income populations (39 percent and 42 percent persons below the poverty line, respectively, compared to nearly 14 percent for Arizona overall) (Table 3-43). Each of the individual counties in the region—with the exception of Yavapai County—exceeds the statewide proportion of persons below the poverty level (refer to Table 3-43). It is likely that those living below the poverty line are undercounted for both the Hopi and Navajo, as is the case with the unemployed. For example, the 2000 Hopi Strategic Land Use and Development Plan indicated that nearly 61 percent of Hopi households have incomes below poverty level. The prevalence of poverty is consistent with the high unemployment rate found in the area (discussed in Section 3.11). Poverty data also were analyzed for smaller geographic units. Nearly all the Navajo Chapters have a higher percentage of individuals below the poverty level than the statewide percentage (13.6 percent) or the percentages in the overlapping counties (refer to Table 3-43 and Table 3-44). The Moenkopi District of the Hopi Reservation has a similar proportion of persons below the poverty line (13.7 percent) to that of the State. Outside of the reservations, four census tracts in the Kingman area have higher percentages of persons below the poverty line than Mohave County (13.9 percent). The small-area income and poverty estimates of the U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau 2002) is a consistent series of data that permits the estimates of the population in poverty to be compared from one year to the next. That series indicates the following trends in poverty population in the region from 1999 to 2002 (Table 3-45). Other data series of poverty estimates yield slightly different results. Taken together, however, they all show persistent poverty in Apache and Navajo Counties, Arizona. The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prepared a longitudinal study of poverty by county that yielded a map of persistent poverty counties, where 20 percent or more of persons were in poverty in each of the past four decennial censuses (1970 to 2000). Apache and Navajo Counties, Arizona, were designated as persistent poverty counties, while none of the other counties in the region were so designated.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-127

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-41
Counties Coconino 116,320 73,381 63.1 1,215 1.0 33,161 28.5 910 0.8 108 0.1 4,801 4.1 2,744 2.4 Mohave 155,032 139,616 90.1 833 0.5 3,733 2.4 1,186 0.8 168 0.1 6,200 4.0 3,296 2.1

Race and Ethnicity – Regional Level1,2,3
Navajo 97,470 44,752 45.9 857 0.9 46,532 47.7 322 0.3 46 0.0 3,067 3.1 1,894 1.9 Yavapai 167,517 153,933 91.9 655 0.4 2,686 1.6 851 0.5 138 0.1 5,990 3.6 3,264 1.9 Clark 1,375,765 984,796 71.6 124,885 9.1
c

Total population Race (alone) White Percent of total population Black or African American Percent of total population Apache American Indian and Alaska Native Percent of total population Asian Percent of total population Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander Percent of total population Some other race Percent of total population Two or more races Percent of total population Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino origin Percent of total population

69,423 13,536 19.5 173 0.2 53,375 76.9 93 0.1 39 0.1 1,217 1.8 990 1.4

Tribal Areas Hopi Navajo Reservation Reservation 6,946 180,462 269 3.9 14 0.2 6,573 94.6 4 0.1 1 0.0 16 0.2 69 1.0 4,316 2.4 138 0.1 173,987 96.4 113 0.1 35 0.0 461 0.3 1,412 0.8

States Arizona 5,130,632 3,873,611 75.5 158,873 3.1 255,879 5.0 92,236 1.8 6,733 0.1 596,774 11.6 146,526 2.9 Nevada 1,998,257 1,501,886 75.2 135,477 6.8 26,420 1.3 90,266 4.5 8,426 0.4 159,354 8.0 76,428 3.8

10,895 0.8 72,547 5.3c 6,412 0.5 118,465 8.6c 57,765 4.2

3,119 4.5

12,727 10.9

17,182 11.1

8,011 8.2

16,376 9.8

302,143 22.0c

133 1.9

2,296 1.3

1,295,617 25.3

393,970 19.7

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 NOTES: 1 Includes population on Hopi Reservation and off-reservation land in Arizona. 2 Includes population on Navajo Reservation and off-reservation land in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. 3 Probably not conclusive for study area. 	 	

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-128

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-42
Hopi Moenkopi District

Race and Ethnicity – Local Level1,2
Navajo Chapters Inscription House

Chilchinbito

Rough Rock

Forest Lake

Dennehotso

Black Mesa

Hard Rock

Total population Race (alone) White Percent of total population Black or African American Percent of total population American Indian or Alaska Native Percent of total population Asian Percent of total population Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander Percent of total population Other Percent of total population Two or more races Percent of total population Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino origin Percent of total population

901 13 1.4 0 871 96.7 0 0 2 0.2 15 1.7 0

398 2 0.5 0 393 98.7 0 0 0 2 0.5 1 0.3

1,325 13 1.0 0 1,296 97.8 0 0 0 0 16 1.2

1,626 12 0.7 0 1,586 97.4 0 0 0 12 0.7 16 1.0

573 1 0.1 0 566 98.8 0 0 0 2 0.3 4 0.7

1,256 25 2.0 0 1,214 96.7 0 0 0 3 0.2 14 1.1

1,214 36 3.0 5 0.4 1,154 95.1 0 1 0 0 12 1.0 6 0.5

1,970 11 0.6 1 0 1,949 99.0 0 0 0 6 0.3 3 0.2

6,315 327 5.2 9 0.1 5,856 92.7 6 0.1 1 0 0 63 1.0 53 0.8

2,292 61 2.7 2 0 2,204 96.2 0 1 0 0 11 0.5 13 5.7

3,066 114 3.7 0 2,910 94.9 2 0 0 0 5 0.2 35 1.1

919 13 1.4 1 0.1 899 97.8 3 0.32 0 0 1 0.1 2 0.2

2,419 37 1.5 1 0 2,339 92.6 1 0 0 0 24 1.0 17 0.7

2,537 19 0.7 0 2,492 98.2 1 0 0 0 6 0.2 19 0.7

8,736 421 4.8 13 0.1 7,990 91.5 18 0.2 3 0 0 94 1.1 197 2.3

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-129

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Tuba City

Kayenta

Tonalea

Kaibito

Shonto

Oljato

Piñon

Table 3-42
Hopi Tribal Census Tract 9411, BG2 Tribal Census Tract 9410, BG4

Race and Ethnicity – Local Level1,2 (continued)
Navajo Chapters Census Tract 9507.02 Census Tract 9509 Census Tract 9508 Kingman Area Census Tract 9506 Census Tract 9511 Census Tract 9510

Total population 1,556 400 374 1,231 1,605 829 755 Race (alone) White 33 6 8 20 15 3 3 Percent of total population 2.1 1.5 2.1 1.6 0.4 0.4 Black or African American 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Percent of total population 0.1 American Indian or Alaska Native 1,475 383 364 1,139 1,548 817 740 Percent of total population 94.8 95.8 97.3 92.5 96.4 98.6 98.0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Asian Percent of total population Native Hawaiian/other Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Islander Percent of total population Other 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent of total population Two or more races 0 0 0 26 15 3 1 Percent of total population 2.1 0.9 0.4 0.1 Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino origin 35 11 2 44 27 5 11 Percent of total population 2.2 2.8 0.5 3.6 1.7 0.6 1.5 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 NOTE: 1Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations, places of residence of 90 percent of the employees. 2 Additional areas crossed by proposed linear facilities. 	

7,618 6,534 85.8 64 0.8 113 1.5 101 1.3 8 0.1 7 0.1 97 1.3 694 9.1

7,332 6,272 85.5 31 0.4 78 1.1 31 0.4 8 0.1 5 0 162 2.2 745 10.2

3,685 3,238 87.9 9 0.2 92 2.5 15 0.4 7 0.2 19 0.5 74 2.1 231 6.3

6,513 5,767 88.5 27 0.4 61 0.9 40 0.6 7 0.1 7 0.1 97 1.5 507 7.8

3,605 2,904 80.6 15 0.4 101 2.8 71 2.0 7 0.2 1 0 84 2.3 422 11.7

10,376 8,977 86.5 38 0.4 146 1.4 109 1.1 12 0.1 9 164 1.6 921 8.9

20,069 17,119 85.3 109 0.5 329 1.6 284 1.4 27 0.1 17 328 1.6 1856 9.2

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-130

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

City of Kingman

Coal Mine Mesa

Bird Springs

Tolani Lake

Cameron

Leupp

Table 3-43
County Apache Per capita income $8,986 Median family income $26,315 Persons below poverty level 25,798 Percentage of persons below poverty level 37.8 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Coconino $17,139 $45,873 20,609 18.2 Mohave $16,788 $36,311 21,252 13.9

Regional Income Characteristics
Navajo $11,609 $32,409 28,054 28.8 Yavapai $19,727 $32,409 19,552 11.9 Clark $21,785 $50,485 145,855 10.8 Tribal Areas Hopi Navajo Reservation Reservation $8,637 $7,486 $15,875 $23,209 2,702 38.9 65,001 41.9 State Arizona $20,275 $46,723 698,669 13.6 Nevada $21,989 $50,849 205,685 10.5

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-131

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-44

Local Income Characteristics
Median Family Income (in $) 38,266 15,000 26,029 20,583 9,479 20,556 14,750 29,896 27,689 21,094 18,007 18,482 31,214 24,750 37,455 Persons Below Poverty Level Percent of Persons Below Poverty Level 13.7 40.2 47.3 46.6 62.3 58.8 49.9 27.1 38.8 38.0 49.5 50.7 34.4 40.9 28.4

Per Capita Income (in $) Kayenta and Black Mesa Mines Hopi area Moenkopi 11,432 Navajo Chapters Black Mesa 4,622 Chilchinbito 5,745 5,270 Dennehotso Forest Lake 3,638 Hard Rock 4,732 Inscription House 7,216 Kaibito 8,117 Kayenta 8,698 Oljato 7,468 Piñon 5,478 Rough Rock 5,237 Shonto 8,573 Tonalea 6,163 10,331 Tuba City Additional Areas Crossed by Linear Facilities Navajo Chapters Coal Mine Mesa 6,075 Cameron 6,055 Leupp 7,421 Bird Springs 7,844 Tolani Lake 6,749 Hopi areas Tribal Census tract 9411, BG2 7,298 Tribal Census tract 9410, BG4 9,181 Kingman area 16,989 Census Tract 9509 Census Tract 9507.02 13,834 Census Tract 9508 20,598 Census Tract 9506 14,264 Census Tract 9511 15,484 Census Tract 9510 17,203 City of Kingman 17,181 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000

113 187 647 730 264 746 640 548 2,459 822 1,606 491 828 1,027 2,420

20,875 20,278 21,250 23,981 28,606 19,211 35,313 38,852 30,433 39,773 30,942 36,214 44,098 41,327

123 597 697 265 269 834 169 717 1,613 651 1,026 624 1,173 2,207

38.7 43.4 44.5 35.1 33.8 52.8 42.4 9.5 22.1 17.7 15.9 19.2 11.7 11.6

Table 3-45 Trends in Percentage of People in Poverty by State and County, 1999 to 2002
State or County Arizona Apache County Coconino County Mohave County Navajo County Yavapai County Nevada Clark County
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2004

1999 12.8 30.5 15.9 15.1 23.6 11.6 10.2 10.4

2002 13.6 28.3 15.4 15.7 24.3 12.6 10.1 10.6

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-132

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.13 INDIAN TRUST ASSETS
The United States has a responsibility to protect and maintain rights reserved by or granted to American Indian tribes by treaty, statutes, and executive orders. This responsibility requires Federal agencies to take actions necessary to protect Indian trust assets. The Secretary of the Interior’s Order Number 3215, dated April 28, 2000, addresses “Principles for the Discharge of the Secretary’s Trust Responsibility.” That Secretarial Order cited the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (Reform Act), Public Law 103-412, October 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4239, as the most comprehensive and informative legislative statement of Secretarial duties in regard to the trust responsibility of the United States. A key section of that law indicates that the Secretary’s proper discharge of the trust responsibilities of the United States shall include, but are not limited to, appropriately managing the natural resources located within the boundaries of Indian reservations and trust lands (25 U.S.C. 162a(d), cited in Babbitt 2000). 3.13.1 Indian Trust Assets Definition and Characteristics Indian trust assets are defined as legal interests in assets that are held in trust or restricted status by the Federal Government for federally recognized American Indian tribes or individual Indian. Assets have monetary value in which a tribe has a property interest. Examples of things that could be Indian trust assets include minerals, water rights, lands, hunting and gathering rights, other natural resources, or money. Examples of property interests, other than exclusive ownership, are leases or rights to use something. Indian trust assets can be real property, physical assets, or intangible property rights. Indian trust assets do not include things in which a tribe has no legal interest. For example, off-reservation sacred sites in which a tribe has no legal property interest generally are not considered Indian trust assets. Other important characteristics of the trust relationship between American Indian tribes and the United States are as follows: •	 A trust has three components—the trustee, the beneficiary, and the trust asset(s). In the case of Indian trust assets, title to Indian trust assets is held by the United States (trustee) for the benefit of a tribe or individual American Indian. •	 Legal interest means there is a property interest for which a legal remedy may be obtained. •	 Indian trust assets cannot be sold, leased, or otherwise alienated without the United States’ approval. While most Indian trust assets are located on Indian reservations, they also can be located off reservation. Indian trust assets within the Black Mesa Project area include those that are held by the United States for the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation. Indian trust assets to be considered for possible effects by the proposed Federal actions are minerals, water rights, lands, hunting and gathering rights, and other natural resources. Primary statutes governing the leasing of Indian coal assets for the benefit of an Indian tribe or nation are the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 and the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982. An American Indian Coal Lease is obtained by direct negotiation with Indian tribal authorities, but is subject to approval and administration by the USDI. The leasing authority by which coal reserves that are Indian trust assets may be leased is at 25 U.S.C. 396a and concerns leases of unallotted lands for mining purposes. It states the following:

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-133

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

On and after May 11, 1938, unallotted lands within any Indian reservation or lands owned by any tribe, group, or band of Indians under Federal jurisdiction, except those specifically excepted from the provisions of sections 396a to 396g of this title, may, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, be leased for mining purposes, by authority of the tribal council or other authorized spokesmen for such Indians, for terms not to exceed ten years and as long thereafter as minerals are produced in paying quantities. The BIA performs a limited role in assisting tribes to litigate or seek to settle their water rights claims. In some cases, the BIA has been given a role in assisting tribes to implement a water rights settlement. The source of American Indian water rights is found in the 1908 Supreme Court decision of Winters v. United States (207 U.S. 564 [1908]), which held that the creation of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Montana under a treaty entered into in 1888 by necessity implied the reservation of sufficient water rights to fulfill the purposes of the reservation. A water right granted to a tribe under the Winters Doctrine is given a priority date no later than the time when the reservation was established and, unlike water rights permitted, licensed or adjudicated under State statutes, such rights under the Winters Doctrine cannot be lost through nonuse (Reclamation 2006b). According to McCarthy (2004): The Arizona Supreme Court has concluded that Federal reserved rights apply to both surface and subsurface sources of water, and that Federal reserved rights enjoy greater protection from groundwater pumping than do state water rights. (195 Ariz. 411, 422, 989 P.2d 750 (1999). The Wyoming Supreme Court had earlier declined to apply Winters rights to groundwater (753 P.2d 76, 99-100 [Wyoming 1988]). It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately decide this question. The BIA’s trust responsibilities include the approval of right-of-way grants across American Indian lands (25 CFR Part 169, “Rights-of-way over Indian Land”). 3.13.2 Indian Trust Assets Within the Affected Environment 3.13.2.1 Minerals The Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations are located on leased land within the boundaries of the Hopi and Navajo Reservations near Kayenta in Navajo County (refer to Map 1-2). All of the coal produced from these mining operations is an Indian trust asset and is produced subject to one of three coal-mining leases, which set forth such items as land rental rates, royalty rates for the coal, other fees, and additional terms. The leases, which have been amended many times over the years, are not a part of the LOM revision permit application. One lease covers the 24,858 acres of the northern portion of the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations, where the Navajo Nation holds both surface and mineral land ownership. In 1964, that lease, No. 14-20-0603-8580, was approved by the Navajo Nation Tribal Council, executed by the Navajo Nation, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The other two leases, approved by the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation in 1966, cover the southern portion of the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations, where the tribes have joint and equal interests in the minerals that underlie the former Joint Use Area. Lease No. 14-20-0603-9910 was approved by the Navajo Nation Tribal Council and executed by the Navajo Nation and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Lease No.14-20-0450-5743 was executed by the Hopi Tribe and approved by the BIA.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-134

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The surface of the southern portion of the leasehold has been partitioned. Approximately 33,863 surface acres are in Navajo Nation ownership, while 6,137 surface acres are in Hopi Tribe ownership (Peabody 2002b). 3.13.2.2 Land Infrastructure of the existing Black Mesa Complex occupies land that is an Indian tribal asset. BMPI holds two leases, one with the Hopi Tribe and the other with the Navajo Nation, for the 40-acre parcel occupied by its coal-slurry preparation plant. Other rights-of-way and easements contain the overland conveyor, Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad loading site, railroad, and power lines, for a total of 362 acres. BMPI holds two leases, one with the Hopi Tribe and the other with the Navajo Nation, for the 40-acre parcel occupied by BMPI’s coal-slurry preparation plant. A substantial portion of the rights-of-way connected to the existing components of the Black Mesa Project are on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations. The existing coal-slurry pipeline, with a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, crosses approximately 35 miles of the Hopi Reservation (occupying 212 acres) and 61 miles of the Navajo Reservation (occupying 370 acres). 3.13.2.3 Water Rights to the surface water and groundwater associated with the Hopi and Navajo Reservations are Indian trust assets of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. Section 3.4 provides a description of the water resources related to the Black Mesa Project and the current patterns of use of those water resources. The Little Colorado River watershed comprises all of the existing Black Mesa Project components. The Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation claim water Indian trust assets as parties to the Little Colorado River water rights litigation entitled, “In re: The General Adjudication of all Right to use of water in the Little Colorado River System and Source (Nos. 6417-033-9055 and 6417-033-9066, Consolidated).” In the status hearing held May 12, 2006, on the Little Colorado River water rights litigation case, representatives of the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation indicated ongoing negotiations concerning both groundwater and surface water rights (Superior Court of the State of Arizona 2006). 3.13.2.4 Hunting and Gathering and Other Natural Resources The Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation have rights to carry on hunting and gathering, grazing, and traditional uses on the reservations. Ongoing activities of hunting and gathering, grazing, and traditional uses are described other sections (e.g., Sections 3.9 and 3.10).

3.14 NOISE AND VIBRATION
Sound is created when an object vibrates and radiates part of its energy as acoustic pressure or waves through air, water, or a solid object. Noise is defined as unwanted or undesirable sound. Sound pressure levels are expressed in units called decibels (dB). Since the human ear does not respond equally to all sound frequencies (or pitches), sound levels may be adjusted, or weighted, to correspond to the frequency-response range of human hearing and the human perception of loudness. Frequencies to which the human ear does not respond are filtered out when measuring and modeling noise levels. The A-weighted decibel (dBA) is the basic unit of sound used to describe the human response to noise from industrial and transportation sources. Decibels are measured using a logarithmic scale. Because of this, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted directly. An increase (or decrease) in sound level of about 10 dB is usually perceived by the average person as a doubling (or halving) of the loudness. Sound levels of typical noise sources and noise environments are presented in Table 3-46.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-135

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-46

Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments
A-Weighted Sound Level (decibels) 130 120 90 70 60 40 30 10 0 Human Judgment of Noise Loudness

Noise Source or Environment Shotgun blast in close range Jackhammer in close range Thunderclap Commercial jet take-off (200 feet away) Motorcycle (25 feet) Propeller plane fly-over (1,000 feet) Diesel truck, 40 miles per hour (50 feet) Passenger car, 65 miles per hour (25 feet) Vacuum cleaner (3 feet) Normal conversation (5 feet) Bird calls (distant) Soft whisper (5 feet) Quiet bedroom Normal breathing (0 feet) Rustle of leaves in the wind Normal breathing (5 feet) SOURCE: URS Corporation 2003

Threshold of pain Loud Moderately loud Comfortable Quiet Audible Very faint Threshold of human hearing

Although the A-weighted sound level may indicate adequately the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously and include a mixture of noise from various sources. To account for this variation, a single descriptor called the equivalent sound level (Leq) is used. Leq is the average A-weighted sound level during a specific time interval. One of the most common intervals is a 24-hour day. This noise descriptor is called the day-night average equivalent noise level, or Ldn. Ldn includes a 10 dBA penalty applied to sound levels in the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) to compensate for people’s increased sensitivity to noise during this period. The Ldn is used by agencies such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Aviation Administration, and Federal Transit Administration. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers exterior noise levels of 65 Ldn or less acceptable for new housing construction. This study will use applicable noise-impact criteria established by regulatory agencies to estimate project impacts. Low-frequency vibrations are normally felt rather than heard. Vibrations may occur as heavy equipment or trucks travel through an area or, more importantly for this project, from blasting. Blasting is used as part of the mining operations to fragment material for excavation and transport. The three major adverse effects of blasting are flyrock, air blast, and ground motion. Each of these effects is described below. Other energy liberated from the blast is converted into vibrations as either ground motion or air overpressure (air blast). Ground motion is the principal vibration that will result from blasting, though air blast may be more noticeable because of the accompanying noise effects. Like other noises, air blast is measured in decibels; however, because the overpressure is normally at low frequencies and may be felt more than heard, measurements are not A-weighted like other noises. Instead, a flat or linear weighting is used. Ground motion is a wave motion spreading outwards from the blast, like ripples spreading outwards after a stone is dropped into water. This ground motion is measured as peak particle velocity and is used as an indicator of possible blast damage. No noise measurements or detailed field reconnaissance were conducted to measure existing noise sources or noise levels in sensitive areas. Precise data on existing noise sources (type, number, locations, operating times, etc.) were not generally available at the time of this study. Therefore, assumed sound levels were based on sound levels typically associated with identified noise sources and types of land use settings. Typical source noise levels used for estimating existing noise conditions in the study area are given in Table 3-47.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-136

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-47

Source Noise Used for Estimating Existing Noise Levels1

Source-toReceiver Distance Noise Exposure Noise Source (feet) Estimates1 Bucket loader 50 89 Haul trucks (100 tons) 50 88 Ore trucks (tractor-trailer) 50 88 Water truck 50 91 50 80 Front end loader 300 70 Fork lift 50 73 50 92 Mining and excavation- Dozer 300 77 related noise sources Rock drill 50 95 50 88 Dragline crane 300 73 50 92 Scraper 300 77 Pumps 50 71 Generators 50 83 Compressors 50 86 50 75 Interstate highway2 200 65 800 and up 50 50 70 Roadways3 Traffic-related noise 200 60 sources 400 and up 50 Electric railroad4 50 70 30 75 Railroad lines5 240 60 800 and up 45 SOURCES: Mining sources – Minor, Michael & Associates 2000 Transportation sources – Harris, Miller, Miller & Hanson Inc. 1995 NOTES: 1All noise exposure estimates are based upon typical highway or vehicle operation. Railroad noise levels are described in day-night average sound level; all others are in equivalent noise level daytime. 2 Highways with four or more lanes that permit trucks, with traffic at 60 miles per hour. 3 Roads with traffic at 55 miles per hour, but without trucks. 4 Typical for Black Mesa and Lake Powell electric-railroad operations. 5 Main-line railroad corridors typically carrying 5 to 10 trains per day at speeds of 30 to 40 miles per hour.

The region of influence is the geographic area that could potentially be affected by changes in noise or vibration levels due to this project; it varies for different project components. For example, the region of influence where new or increased blasting at the mines is proposed may extend up to several miles from the source. However, the region of influence for less intensive noise and vibration sources, such as coalslurry pipeline booster pumps or traffic, would be a few hundred feet or less. Noise impacts occur only where there are people or animals (noise-sensitive receptors) to hear it. Therefore, the region of influence for any noise impacts is directly related to the location of the receptors. Existing ambient or environmental noise is generally a composite of noise from a wide variety of natural and manmade sources (including natural sounds, local and distant transportation and industrial sounds, and sounds from local residential sources). Some land uses are considered sensitive to noise. Noisesensitive receptors are land uses associated with indoor and outdoor activities that may be subject to stress or significant interference from noise. They often include residential dwellings, mobile homes, hotels,

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-137

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

motels, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, churches, and libraries. Sensitive receptors in the study area were identified as part of the land use studies. In general, the study area is very rural, sparsely populated, or uninhabited. However, dispersed noise receptors—people or animals—or sensitive areas such as individual or clustered homes, mobile homes, or other noise-sensitive land uses are present in some areas. Due to the absence of significant noise sources in the region, the ambient noise level throughout much of the study area is probably less than 50 dBA during daytime hours and 30 dBA at night. OSM’s 1990 EIS estimated baseline background sound levels within the Black Mesa lease area as 33 to 43 Ldn. Typical noise sources would be jet planes overhead, offroad vehicles, barking dogs, and wind, and this environment generally would be considered comfortable to quiet. Structures may be subject to damage by vibrations from blasting, or equipment and heavy truck operations. Of particular interest would be structures determined to be of historical importance or those with unique construction that might make them particularly susceptible to damage from vibrations. According to the cultural resources investigations conducted for this project, no such structures have been identified within the area of impact. The discussions that follow: •	 Describe the location, operation, and other important features of project components •	 Determine noise sources not associated with the project •	 Identify noise-sensitive receptors and describe their distance and direction from project 
 components and other noise sources 
 •	 Estimate existing sound levels based on identified noise sources and proximity to sensitive receptors •	 Describe the existing noise environment For locations of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, community areas, recreational areas), refer to Section 3.9. 3.14.1 Black Mesa Complex Noise-sensitive receptors include residences within and outside the Black Mesa Complex. As mining progresses over time, all residences within the mining operations area would be relocated. Currently, there are approximately 68 residences dispersed throughout the lease boundary. Of the 50 residences closest to the Kayenta mining operation, there are two main clusters: one located in the southern region, and one located in the east-central region, approximately 1 to 1.5 miles from the mining operations. This cluster is near the Black Mesa mining operation and consists of 18 homes that are dispersed throughout the area. More residences are located along the route of the proposed water-supply pipeline (the segment on the Black Mesa Complex). Residences outside the Black Mesa Complex consist of two clusters: one northwest of the lease area and one southwest. Receptors to the southwest are located near Indian Route 8034. The existing noise environment in the vicinity of the mining operation and sensitive receptors is dominated by noise associated with mining operation, including coal processing, blasting, and hauling. Surface blasting is conducted on an average of twice daily during weekdays, from sunrise to sunset and is conducted at 0.5 mile from any residence or occupied dwelling. Blasting must abide by the standards set forth in 30 CFR 816.67, which states that overpeak sound-pressure levels cannot exceed 133 dB. Warning

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-138

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

and all-clear signals audible for at least 0.5 mile are sounded before and after blasting. Except for emergency situations, blasting occurs according to a schedule that is published annually in a newspaper with general circulation in the mining area. Additionally, blasting schedules are delivered to all individuals living within the permit area and within 0.5 mile outside the permit area. After the coal has been blasted, the pieces are loaded into trucks using excavation equipment. Two types of coal hauling are performed: on-site coal hauling and site-to-site coal hauling. Trucks perform on-site hauling and are a large source of traffic noise. The electric railroad performs site-to-site transportation from the Kayenta mining operation to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona. The coal bound for the Navajo Generating Station is loaded at this point just west of the intersection of Indian Route 41 and U.S. Highway 160. From about 50 feet away, typical electric-railroad noise levels are approximately 70 dBA and truck noise levels are 88 dBA. Flyrock is rock that is ejected into the air or along the ground from a blast. Flyrock is controlled by the blasting design and by limiting access in the vicinity of the blast. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.67(c) prohibits flyrock from being cast more than one-half the distance to the nearest dwelling, beyond the area of control [required under 30 CFR 816.66(c)], or beyond the permit boundary. Air blast is regulated to a maximum level in dB at a particular frequency of sound. The limit established at any residence near the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations is 133 dB at 2 hertz or lower frequency. Ground motion is measured normally at residences near the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations, where seismographs record levels of particle velocities of 0.5 inches per second or higher. The coal-haul roads associated with the Black Mesa mining operation converge upon the coal-slurry preparation plant site, which includes a pump station. This plant is 0.75 mile away from the closest sensitive receptor and has a projected noise level of 88 dBA at 50 feet due to haul-truck noise during operation, resulting in daytime noise levels at receptors of approximately 45 to 55 dBA, punctuated with occasional audible noise from blasting activity. Noise sources not associated with the mining operation that contribute to the overall noise environment include the following: •	 An aircraft facility within the Black Mesa Complex, north of the Peabody office facilities, that is 1 mile away from the closest noise-sensitive receptor •	 Indian Route 41 •	 Indian Route 8034 Typical operations and resulting noise-level contributions of the aircraft facilities are not known at this time. Indian Route 41 has two homes directly adjacent to it (within 0.1 mile) with a presumed noise level at these sensitive receptors of 50 dBA during daytime hours. Indian Route 8034 is approximately 2.5 miles away from the closest identified sensitive receptor and likely is not making a significant contribution to noise levels perceived by that receptor. Based on the noise sources described, existing sound levels at sensitive receptors are expected to range from 45 dBA to 50 dBA for typical daytime noise levels, punctuated with occasional audible sounds from blasting activity. Noise levels due to aircraft-facility operations are unknown at this time. Peabody has regular flights scheduled in the morning and evening unless there is inclement weather. OSM Permanent Regulatory Program Sections 816.61-68 and 817.61-68, as published in the Federal Register on March 8, 1983, were designed to protect the general public from adverse effects of surface mining, including blasting. These OSM regulations were designed to fulfill the intent of Congress in the
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-139 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Surface Mining Act to prevent (1) injury to persons; (2) damage to public and private property outside the permit area; (3) adverse impacts on any underground mine; and (4) change in the course, channel or availability of ground or surface water outside the permit area. OSM developed the Blasting Guidance Manual to assist in compliance with the Act. All permitted mining activity must comply with these OSM regulations. Peabody has conducted a continuous ground-vibration and air-overpressure monitoring program since 1994. Peabody submitted monthly blasting reports to OSM that contain seismographic data including all ground-motion and air-overpressure records. Monitoring levels for ground movement and air overpressure have complied with OSM regulatory requirements since monitoring began; therefore, air blast and vibration impacts from the mining operation have not exceeded established OSM limits. 3.14.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline 3.14.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route The majority of the land traversed by the existing pipeline (which currently is not operational) is rural or undeveloped. However, there are dispersed residences located within 250 feet of the pipeline at 19 locations throughout the route, which also traverses the Kingman area through a rapidly developing suburban area of Kingman. Urban land uses also are near Seligman, Golden Valley, Bullhead City, and Laughlin. The pipeline structures in the study area are typically located underground except for pump stations, which are housed inside buildings. Existing noise sources include the coal-slurry-pipeline pump stations, I-40, other local roads, the BNSF rail line, and commercial and industrial facilities. Noise environments along the existing pipeline route likely include the following: •	 Quiet, rural settings with sound levels of 45 to 50 dBA where noise sources such as roads are 1 mile or more away •	 55 dBA areas where roads are less than 1 mile away •	 65 dBA areas due to a combination of noises such as traffic and industrial uses for receptors less than 0.5 mile away, possibly ranging up to 75 dBA at the closest receptors, depending on the nature of industrial activities •	 70 to 75 dBA areas where receptors are within about 0.5 mile of the railroad, and where there are both roads and railroad •	 Areas at more than 75 dBA, where for receptors are in proximity to both I-40 and the railroad Vibration would be an issue only near transportation sources. According to the Federal Transit Administration (Harris et al. 1995), roadway vibrations are normally not an issue for residences 50 feet or more from roadway rights-of-way; therefore, residences near the study area roadways would notice noise much more than vibration effects. According to Federal Transit Administration’s screening criteria (Harris et al.1995), only residences within 200 feet of the right-of-way of a railroad carrying diesel locomotives may be potentially impacted by vibration. 3.14.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments Along the Kingman reroute, there is a community near the reroute between CSP Mileposts 4 and 7 that is mainly commercial with some residential uses. Sensitive receptors include three residences north of this section. Noise sources at this location include a power substation, the Kingman Airport, and an industrial

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-140

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

park to the north. Noise levels are 55 to 65 dBA Ldn. Four residences occur between reroute CSP Mileposts 14 and 16. Noise sources here include the BNSF rail line, the parallel I-40, and industrial land uses. The closest sensitive receptor is approximately 0.25 mile away from the industrial area and 0.5 mile away from I-40 and the railroad. The Ldn at the closest sensitive receptors is estimated at 45 to 60 dBA depending on the nature of the industrial activity. Vibration issues are the same as discussed above in Section 3.14.2.1. 3.14.3 Water Supply 3.14.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System 3.14.3.1.1 Well Field The well field study area includes the C-aquifer well field and the first 14 miles of the water-supply pipeline. The well field site area is primarily rural in character. There are approximately 90 residences inside the well field study area and surrounding vicinity. Approximately 30 of these residences are within the study area, with an additional 10 residences on the periphery of the boundary (within 0.5 mile). The community of Leupp, with approximately 50 residences, is situated 2.5 miles north of the study area. In addition, the Canyon Diablo Railroad ghost town is of historical significance and may be considered a sensitive receptor. Several transportation noise sources are present within the area, including the BNSF rail line that passes the study area to the south, I-40, State Route 99, and several connecting roads. Additionally, there may be transformer noise associated with a power substation to the south adjacent to I-40 and a utility approximately 0.25 mile west of WSP Milepost 11. Noise levels at the residences in the well field study area located along State Route 99 are, at most, 70 dBA. Sensitive receptors in the general area of the well field probably experience an Ldn of about 50 dBA. Residences in Leupp are exposed to an approximate Ldn of 70 dBA. Residences next to the railroad tracks would have an approximate Ldn of 75 dBA. Vibration would be an issue only near transportation sources. According to the Federal Transit Authority’s screening criteria (Harris et al. 1995), only residences within 200 feet of the BNSF tracks may be potentially affected by vibration. 3.14.3.1.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline 3.14.3.1.2.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route The water-supply pipeline would originate in the well field, and the existing noise environment up to WSP Milepost 14 would be as discussed in the previous section. Though the entire area is rural in character, with active agricultural land uses in some portions, there are noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of most of the pipeline route. With few exceptions these are residences, some dispersed and some clustered. The pipeline would pass within 250 feet of residences in 11 locations. There is also a church and cemetery in Leupp that would be within 250 feet of the route. Schools in Leupp would be located at least 500 feet from the route. Existing noise sources in the area are limited to roads and an industrial facility near Tonalea. The west Kykotsmovi subalternative would traverse the more populated area of Kykotsmovi. The route would pass within 500 feet of residential, commercial, and institutional facilities (e.g., school, hospital), multiple times. This setting was not inventoried for a specific number of receptors. Existing sound levels, accounting for commercial operations and local roads and street traffic, are estimated at 45 to 50 dBA.
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-141 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The east Kykotsmovi subalternative would pass within 500 feet of some residences (fewer than the west Kykotsmovi subalternative) and commercial facilities, but beyond 500 feet of the school and the hospital. The pipeline also would cross under high-voltage power lines multiple times. No noise measurements were taken as part of this study, but based on data from similar settings as well as professional judgment, existing sound levels along the pipeline alternative routes were estimated by identifying the locations of noise sources and the proximity of sensitive receptors. Noise environments likely include the following: •	 Quiet, rural settings with sound levels of 45 to 50 dBA where noise sources such as roads are 1 mile or more away •	 55 dBA areas where roads are less than 1 mile away •	 65 dBA areas due to a combination of noises such as traffic and industrial uses for receptors less than 0.5 mile away, possibly ranging up to 75 dBA for the closest receptors, depending on the nature of industrial activities Vibration would be an issue only near transportation sources, and only to residences within 50 feet of a roadway. 3.14.3.1.2.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline Alignment: Western Route The Western Route is the same as the Eastern Route until WSP Milepost 27, where it would deviate to the west. Only about half of the route is in proximity to noise-sensitive receptors. The other half would pass residential development in 13 locations. The route would pass schools at Leupp and Tonalea and the church at Leupp (mentioned above in Section 3.14.3.2.1) at a distance beyond 500 feet. Existing noise sources include limited commercial uses and roads. The entire area is rural in character. Background noise levels along the northern portion of the Western Route are estimated to be higher than those along the Eastern Route. Residences in the northern portion of the Western Route are located primarily adjacent to U.S. Highway 160 and the Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad; therefore, noise levels in this area could be expected to reach the 70 to 75 dBA level. Noise environments likely include the following: •	 Quiet, rural settings with sound levels of 45 to 50 dBA where noise sources such as roads are 1 mile or more away •	 55 dBA areas where roads are less than 1 mile away •	 45 to 60 dBA areas where residences are about 1 mile from apparent mining/extraction operations north of Leupp •	 70 to 75 dBA areas where receptors are within about 0.5 mile of the railroad, and where there are both roads and the railroad •	 60 to 70 dBA areas near the Kayenta mining operation conveyor and railroad Vibration would be an issue only to residences within 50 feet of a roadway.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-142

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.15 VISUAL RESOURCES
The visual resource inventory describes current visual conditions and includes an evaluation of existing visual conditions such as landscape character, scenic quality, and visual sensitivity. The BLM and Forest Service—as land-management agencies typically concerned with visual resources—have developed objective methodologies to assess the scenic quality of landscapes to help determine a project’s visual impact on the surrounding environment. These methodologies were used for Federal land, and were borrowed for use in assessing landscapes outside areas where formal guidelines apply. Visual classes derived from the BLM’s Visual Resource Management Inventory and Contrast Rating system (VRM) (BLM 1986) and Forest Service Scenery Management System (Forest Service 1995) were used to develop a consistent description of the scenic quality of the natural landscapes within the study area and a class was created for developed land (summarized in Appendix I and Map 3-18). The following description is a composite of separate components of visual resources: •	 Scenic Quality Class A—Unique land of outstanding or distinctive diversity or interest, such as high relief mountains, escarpments, highly dissected canyons, monumental landforms, and scenic riverways •	 Scenic Quality Class B—Land of common or average diversity of interest, consisting of rolling vegetated hills and valleys, mesas, and buttes •	 Scenic Quality Class C—Highly common land and/or land of minimal diversity or interest, such as high desert plateaus or desert basin areas •	 Scenic Quality Class D—Landscapes that have a modified appearance and that exhibit manmade modifications as a result of development, including residential, commercial, and industrial land uses Viewpoints and project visibility were also an important part of the analysis, as well as a determination of the sensitivity of the viewers. Viewer sensitivity is a measure of the degree of concern about change in the visual character of a landscape. By assessing the types of viewers (e.g., recreational hikers in remote areas or residents that see the project from their houses—both viewers of high sensitivity), the land uses on land facing a project (e.g., natural recreation areas or residences), the volume (or numbers) of viewers, the duration of time spent looking at a view, and finally, the influence of adjacent land use on the view (e.g., the presence of an existing industrial facility within the viewshed) were determined. Viewing distances also were considered. The following distance zones, derived from BLM methodology, are based on visual perception thresholds of the basic design elements: form, line, texture, and color. For example, as distance increases, details become less apparent and the elements of form and line become more dominant than color or texture. These distance zones or thresholds are defined based on relative visibility from travel routes or observation points within the study area as noted in Table 3-48. Table 3-48
Distance Zone Immediate foreground Foreground Middleground Background Seldom seen Distance (in miles) 0 to 0.25 0.25 to 0.50 0.5 to 1 1 to 2 Beyond 2

Distance Zone Definitions
Description Details are obvious. Texture and other aesthetic qualities of vegetation are normally perceived within this zone. Landform details are still perceptible but to a lesser degree. Foliage and fine textures cease to be perceptible. Vegetation begins to appear as outlines or patterns. Texture and color are weak, and landform becomes the most dominant element. Topographic relief or vegetative screening obstructs views, or distances are beyond 2 miles.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-143

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Nevada

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-18_ScenicQuality.pdf(par)

Utah

Lincoln County

Washington County

Kane County

Map 3-18
San Juan County

Scenic Quality
Black Mesa Project EIS

Utah Arizona
Page

LEGEND
NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d

Blac k

Kayenta Tsegi

Scenic Quality
Class A
 Class B


Me s

Nevada

Arizona

a
an

Clark County

La ke

0 13

Thief Rock PS
Ra
ilr o

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Class C
 Developed


0 12

we Po
ll

Clark

90
30

Apache County

lora Co

d

r ive oR

a d 10 0

PS #1
10
0 10

Project Features
Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry System Existing Route
 Realignment
 Alternative A Water-Supply System

110

MP 91 PS
20

Tuba City Moenkopi
50

40

90

80

Moenkopi
 Wash
 Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Ra ilwa

Mohave County Coconino County

Tusayan
y

60

70

C-Aquifer Well Field Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route Western Pipeline Route PS = Pump Station

Cameron PS #2
80

70
60

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi

50

90

ny

on

50

Ca

Valle
100
40
40

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110
120

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
0 23

Grand

30

Tolani Lake PS

130

140

30

Tolani Lake PS Leupp Navajo County
20

General Features
River Lake Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary State Boundary

150

PS #4 Seligman
170
0 24

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

270

0 25

10

180

190

200

Kingman
20

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

da a va ni Ne ifor l Ca

210

220

260

10

Kingman Area
 Reroute


Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow

Little Colorad o River

County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad
SOURCE:
 URS Corporation 1996, 2004, 2005


Holbrook

n ifor Ca l
San Bernardino County

Ariz ona
La Paz County Yavapai
 County


ia

November 2008
0 20 Miles 40

Prepared By:
Gila County

For the purpose of describing existing conditions as a baseline for assessing potential effects from project actions, the visual region of influence is defined as the area wherein potential undesirable visual effects from construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project may be discerned. A 4-mile-wide study corridor, 2 miles on each side of the reference centerline, was used to inventory visual resources as it represents an approximate threshold for moderate to high visual impacts. In special locations identified by cooperating agencies, resources were studied beyond 2 miles. The visual region of influence includes a diverse range of largely undeveloped, natural landscapes. These landscapes are generally vast and expan­ sive, permitting extensive views of undisturbed land. Developed areas include small villages, towns, and communities, and a few areas of major development such as Kingman, Seligman, and Bullhead City, Arizona. Developed areas include communities, rural residences, agricultural land and ranches, mines and coal mining facilities, and other utility facilities. Communities ranging in size from modest-sized towns to small rural establishments and suburban environments were identified within the study corridors. Communities close to the study area corridor include Leupp, Kykotsmovi, Seligman, Kingman, and Bullhead City, Arizona; and Laughlin, Nevada. The eastern end of the study area crosses the Hopi and Navajo Reservations. Dispersed agricultural activity occurs throughout the Hopi Reservation in washes and along the smaller drainages. The study area was characterized using physiographic provinces, or geomorphic regions that are broadscale subdivisions based on terrain texture, rock type, and geologic structure and history. The Black Mesa study area is contained within two major physiographic provinces, Basin and Range and Colorado Plateau (and a transition zone between the two), which exhibit several unique landscape settings and viewing conditions. The Basin and Range province is distinguished by isolated, roughly parallel, north-south trending mountain ranges separated by closed (undrained) desert basins. The Colorado Plateau’s major distinguishing features are landforms cut by wind and water erosion from the largely horizontal strata and the relatively high elevations of this province (Fenneman 1931). Several different and unique landscape character types are evident throughout the two primary physiographic provinces (as described in the Forest Service’s manual, Landscape Character Types of the National Forests of Arizona and New Mexico: the Visual Management System). These were used to define five basic landscape character types within the study area: Navajo, Flagstaff, Grand Canyon, Tonto, and Mohave. The Navajo landscape type, described as an area of young plateaus with broad open valleys, composes a large portion of the study area, including landscapes near Leupp and Cameron. Horizontal sandstone beds, eroded tablelands, cuestas, rock terraces, receding escarpments, shallow canyons, rolling desert plains, and dry washes are all characteristic of this landscape. Vegetation within this landscape is typically sparse and consists of piñon/juniper woodlands, plains grassland, salt brush, and sagebrush; bare soil and rock are common. The Flagstaff landscape type is characterized as an undissected plateau containing extensive lava flows and volcanic cones. This type is evident in landscapes roughly west of Cameron to Seligman, Arizona. Vegetation is predominantly coniferous forest (montane conifer), mountain meadow grassland, plains grassland, and piñon/juniper woodland. Dry washes, riparian deciduous forests, and woodlands are common along watercourses. The Grand Canyon landscape type is described as an area of high plateaus trenched by the Colorado River to form the Grand Canyon. This type is divided into two subtypes, plateaus and canyons, because of their physiographic differences. Plateaus are characterized as desert or forested plateaus, bisected by washes. The Hualapai and Coconino plateaus west of Seligman belong to the plateau subtype.
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-145 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The Tonto landscape type encompasses the area between the Mogollon Escarpment and the Gila River. Generally, the landscape varies from desert plains and hills to forested plateaus and mountains. This type has two general subtypes, Sonoran Arizona Uplands and Upper Tonto, because of differences in physiography and vegetation. A section of the study area corridor west of Seligman is located within the Upper Tonto landscape and is characterized by some tilted fault block and dissected mountains. The area consists of primarily tablelands that have been carved from an extensive plateau. At higher elevations the dominant vegetation is coniferous forest. At lower elevations there is a prevalence of the piñon/juniper woodlands and isolated occurrences of oak woodlands, plains grassland, and desert grassland. The Mohave landscape type, described as flat plains broken up by the Colorado River Valley and small ranges of tilted fault-block mountains, is found in western Arizona and southern Nevada. This type can be jagged, with steeply sloped escarpments, bare rock with sharp ridges, and V-shaped ravines, or conversely, gentle dipping slopes. The vegetation is typically open with bare soil, or desert pavement (caliche) and bare rock with creosotebush. Piñon/juniper woodlands are prevalent near foothills and mountains. Most land of the Mohave landscape character type has dry washes that drain to basins. The Colorado River, however, is a swiftly flowing river in a canyon varying in depth and remains the only perennial watercourse in the Mohave region. The study area corridor traverses the Mohave region at the western end of the coal-slurry corridor from Kingman, Arizona, to Laughlin, Nevada. 3.15.1 Black Mesa Complex The Black Mesa Complex is located in the northern portion of the Navajo landscape type in an area characterized by rolling piñon/juniper woodlands, rock outcroppings, reclaimed mining land, and operational open pit mines (Table I-2 in Appendix I). The complex is located atop the Black Mesa, a major geographic feature of the Colorado Plateau. This extensive plateau rises to about 8,200 feet above MSL at its highest point. Reclamation from mining activities has transformed a large portion of the mesa from piñon/juniper to grassland. Several residences are located within the Black Mesa Complex. Depending on orientation, screening, and distance, the residents view active mine operations, swaths of reclaimed land, and/or natural landscapes. Ongoing mining operations are visible from some residences. New mining areas and facilities would be adjacent to existing mining areas and facilities and disturbed areas (e.g., mine pits, buildings, and roads). The coal-slurry preparation plant, which currently is not operating, is located in the western part of the Black Mesa Complex, and the proposed coal-washing facility would be located nearby. The proposed coal-haul road would pass between the western and eastern legs of Black Mesa Complex. The viewing conditions and the potential viewers of the proposed facilities would be the same as those described for Black Mesa Complex. 3.15.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline 3.15.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route The existing pipeline route passes east to west through all five of the major landscape types, including areas of Navajo, Flagstaff, Grand Canyon Plateaus, Upper Tonto, and Mohave. Each possesses different characteristics of landform, vegetation, and water (Table I-3 in Appendix I). Beginning at the Black Mesa mining operation and heading southwest, the existing pipeline route passes through the characteristic piñon/juniper woodlands of Black Mesa and crosses several washes, the most distinguished of which is the Moenkopi Wash. It traverses dissected, high desert plains, and significant landscape features such as Coal Mine Mesa, Tohnali Mesa, Adeii Eechii Cliffs, and Ward Terrace. After crossing the Little Colorado River, it continues southwest, along the southern end of Gray Mountain and the Little Colorado River Basin.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-146

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The Flagstaff and Grand Canyon Plateau landscapes were combined for analysis purposes because the pipeline crosses a relatively small portion of each. Within the Flagstaff landscape, the pipeline crosses piñon/juniper woodlands and grasslands with lava outcrops. As the existing route crosses Cataract Canyon and enters the Grand Canyon Plateau landscape, the landscape becomes a dense concentration of piñon/juniper woodlands and grassland. The pipeline passes just north of the town of Seligman where the Aubrey Cliffs are a distinctive landmark in the general vicinity of the pipeline corridor. The route parallels I-40 for approximately 7 miles along Upper Tonto landscape, and then veers northwest through the foothills of the Juniper Mountains. The existing route passes through dissected plains and enters a landscape of rolling piñon/juniper woodlands, as well as traversing the Cottonwood Mountains. The landscape is characterized by extensive plateaus, tablelands including mesas and buttes, and canyons of moderate depth. Mountains are jagged, with sharp angular peaks, upturned edges, and tilted fault blocks. The bajadas and foothills of the Cottonwood and Peacock Mountains, and the Hualapai Valley—all characteristic of the Mohave landscape—precede the corridor into the City of Kingman, Arizona. Near Kingman, the pipeline route crosses the Cerbat Mountains, and development ranges from urban to rural from Kingman through the Sacramento Valley to the Black Mountains. The route then drops to a lower elevation and traverses desert basin landscape with scattered desertscrub as it enters the developed areas of Bullhead City, Arizona, and Laughlin, Nevada, to terminate at the Mohave Generating Station. Dispersed residential viewers are within viewing distance of the existing pipeline route at varying locations along the corridor. The pipeline alignment is characterized by exposed soil, cleared vegetation, and intermittent signage/pipeline markers. Low-density residential pockets within the foreground distance occur along the pipeline outside the more densely populated areas. In developed areas such as Kingman, many residences are located close to the existing pipeline route, but have some to full visual screening of the route. In the rural, low-density residential areas southwest of Cameron, the pipeline maintenance road is in full view of residents within the immediate-foreground or foreground distance zone. Designated scenic routes and routes providing access to scenic areas are in proximity to the coal-slurry pipeline. From Williams, Arizona, heading north to the Grand Canyon, State Route 64 and the Grand Canyon Scenic Railroad both cross the pipeline route several miles due south of Valle, Arizona. Just west of Seligman, the existing route runs parallel to I-40 for approximately 7 miles, as it heads west to Kingman, Arizona. Viewers expecting scenic landscapes often travel these routes. The existing pipeline route crosses historic Route 66. Recreational viewing opportunities occur along the existing pipeline route in several areas where viewers may engage in motorized and nonmotorized recreational activities. The sensitivity of viewers towards the scenic quality of an area depends on the area as well as the type of activity. Hikers, for example, would perhaps have higher expectations for scenery than off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreationists where the vehicle, rather than the scene, is the focus. Cerbat Mountain recreation areas accommodate several different types of recreation, and have views of the existing route depending on the orientation and location of the viewer. The existing pipeline route crosses approximately 5 miles of Forest Service land in the northwestern corner of Kaibab National Forest in the Williams Ranger District. The Forest Service manages this land to accommodate a moderate level of modification, given the existing natural setting has been modified, the scenic quality is defined as Class B, and there is a lack of sensitive viewers.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-147

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The existing route also crosses several areas of BLM-managed land. The Mount Nutt Wilderness and Black Mountains ACEC near the Black Mountains east of Laughlin, Nevada, are designated by BLM as VRM Class I and II landscapes, respectively, which receive the highest amount of protection against changes that would impact a landscape’s scenic quality (BLM 1993). BLM-managed land in the Cerbat Foothills Recreation Area is also designated as VRM Class IV (refer to Map 3-18) (BLM 1986). 3.15.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments The Kingman reroute within the Mohave landscape would cross the foothills north of the Hualapai Mountains for approximately 12 miles and begin to enter the Sacramento Valley area as it runs west. Development is situated within mountains and foothills in this landscape in the eastern segment of the reroute. As the reroute continues west through the Sacramento Valley, desert basin grassland is host to scattered development (Table I-4 in Appendix I). The route would reconnect with the existing pipeline, as it enters the foothills of the Black Mountains. The Kingman reroute would pass through or adjacent to several residential areas within immediate-foreground-to-middleground distance zone from the following mileposts: Kingman reroute CSP Milepost 4 to 6, east of the Hualapai Mountains (within immediate­ foreground-to-middleground viewing distances); Kingman reroute CSP Milepost 14 to 15, west of the Hualapai Mountains (0.5-mile south of the reroute); Kingman reroute SCP Milepost 15.5 to 16.5, a residential development (immediate-foreground views); and CSP Milepost 22 to 27 (immediate­ foreground-to-middleground views) (refer to Map 3-18). The Kingman reroute would pass through BLM land with the following VRM classifications: VRM Class IV landscapes (which allow high modification); VRM Class III landscapes (which allow nondominant modifications to the existing landscape); and two small segments of VRM Class II landscapes (which allows for low modification of the existing natural landscape). The Mount Nutt Wilderness and Black Mountains ACEC near the Black Mountains east of Laughlin, Nevada, are designated as VRM Class I and II landscapes, respectively, which receives the highest amount of protection against changes that would impact a landscape’s scenic quality (BLM 1993). 3.15.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System 3.15.3.1 Well Field The well field area would be located within the Navajo landscape type. The immediate landscape is barren, with an exposed reddish-brown soil. Vegetation is minimal with occasional occurrence of desertscrub brush during seasons of high rainfall. Occasional outcroppings of rock offer some visual diversity (Table I-5 in Appendix I). Several rural residences are dispersed within the well field area. The lack of vegetation and topographic relief within the well field area provides vast, unobstructed views with very little screening. Residential viewers at WSP Milepost 3, just east of WSP Mileposts 4 and 7, and at WSP Milepost 10 would have foreground-to-background views of the proposed project facilities. Existing visual disturbances such as windmills, existing wells, and water storage tanks are present within the landscape as part of previous modifications to the landscape. 3.15.3.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline 3.15.3.2.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route The Eastern Route would be located entirely within a Navajo-type landscape (Table I-6 in Appendix I). The route would traverse washes, desert plateaus, mesas, and piñon/juniper woodlands typical of Navajo landscapes. The route would begin at the well field area and cross the Little Colorado River near the community of Leupp. The Little Colorado River creates a distinctive path of eroded edges, vegetative patterns, and sandy beds, and can be identified from long distances because of color and texture contrasts

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-148

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

of vegetation, water, and sand. The Eastern Route also would parallel and cross some distinctive washes such as the Dinnebito and Oraibi Washes; these washes are typically dry drainages that run during high rainfall and provide stringers of vegetation and varying degrees of cut banks adding texture, color, and line elements to the landscape. To the east is the Painted Desert, characterized by its relatively colorful flat topography and subtle land changes such as small washes, sandy areas, and randomly occurring rugged terrain. Several mesas appear on the route as it runs north to the Black Mesa Complex. The Newberry, Garces, Second, Third, and Padilla Mesas feature varying degrees of mesa grassland, vegetation, and eroded cliffs and edges, providing contrasting colors and textures to the landscape. The Eastern Route would pass residences located along the fringes of several communities, including Leupp, Kykotsmovi, and just east of Hard Rock. Dispersed rural residences in the area of the well field, along Indian Route 2, northeast of Newberry Mesa, east of the Many Bobcat Hills area, and within the Black Mesa Complex, also would be close to the route, and there are a few residences along the Oraibi and Dinnebito Washes and adjacent to Indian Routes 22 and 8029. Most of those residences would have views ranging from open to partially screened with immediate-foreground or foreground views of the proposed project facilities. The project would potentially be in view of several residences dispersed along the alignment within the middleground and background distance zones. For the project, two potential 69kV power line corridors (north and south alternatives) and two substation locations have been identified west of the community of Leupp. The substations and power lines would draw power from a larger high-voltage power line and deliver it to the pump stations located along the pipeline. Once reaching the proposed pipeline, the 69kV line would travel south (to supply power to the well sites) and north (to possibly as far as WSP Milepost 73). The primary proposed pump stations would be located along the pipeline at approximately WSP Mileposts 30 and 73. The Eastern Route would cross State Route 264 north of Kykotsomovi. The Navajo Transportation Plan (Navajo Nation Department of Transportation 2003) identifies this route as a high-sensitivity travel route; views from this route are typically panoramic of open desert plains and mesas. The Eastern Route also would be adjacent to existing moderate-sensitivity travel routes such as U.S. Highway 99 and Indian Routes 2, 22, 41, and 8029 for a large segment of the alignment. Scattered occurrences of distribution power lines are common along the transportation corridors and along secondary roads serving rural residences (Navajo Nation Department of Transportation 2003). 3.15.3.2.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route The Western Route is identical to the Eastern Route until it diverges to turn northwest across the Navajo Reservation at WSP Milepost 27. Continuing from there northwest along the top of Newberry Mesa, it then would descend into Dinnebito Wash and travel toward the distinctive natural landmarks of Ward Terrace, Red Rock Cliffs, Adeii Eechii Cliffs, Tohnali Mesa, and Coal Mine Mesa. Continuing north, it would cross an eroding terrace and several miles within three canyons (Begashibito, Coal Mine, and Ha Ho No Gey Canyon). The northern end of the Western Route would pass through desert plains and several valleys (Red Lake and Kletha Valley), and would traverse the Black Mesa escarpment across rolling piñon/juniper woodlands at the top of the mesa as it enters the Black Mesa Complex (Table I-7 in Appendix I). The Western Route has potential to be viewed by a number of residential viewers. From the point of deviation from the Eastern Route at WSP Milepost 27, the Western Route would, for the next 18 miles, pass multiple rural and/or dispersed residences within immediate-foreground and foreground distance zones, with very little screening of the proposed project facilities. Additionally, dispersed residences along this segment are within foreground and middleground distance zones. Some residences on the Moenkopi Plateau would be within the immediate-foreground distance zone of the route. As it continues north, the route would pass residences within the middleground to background
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-149 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

distance zones, and farther north, heavy concentrations of residential development along U.S. Highway 160 (between WSP Mileposts 91.5 and 127) would be within the immediate-foreground­ to-background distance zones. Turning southeast and entering the Black Mesa Complex, it would pass residences within the complex with partially screened middleground to background views, before terminating at the Black Mesa mining operation. The Western Route would be in proximity to two designated high-sensitivity travel routes—State Route 264 and U.S. Highway 160. It would cross State Route 264 at approximately the western WSP Milepost 71.5 and parallel U.S. Highway 160 for nearly 40 miles to connect with the Black Mesa Complex. Views from these travel routes are generally open and panoramic (Navajo Nation Department of Transportation 2003).

3.16 TRANSPORTATION
The study area for transportation includes the Black Mesa Complex, proposed well field, and a 2-mile­ wide study corridor (1 mile on each side of the reference centerline) along proposed linear facilities (the coal-slurry pipeline, water-supply pipeline routes). Roads, railroads, airports, and airstrips serve the transportation needs of visitors and area residents, businesses, and industries. A broad regional surface transportation network stretches from the Hopi and Navajo Reservations and extends through northern Arizona to Laughlin. The two major transportation corridors intersected by the project are U.S. Highway 89 from Flagstaff to Page (two lanes with passing lanes) and the transcontinental east-west I-40 from Kingman to Winslow (four lanes, divided). U.S. Highway 89 serves as a major road traveled by visitors to the popular Grand Canyon National Park. Primary transportation corridors in the study area, mainly two-lane roads, are presented in Table 3-49. Local community and access needs throughout the study area are met by American Indian reservation routes, BIA routes, State and county roads (i.e., secondary roads), and unimproved roads. Table 3-49 Primary Transportation Corridors
Communities/Cities Connected by Transportation Corridor
Tuba City to Kayenta Window Rock to Tuba CityMoenkopi Leupp to Kykotsmovi Leupp to Winslow The northern terminus of Arizona Highway 87 at Second Mesa with the southern terminus of U.S. Highway 163 at Kayenta U.S. Highway 160 to Piñon, Arizona Canyon Diablo Historic Highway 99 State Route 264 at Second Mesa to Piñon, Arizona Holbrook to Needles Flagstaff to Page Williams to Tusayan to Cameron Flagstaff to Valle 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes – only partially complete

Project Region

Transportation Corridor
U.S. Highway 160 Arizona Highway 264 Indian Reservation Route 2 Arizona Highway 99 Indian Route 4 “Turquoise Trail” BIA 41 Indian Route 6930 Indian Route 4

Notes

Eastern

2 lanes, partially unpaved 2 lanes, unpaved 2 lanes, does not cross proposed water-supply line 4 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes, designated scenic

Eastern to western Central

Interstate 40 U.S. Highway 89 Arizona Highway 64 U.S. Highway 180

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-150

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Historic Route 66 Central and western U.S. Highway 93

Ash Fork to Golden Shores

Kingman to Hoover (Boulder) Dam Arizona Highway 68 Kingman to Laughlin 2 lanes Arizona Highway 95 Laughlin to Needles 2 lanes NOTE: The table represents primary transportation corridors within northern Arizona regions. The Black Mesa Project does not cross all identified transportation corridors. BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs Western

2 lanes, designated a historic route and a national backcountry byway 2 lanes

The study area can be divided into three distinct regions: (1) the eastern region (the Hopi and Navajo Reservations and the land north of I-40 near Winslow), (2) the central region (including the towns of Seligman and Valle), and (3) the western region (including the incorporated cities of Kingman, Bullhead City, and Laughlin). The partially completed “Turquoise Trail” (also called Indian Route 4) is located in the eastern region of the project area within northeastern Arizona on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations. This important roadway is intended to connect the existing northern terminus of Arizona Highway 87 at Second Mesa with the existing southern terminus of U.S. Highway 163 at Kayenta. When completed, the road will provide direct access to the Black Mesa Complex from the Hopi Reservation communities, allowing Hopi people direct access to the Peabody mining operation at the complex for employment (refer to Section 3.11). The trail also will serve as an access corridor for proposed rights-of-way, facilitate northsouth travel on the eastern side of the reservation, and enhance the regional travel network (Hopi Office of Community Planning & Economic Development 2001). Funds were authorized in 2006 by the Federal Highway Administration to be distributed to ADOT to continue construction of the Turquoise Trail. Railroads within the study area include the BNSF rail line (a major U.S. common carrier from Chicago to Los Angeles), the Grand Canyon excursion train, and the Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad that hauls coal to the Navajo Generating Station from the Kayenta mining operation. Two airports near the study area are located in the Cities of Kingman and Bullhead City. The Kingman Airport is located in northeast Kingman and is classified as a commercial airport. Laughlin/Bullhead City International Airport is a full-service regional airport with daily flights across the country (Bullhead City 2002). It is located within northern Bullhead City and is classified as a non-hub primary commercial service airport (Bullhead City 2002). One active airstrip, Bedard Field, is located within Black Mesa Complex. There are also airfields and airstrips located near the study area in Cameron, Kingman, Kayenta, Tuba City, Leupp, Chinle, Shonto, Rocky Ridge, Piñon, Polacca, and Seligman. Heliports are located near medical facilities within the Cities of Kingman and Bullhead City. 3.16.1 Black Mesa Complex Indian Route 41 provides access to the Black Mesa Complex. The route extends from the junction of Arizona Highway 564 and U.S. Highway 160, approximately 21 miles southwest of Kayenta, and enters the Black Mesa Complex from the west. It acts as the main transportation artery within the mine area, with connecting side roads granting access to all Black Mesa Complex facilities. Continuing southeastward, Indian Route 41 exits the Black Mesa Complex approximately 30 miles north of Piñon, Arizona (Peabody 1986). Other roads on the Black Mesa Complex serve as access for local residents (and for school buses). In winter months, Peabody plows snow from these roads as needed. Peabody has constructed or upgraded both primary and ancillary roads within the Black Mesa Complex. The primary roads include coal-haul and mine-vehicle roads a minimum of 50 feet wide, and coal-haul, mine-vehicle, and dragline deadheading roads approximately 150 feet wide (OSM 1990). To gain access

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-151

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

to mine facilities in remote sites, on-highway vehicles most frequently use ancillary roads. There are two types: two-lane roads a minimum of 24 feet wide, and single-lane roads with a minimum width of a bulldozer blade or a motor-grader blade. The single-lane roads usually follow the natural topography and were established by area residents prior to mining activities (OSM 1990). Transportation within the Black Mesa Complex also includes a conveyor-belt system and airstrip. Approximately 592 acres on the Black Mesa Complex have been disturbed to accommodate coal-haul roads (OSM 1990). The coal-haul road, proposed as part of Alternative A, would be land outside the Black Mesa Complex to connect the J-23 coal-resource area with the initial program area of the Black Mesa Complex. The route would be within the Hopi Reservation. The haul-road network within the Black Mesa Complex is broken into numerous segments; the present haul road network in the permanent program permit area of the Black Mesa Complex is 10 miles long, and the present haul road network in the initial program area of the Black Mesa Complex is about 8 miles long. The Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad that hauls coal from the Kayenta mining operation to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona, is located west of the Black Mesa Complex and north of U.S. Highway 160. The original airstrip facilities located on the Black Mesa Complex are abandoned (the Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc., airstrip). The existing airstrip on the Black Mesa Complex, Bedard Field, was constructed on reclaimed spoil in the J-3 area; this is the only active airstrip within the Black Mesa Complex. Facilities include a paved access road, a paved runway that extends approximately 7,500 feet long and 80 feet wide, a paved tie-down area, a parking area with storage buildings, and various other structures related to the airstrip. Access is provided to the proposed coal-washing facility site and the coal-slurry preparation plant (which currently is not in operation) through the road network on the Black Mesa Complex, as well as by Indian Route 8434 (south of the Black Mesa Complex). 3.16.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline 3.16.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route The existing coal-slurry pipeline route crosses and parallels primary and secondary roads along its route from the Black Mesa Complex to Laughlin. A network of dispersed, unimproved roads provides access to remote houses and areas on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations. Larger cities, such as Kingman, Bullhead City, and Golden Valley, contain many highly traveled or local access roads that are crossed or paralleled by the route. In the eastern region, within the Black Mesa Complex, the existing route crosses Indian Route 41 and, as the coal-slurry pipeline leaves the Black Mesa Complex, it crosses and parallels unimproved roads for several miles past the Black Mesa Complex. Indian routes paralleled and/or crossed by the existing route between CSP Mileposts 4 and 97 include Indian Route 6, Indian Route 6250, and Indian Route 6730, among many other unimproved roads. In the central region, the existing pipeline route continues west from the Navajo Reservation and crosses U.S. Highway 180 as the highway leaves the Kaibab National Forest. The Kaibab National Forest portion of U.S. Highway 180 is considered scenic. After crossing U.S. Highway 180, the route parallels an unimproved access road through the forest for approximately 5 miles before leaving the forest. The existing pipeline route crosses Arizona Highway 64 near CSP Milepost 123. Continuing southwest, near Seligman in Yavapai County, Arizona (CSP Milepost 171), the existing pipeline route parallels the north side of I-40, a major east-west travel corridor. At CSP Milepost 178, the pipeline route departs the I-40

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-152

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

corridor, crossing and/or paralleling unimproved roads until it enters the City of Kingman, where it is buried beneath Gordon Drive (CSP Mileposts 234 to 237). In the western region, the existing pipeline route passes through the City of Kingman, Sacramento/Golden Valley, and Bullhead City. It crosses Arizona Highway Route 66 near the City of Kingman. U.S. Highway 93 parallels and then crosses the existing pipeline route near CSP Milepost 242. As it enters Bullhead City from the east, the pipeline route crosses Arizona Highway 95 (a primary road) and Bullhead Parkway (a four-lane road). Silver Creek Road, located south of the pipeline right-of-way, is the only connection between these two roads. The pipeline then crosses under the Colorado River and enters Laughlin, Nevada, where it crosses Casino Drive, between CSP Mileposts 270 and 271. The existing pipeline crosses under a runway of the Laughlin/Bullhead City International Airport near CSP Milepost 270. The BNSF rail line crosses the pipeline route at CSP Mileposts 170 and 234. The Grand Canyon Railway crosses the pipeline route at CSP Milepost 125. The existing route crosses two roadways identified for improvement by ADOT: U.S. Highway 89 and Arizona Highway 64 (ADOT 2004). ADOT plans to widen U.S. Highway 89 to four lanes (from highway Milepost 442 to Milepost 482), raise the median, and add three new interchanges with intermittent turn lanes. U.S. Highway 89 crosses the existing pipeline near CSP Milepost 78, within the area of improvements. Arizona Highway 64 (highway Milepost 185 to Milepost 235) is planned for additional paved shoulders, widening of some segments to four lanes, additional turn lanes, and construction of several passing lanes (ADOT 2004). Arizona Highway 64 crosses the existing pipeline near CSP Milepost 123, an area identified for improvements. In addition, ADOT is currently in the process of deciding on a corridor for the realignment of Arizona Highway 95. The alternative corridors are generally located east of Bullhead City and west of the Mount Nutt and Warm Springs Wilderness Areas from Arizona Highway 68 to I-40. The existing coal-slurry pipeline route would cross ADOT’s current preferred corridor for the Arizona Highway 95 reroute near CSP Milepost 265. The City of Kingman has approved a project to add a third lane to Gordon Drive. In addition, the existing pipeline may cross (near CSP Milepost 230) the proposed north-south road associated with interchange improvements at I-40 and Rattlesnake Wash. 3.16.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments The pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash would cross only unimproved roads. The Kingman reroute would cross and parallel typical city roads leading to residential areas and it would cross U.S. Highway 93. I-40 would be crossed by the Kingman reroute (and paralleled by the BNSF rail line). The City of Kingman has indicated that there is a plan for a new traffic interchange on I-40 at Rattlesnake Wash (located in proximity to Milepost 2 of the Kingman reroute). The north-south connecting road would also intersect the reroute at Milepost 2.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-153

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.16.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System 3.16.3.1 Well Field The transportation network that extends through the well field includes secondary Indian Routes, including Indian Route 6930 and Arizona Highway 99. I-40 is located approximately 1 mile south of the well field. The BNSF rail line passes through the southwestern corner of the Navajo portion and just north of the Hopi Hart Ranch portion of the well field. 3.16.3.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline 3.16.3.2.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route The Eastern Route would begin at the well field and parallel Indian Route 6930, Arizona Highway 99, and Indian Route 2 for portions of its route. For approximately 4 miles, the Eastern Route would travel approximately 1 mile west of Indian Route 2 just south of the community of Kykotsmovi. The western subalternative would be located beneath the main roadway through the community of Kykotsmovi, and would cross Arizona Highway 264 as it exits the community. The eastern subalternative would be located beneath Indian Route 2, bypassing Kykotsmovi on its eastern edge, and also would be located beneath Arizona Highway 264 for less than 0.5 mile before it exits the community. Exiting the community of Kykotsmovi, it would continue north along Indian Route 2. There would be approximately 3 miles of the Eastern Route that would not follow an existing transportation corridor. The Eastern Route would parallel the Turquoise Trail, a transportation corridor and potential utility corridor. (This portion of the Turquoise Trail would be paved.) It would next parallel an unimproved route, and then Indian Route 41, within a disturbed transportation corridor. 3.16.3.2.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route The Western Route would be identical to the Eastern Route to WSP Milepost 27, where the Western Route diverges. The route would then parallel dispersed, unimproved roads for approximately 65 miles before joining with U.S. Highway 160. Approximately 20 percent of the route would not parallel an existing transportation corridor, though it would occasionally cross transportation corridors in these segments. The Western Route also would parallel the Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad along the U.S. Highway 160 portion of its route.

3.17 RECREATION
Northern Arizona offers mountains, lakes, deserts, canyons, and forests with a wide variety of recreational opportunities. Major tourist attractions are the Grand Canyon National Park, Colorado River, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Lake Powell/Glen Canyon Recreation Area, Navajo National Monument, and Monument Valley. Developed and semideveloped campgrounds, day-use picnic areas, and trailheads are available for recreation in the region. Recreation in the study area is managed by American Indian tribes (Hopi and Navajo), the Forest Service, BLM, AGFD, counties, and cities. OHV use, hiking, wildlife viewing, camping, hunting, mountain biking, and horseback riding are popular recreational activities in the study area. The Colorado River is a center of much recreational activity, including boating (a primary activity). The study area for recreation includes the Black Mesa Complex and a 0.125-mile buffer on either side of the reference centerline (although areas outside of this were mapped) along proposed linear facilities (the coal-slurry pipeline and water-supply pipeline). Recreational areas were identified from community, city,

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-154

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

and county land use plans in addition to BLM and Forest Service resource management plans and guidelines. Field review confirmed recreational uses in many areas. According to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, no component of the Black Mesa Project would cross a designated wild and scenic river within Arizona (National Park Service 2005b); however, components of the project would cross several major transportation corridors that lead to visited recreation areas. 3.17.1 Black Mesa Complex The location of Kayenta, Arizona, along the Colorado Plateau (approximately 15 miles northeast from the center of the Black Mesa Complex), places it amid geological and archaeological features that stimulate tourism throughout northeastern Arizona. Two of these attractions nearest Kayenta are Navajo National Monument (approximately 15 miles west of Kayenta) and Monument Valley Navajo Tribal Park (22 miles north of Kayenta) (Map 3-19). No specific data are available on the use of the Black Mesa Complex for recreation. Residents report that the area is sparsely used for sightseeing (OSM 1990). Possible recreational activities may include hiking and game or bird hunting. The Moenkopi Wash area may be the more prominent location for game hunting, commercial trapping, bird watching, and photography. Hiking may occur to a limited extent north of the Black Mesa Complex near the rim of Black Mesa. The area of Black Mesa near the Black Mesa Complex is closed to all biggame hunting (Peabody 1986). There are no recreational resources in the immediate vicinity of the coal-slurry preparation plant or the proposed coal-washing facility located on the Black Mesa Complex, or the proposed coal-haul road. 3.17.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline 3.17.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route Recreational opportunities along the existing pipeline route are generally located in designated areas (i.e., special management areas); however, trails (including historical trails) and other nondeveloped areas are located throughout northern Arizona. Virtually all of the land along the existing route provides open space for dispersed recreational activities. The Hopi Tribe, Forest Service, City of Kingman, Mohave County, BLM, Bullhead City, and AGFD manage recreational uses along the existing alignment. No developed or designated recreational areas are located along the existing route on the Navajo Reservation. The existing route crosses through Blue Canyon Special Management Area, located in the northwestern part of the Hopi Reservation. The area, managed by the Hopi Tribe, totals approximately 36,860 acres and was dedicated to conservation and outdoor recreation purposes, as described in the Hopi land use and development plan. However, the area has not yet been developed. Residents of Third Mesa currently use the land within the special management area for traditional gatherings (Hopi Office of Community Planning & Economic Development 2001). The existing route crosses through the special management area for approximately 1 mile. The Hopi Tribe also has identified environmental reserve areas. These areas constitute woodland areas, the Blue Canyon Special Management Area, riparian areas, and washes.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-155

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The Kaibab National Forest is composed of three separate land areas located in north-central Arizona. Most of the area is piñon/juniper woodland, and is valuable wildlife habitat for mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, and turkey. The existing pipeline route crosses the Williams Ranger District, which lies in a designated utility corridor within Coconino County near CSP Mileposts 113 to 117. The 5-mile-long pipeline segment that passes through the Kaibab National Forest is mostly classified by the Forest Service as “roaded modified”3 with a small portion of the route located in the “roaded natural area.” The existing route parallels one public park in the City of Kingman near CSP Milepost 237. A second public park is located 0.5 mile away from the pipeline, also near CSP Milepost 237. The section of BLM land located just outside of Kingman (between CSP Mileposts 237 and 238) is designated for open space preservation (City of Kingman 2003). There are some areas within the City of Kingman that are open to OHV use. The Cerbat Foothills Recreation Area is located between Kingman and Sacramento Valley along the existing route between CSP Mileposts 240 and 242. The recreation area is comanaged by the City of Kingman and the BLM Kingman Field Office, with funding from the Trails Heritage Fund (which is managed by Arizona State Parks), and includes a trail system. The trails system consists of the Camp Beale Loop Trail, Castle Rock Trail, Badger Trail, Monolith Garden Loop Trails (construction complete in 2005), and the Camp Beale Spring Historic Site. The trail system accommodates recreational uses such as equestrian, hiking, and bicycling. Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails within the Cerbat Foothills Recreation Area. The community of Golden Valley shares its border with the Cerbat Foothills Recreation Area. The large amount of undeveloped land in the community have served as de facto open space for the local residents for hiking, horseback riding, and off-road driving, as well as for undesignated uses such as trash dumping (Mohave County 2002). The Mount Nutt Wilderness, just west of Kingman and managed by the BLM Kingman Field Office, is paralleled intermittently by the existing route between CSP Mileposts 257 and 262. The wilderness lies within the Black Mountains, and is home to bighorn sheep. Recreational activities supported by the area include camping, climbing, hiking and backpacking, horseback riding, hunting, and wildlife viewing. The Mount Nutt Wilderness Area is closed to OHV use. The pipeline parallels, but is not within, the wilderness area boundary. The Black Mountain Ecosystem Management ACEC also is managed by BLM. The Black Mountains provide a complex mix of resource values for wildlife, livestock, wild burros, and people. The presence of wilderness, rich mineral deposits, important wildlife habitat, a wild burro area, and abundant recreation opportunities can lead to conflicting uses in key areas of the Black Mountains. The Black Mountains Ecosystem Management ACEC was proposed to focus management attention on resolving these conflicts. OHV use, hunting, rockhounding, and wilderness hiking are a few of the recreational activities that take place within the ACEC (BLM 1993). The existing route is within a designated utility corridor in the ACEC between CSP Mileposts 256 and 259. The Colorado River Heritage Greenway Trail is a 30-milelong multiple-use trail that extends from Lake Mead to the Colorado River Nature Center in Bullhead

These terms are from the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management, and Research, a U.S. Forest Service guide that allows U.S. Forest Service managers to describe and provide a range of recreation opportunities from highly developed areas (urban, rural, roaded natural, roaded modified) to areas with little or no development (semiprimitive motorized and nonmotorized primitive) (Forest Service 1979).

3

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-156

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\ENVPLANNING\Peabody\Black Mesa Project EIS 2008\GIS\plots\June2008\Map_3-19_Recreation.pdf(par)

Nevada

Utah

Lincoln County

Washington County

Kane County

Map 3-19
Lake Powell/ Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Page

Utah Arizona
12B

Monument Valley Navajo Tribal Park

San Juan County

Recreation/Special Designations
Black Mesa Project EIS

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d

Navajo National Monument
Tsegi

LEGEND
Kayenta

Blac k

Recreation
14

Nevada

Arizona

AGFD Game Management Unit and Number
 Wilderness Area
 BLM Area of Critical Environmental Concern BLM National Monument

Me s
a

13A

Clark County

Kaibab National Forest
12AW

an

La

ke

0 13

Thief Rock PS
Ra
ilr o a

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

0 12

we Po

13B

ll

Clark

90
30

Apache County

lo Co

rad

r ive oR

12AE MP 91 PS

d 100

PS #1
10

National Forest National Park

110

0 10

Big Boquillas Ranch Historic Route 66 Trail

20
90

Grand Canyon National Park
15BW 11

Tuba City Moenkopi
50

40
80

Moenkopi
 Wash
 Realignment
Hard Rock
Blue Canyon Special Management Area
70

80

Project Features
Black Mesa Complex Peabody Lease Area Alternative A Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route
 Realignment
 Alternative A Water-Supply System C-Aquifer Well Field Eastern Pipeline Route Subalternative along Eastern Route

Oraibi PS

Lake Mead National Recreation Area

Ra ilwa

Mohave County

Grand Canyon National Park

y

14 Coconino County 9

Tusayan Cameron PS #2
80
70

60

70

Hotevilla
60

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

15A 10
on
ny

Kaibab National Forest
Valle
100

Moenkopi PS

50

90

50

15BE Peach Springs 15C Truxton
160

PS #3

Ca

40
40

Western Pipeline Route PS = Pump Station
Tolani Lake PS

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
270

Grand

Cerbat Foothill Recreation Areas and Trails System
23 0

Kaibab National Forest
7W

110

120

7E Tolani Lake PS Leupp

30

140

30

130

tM Cerba nts.

PS #4 Seligman
170

General Features
Navajo County

150

River
 Lake


20

18A
180

Laughlin

Kingman
260
20

240

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff 5BN 8 19B 6B

10

0 25

190

0 20

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

Hopi Reservation Boundary Navajo Reservation Boundary State Boundary

210

Ne da a va rni
MT. NUTT

220

Ca

Bullhead Bajada
 ) ACEC (proposed


o lif

10

Kingman Area Reroute
17A

BLACK MOUNTAINS ACEC

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch
Coconino National Forest
6A 5BS

Winslow

Little Colorad o River

2A

County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Railroad
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005, 2006 Arizona State Land Department 2005 Mohave County 2005 Bureau of Land Management 2005

15D

18B 16B

Prescott National Forest Prescott National Forest
17B Yavapai
 County
 19A

5A 4B

Holbrook

n ifor Ca l
San Bernardino County

Ariz ona
43A 44A

16A

4A

3A

ia

20A 20C La Paz County 21 22 20B Gila County

Sitgreaves National Forest
3C 3B

November 2008
0 20 Miles 40

Prepared By:
23 25/26

City. The trail, which will link five parks within Bullhead City, represents an important north-south link through the community. The purpose of the trail project is to treat the Colorado River within the boundaries of Bullhead City as an urban greenway that will provide residents and visitors with educational, recreational, and scenic experiences on a network of paths and trails (Bullhead City 2002). The Colorado River Heritage Greenway Trail passes over the existing pipeline at CSP Milepost 270. Bullhead City, Arizona, and Laughlin, Nevada, lie on either side of the Colorado River. The river provides numerous recreation opportunities, including boating, jet skiing, swimming, day use/picnic facilities, and beaches. Laughlin has several large casinos located adjacent to the river, which provide walking trails for casual enjoyment and views of the river’s activities. There are areas within Bullhead City that are open to OHV use. The AGFD manages hunting within Arizona by dividing the state into GMUs. GMUs crossed by the existing route include 7, 9, 10, 15B, 15D, and 18A. GMUs 7, 9, and 10 are located along the existing route between Cameron and Seligman. GMUs 15B, 15D, and 18A are located along the existing route between Seligman and Bullhead City (refer to Map 3-14). Primary game species hunted within these GMUs include mule deer, elk, turkey, antelope, bighorn sheep, quail, and javelina. Other species hunted within the GMUs are dove, waterfowl, black bear, mountain lion, and tree squirrel. Table 3-50 lists the average annual number of permits issued by AGFD since 2000 in areas crossed by the existing route. Table 3-50 Average Annual Number of Permits Issued by 
 Arizona Game and Fish Department Between 2000 and 2005

GMU 17(W) 19 10 18A 15B 15D Total Antelope 60 31 20a 100 7b — 318 Bighorn Sheep — — — — 13 6 19 Elk 1,515 996 1,675 10 — — 4,196 Javelina — — — 200 — — 200 Merriam’s Turkey 175 40 — — — — 215 Mule/White Tailed Deer 2,130 970 850 800 390 2 — 5,140

SOURCE: Arizona Game and Fish Department 2005d NOTES: a One hundred permits for archery combined with Game Management Units 18A and 18B. b Combined with 15A. GMU = game management unit — = Data not available for the average number of permits issued

The Great Western Trail, a 2000 Millenium Trail, is a 3,000-mile-long north-south backcountry route extending from Canada to Mexico that provides recreational opportunities. The trail is immediately south of the existing pipeline right-of-way. Big Boquillas Ranch, owned by the Navajo Nation in fee, is open for sports use, which includes big-game hunting (deer, elk, turkey, antelope, and bighorn sheep), small-game hunting (predators and prairie dogs), camping, bird watching, photographing wildlife, and sightseeing (Arizona Elk Society 2005). Hunting within the ranch is managed by AGFD (Begay 2005). The existing route crosses through the Big Boquillas Ranch between CSP Mileposts 159 and 170 (refer to Map 3-17). San Francisco Peaks Scenic Road is a 31-mile-long portion of U.S. Highway 180 (highway Milepost 224 to Milepost 255) that stretches from Flagstaff to a few miles before the junction with State Highway 64. This segment of scenic road was designated by ADOT on January 12, 1990 (Federal Highway Administration 2005). Also located in Kaibab National Forest, the road is a highly traveled route to the Grand Canyon. The officially designated scenic portion of the road ends soon after Red Mountain, which
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 3-158 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

is located in Coconino National Forest. U.S. Highway 180 crosses the pipeline corridor on State Trust land. Highway 64 crosses the pipeline corridor on State Trust land. The Grand Canyon Railway travels from Williams to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon and crosses the existing route near CSP Milepost 125. The Grand Canyon Railway owns a significant portion of the 65 miles of track and operates on a right-of-way through land administered by the Forest Service and National Park Service (Grand Canyon Railway 2005). The railway offers wildlife viewing and sightseeing aboard a vintage train (Grand Canyon Railway 2005). 3.17.2.1.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments The pipeline realignments in Moenkopi Wash would not cross any designated recreational areas. The portion of the reroute from CSP Milepost 2 to 3 is located within the Black Mesa Complex where recreational activities are not designated. Residents report that the area is sparsely used for sightseeing (OSM 1990). Possible recreational activities may include game or bird hunting. The Kingman reroute would cross Historic Route 66 at reroute CSP Milepost 13, and one park/open space area is located within Golden Valley about 0.5 mile from the pipeline alignment near reroute CSP Milepost 21. A major development approved both north and south of the reroute, Golden Valley Ranch, will include parks and open space areas adjacent to the alignment. 3.17.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System 3.17.3.1 Well Field According to the Leupp Chapter Land Use Plan, Old Leupp and Sunrise are historically significant scenic areas located just north of the proposed well field. These areas offer undeveloped options for recreation, tourism (sightseeing), and academic research. The historically significant Canyon Diablo site is located in the southwestern corner of the Navajo portion of the proposed well field just north of the BNSF rail line and Indian Route 6930. Currently, visitors are allowed to tour the ruins at these locations on their own (Navajo Nation Division of Community Development 2005). The Painted Desert, known for its scenic vistas and badlands, is a large geographic area that extends from the Grand Canyon to the Petrified Forest National Park. It is located on the Navajo Reservation, private land, and national parks. A portion of the Painted Desert that is located on the Navajo Reservation lies within the well field area and offers dispersed recreation opportunities such as undeveloped areas for hiking and sightseeing. 3.17.3.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline 3.17.3.2.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route Land on the Navajo Reservation that would be crossed by the Eastern Route is not designated for recreational opportunities; however, the alternative crosses through the Painted Desert, where dispersed recreation activities may occur (e.g., hiking, sightseeing). The Hopi Tribe designated the primary washes (e.g., Oraibi, Moenkopi, Dinnebito) for conservation and specific recreational opportunities. The Eastern Route would parallel and cross these washes that run through the reservation. The Little Colorado River flows northwest across the planning area, and would cross the Eastern Route just east of the Community of Leupp. The river has no developed recreation areas inside the study area; however, its deep gorges may provide dispersed recreation opportunities for localized hiking (during dry months), wildlife viewing, and sightseeing.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-159

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.17.3.2.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route There are no developed recreation opportunities located along the Western Route. U.S. Highway 160 (which is parallel to the Western Route from WSP Mileposts 92 to 126) is a highly traveled access route to Navajo National Monument and Monument Valley. The Western Route also would cross through the Painted Desert, where dispersed recreation activities may occur (e.g., hiking, sightseeing).

3.18 HEALTH AND SAFETY
Activities conducted at an industrial facility carry an inherent risk. Typical risks encountered include exposure to dust, noise, heat stress, and chemicals, as well as the opportunity for accidents due to working directly with or in proximity to large equipment. However, the establishment of appropriate policies and procedures and the monitoring of those procedures to verify that they are properly observed help to reduce the risk involved. Numerous laws and regulations govern the policies and procedures implemented to ensure the health and safety of the mine and power-plant workers, protect persons living in the surrounding vicinity, and regulate the use and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

•	 The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. as amended by Public
Law 91-164, as amended by Public Law 95-164. Enforced by the Mine Health and Safety Administration (MSHA), and administered by the U.S. Department of Labor

•	 The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) •	 The Clean Water Act, (Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. 1251 to 1387]) •	 The Clean Air Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.,as amended 1990 •	 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 

42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. also known as “Superfund” 


•	 The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, Title III, embodying the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Public Law 99-499 


•	 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.)
3.18.1 Black Mesa Complex Safety practices observed at the Black Mesa Complex and all associated facilities were identified by review of the policies and procedures established by the MSHA. All mining operations’ safety plans and procedures are based on guidance developed by MSHA. The agency develops and enforces safety and health rules applying to all mines in the United States; helps mine operators who have special compliance problems; and makes available technical, educational, and other types of assistance. MSHA works cooperatively with industry, labor, and other Federal and State agencies toward improving safety and health conditions for all miners. 3.18.1.1 Safety Policies, Procedures, and Enforcement Safety policies and procedures established at the Black Mesa Complex are directly based upon guidance provided by the U.S. Department of Labor through MSHA (Holgate 2005). The Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 implementing regulations, 30 CFR 1-199, that outline the policy and procedures for safety at mining operations. Part 77, “Mandatory Safety Standards, Surface Coal Mines and Surface Work Areas of Underground Coal Mines,” establishes mandatory safety standards, including requirements for

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-160

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

equipment-safety specifications and maintenance, handling and safety procedures, fire protection, and use of explosives and blasting. Part 77 forms the basis for the various safety plans developed and maintained at the Black Mesa Complex (MSHA 2005a). Based on the criteria identified in Part 77, a series of safety plans has been prepared to address each aspect of work performed at the mines (Holgate 2005). Other key CFR sections on the safety policies that are mandatory and used extensively by the Safety Department at the Black Mesa Complex to establish safety policies and procedures include the following:

•	 Notification, Investigation, Reports and Records of Accidents, Injuries, Illnesses, Employment,
and Coal Production in Mines (30 CFR 50)

•	 Occupational Noise Exposure (30 CFR 62) •	 Mandatory Health Standards—Surface Coal Mines and Surface Work Areas of Underground
Coal Mines (30 CFR 71)

•	 Criteria and Procedures for Proposed Assessment of Civil Penalties (30 CFR 100) (MSHA
2005a) Continual training is a key component in ensuring safety at the mines. Introductory and ongoing training classes are held regularly for new and current employees in accordance with the Mine Safety and Health Act guidance (Holgate 2005). Despite every effort to establish and enforce detailed safety procedures, accidents and injuries can sometimes occur. A first aid station is located at the site to address any immediate injuries that can be remedied locally. In the event of a more serious accident, a medical-evacuation helicopter and paramedics are available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day to airlift an injured person to the nearest hospital (Holgate 2005). The requirements of the Mine Safety and Health Act dictate that MSHA make at least two safety inspections each year at every surface mine. These visits can occur without notification, and at any time of the day or on any day of the week. While the Safety Department at the Black Mesa Complex is ultimately responsible for compliance with safety requirements, the department managers of each group are responsible for seeing that all safety regulations are followed. 3.18.1.2 Hazards and Contaminants 3.18.1.2.1 Blasting Hazards associated with blasting include handling of explosives by workers and proximity to the blast site. Blasting operations at the Black Mesa Complex are conducted according to Federal law, applicable regulations, and the approved permit application. No blasting is conducted within 0.5 mile of an occupied dwelling. Since Federal law and regulation both allow mining to within 300 feet of such a structure, the permit requirements are more stringent than Federal law and regulations. Blasts are monitored for air blast and ground vibration by five permanent seismographs located throughout the permit area. Blasting records are submitted and reviewed monthly by OSM. In the event of a violation, Federal enforcement action is taken (OSM 2005a). To prevent injury to people and damage to property both within and outside of the permit area, notices of the blasting schedule are distributed to all citizens within the permit area and within 0.5 mile outside the permit area. Prior to the detonation of each blast, a warning signal is sounded that must be audible within a range of 0.5 mile of the point of the blast, as required by the regulations at 30 CFR Part 816.66(b). This is to alert residents and workers where a blast is to be detonated. After the blast, an all-clear signal is

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-161

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

sounded when the area is clear. All blasting operations are restricted to the daytime hours between sunrise and sunset (OSM 2005a). 3.18.1.2.2 Air Quality Mining involves drilling and shearing of large quantities of minerals. If the appropriate precautions are not taken, the clouds of dust raised in displacing these materials can damage the lungs, particularly after years of exposure (refer to Section 3.6). In accordance with requirements of the Mine Safety and Health Act, all applicable precautions are observed at the Black Mesa Complex to ensure worker health and safety (Holgate 2005). Persons living in the vicinity of the mining operations also are subject to the air quality effects of mining operations. Peabody has operated an air-quality-monitoring program since 1980 in accordance with Federal regulations. Airborne particulates and dust are monitored at 12 different sites located throughout the leased area, based on wind patterns, mining activity, and location of residences. Quarterly and annual air quality monitoring reports are prepared by Peabody to ensure compliance with air-quality requirements (OSM 2005b). 3.18.1.2.3 Transportation Traffic accidents can occur on pit ramps or routes of travel that are within the mining and spoil grading areas. The safe operation and maintenance of haul trucks, water trucks, rubber-tired end loaders, and other surface-mining machinery is emphasized in the regulations in the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. Weather can be a factor in traffic accidents at the mine; frequent freezing and thawing can loosen formerly solid rock on the high walls, road cuts, and portal faceups. Appropriate signage and traffic control are monitored as part of the safety procedures at the Black Mesa Complex in accordance with the MSHA regulations. A private airport for the use of Peabody personnel is located in the reclaimed J-03 area. The airport facilities include an approximately 7,500-foot-wide paved runway and a small airplane tie-down, taxiway, and storage building area. The facilities were designed, constructed, and are maintained to comply with all applicable local and Federal regulations. 3.18.1.2.4 Natural Hazards Environmental conditions at and near mining operations that could present serious hazards include seasonally extreme temperatures and potential flash flooding, rugged terrain, and remoteness. The project area is found in a generally arid to semiarid climate with a dry season in May and June. The monsoon season generally begins in July, producing potentially heavy rains and flash flooding. Winter snowfall occurs over most of the project area beginning in October and November, sometimes creating hazardous conditions. Along with weather extremes, the presence of venomous or otherwise dangerous wildlife can be a hazard to workers, residents, and visitors. Several species of venomous reptiles (such as rattlesnakes) and anthropods (such as various species of scorpions, spiders, and bees) are in the area. Common sense and care around locations where these animals may be found generally avoids unfortunate encounters between these species and humans.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-162

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.18.1.2.5 Solid Waste A solid-waste landfill was operated by Peabody at the J-03 area until its closure in 1997. A closure plan was prepared, approved, and implemented; the landfill was revegetated in 1999. No active solid-waste facilities are located in the lease area. All solid waste is removed from the site by regulated contractors and transported to off-site municipal landfills. 3.18.1.2.6 Hazardous Materials and Wastes A hazardous material is any material (biological, chemical, physical) that has the potential to cause harm to humans, animals, or the environment. A hazardous material is defined as any substance or chemical that is a health hazard or physical hazard, including chemicals that are carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosive agents, or sensitizers; agents that damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes; chemicals that are combustible, explosive, flammable, or are oxidizers; and chemicals that, in the course of normal handling, use, or storage, may produce toxic dusts, gases, fumes, vapors, mists, or smoke (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 2005). No hazardous materials are used for mining and processing of coal at the Black Mesa Complex. Some routine cleaning products and water-soluble solvents are maintained in the support structures in limited quantities (Chischillie 2005). Mining operations require maintenance activities for equipment and machinery used in the processes. Safety-Kleen™ parts washers containing cleaning solvents are located at the Black Mesa mining operation area in the preparation plant, shops, at a contractor’s on-site location, and in the human resource area. Parts washers are located at the Kayenta mining operation area in the preparation plant, truck shop (two units), and welding shop. Bays containing an aqueous solution of soap and water are located at the Black Mesa truck shop and at the Kayenta truck shop and preparation plant. All of the parts washers are serviced and the wastes are removed by the contractor, Safety-Kleen™, every 8 weeks, with the exception of the Black Mesa aqueous-solution washer, which is serviced every 16 weeks. Parts washers are located on the drag line at the Kayenta mining operation, and waste is placed in drums for removal. Approximately 90 to 125 drums are removed every 90 days (Chischillie 2005). The main waste streams found at the Black Mesa mining operation are grease, grease and debris, grease/oil/solvent, greasy rags, and used solvent. These wastes are collected and removed every 8 weeks. As a result of fire training that has been conducted, a waste stream consisting of fire retardant with diesel gas was removed in 2003. Other waste streams occurring less often at the Black Mesa mining operation are used paint and analysis material from the laboratory consisting of Mg and perchlorate. A waste stream of Nyloband adhesive used for beltline splicings at the Kayenta mining operation occurs occasionally (Chischillie 2005). Two 10,000-gallon used-oil tanks are located at the Black Mesa mining operation. One is used to accumulate used oil while the other filled tank is out of service for testing and removal of the contents. Two other tanks, approximately 5,000 gallons each, serve the same function for used antifreeze. Both products are serviced by ThermoFluids located in Phoenix, Arizona (Chischillie 2005). Several products are recycled at the Black Mesa mining operation area, including scrap metal, tires, computer equipment, fluorescent lamps (4-foot and 8-foot lengths), high-pressure sodium light bulbs, and mercury-vapor light bulbs. These are removed from the site yearly. Used batteries also are recycled at Black Mesa, and are removed on an as-needed basis by Napa Service located near Shiprock, Arizona (Chischillie 2005). When not reserved for analysis, used oil, parts washer fluid, spent solvent, grease, and antifreeze also are recycled.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-163

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

A 5,000-gallon aboveground Jet A fuel tank is located at the new airport facility in the J-03 area to service the aircraft. The tank is constructed of steel and is housed in a spill-proof concrete containment area. The tank was constructed in 1986, and no violations or spills have occurred since its installation (Armstrong 2005). 3.18.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline The existing coal-slurry pipeline (which currently is not in operation) extends 273 miles from the Black Mesa Complex to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada. Four pump stations are located in undeveloped areas at intervals along the pipeline. With the exception of the Kingman and Laughlin areas, the pipeline route passes through areas that are rural and undeveloped. The coal-slurry pipeline route crosses a number of major thoroughfares carrying a substantial volume of traffic, including county roadways, U.S. highways, State routes, Indian routes (Hopi, Navajo), and a number of private roadways. The coal-slurry pipeline, which operated from 1970 through 2005, was operated and maintained in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code B31.11, Slurry Transportation Piping System, and standard procedures established by the pipeline owners to ensure safe operation and integrity of the pipeline. The existing pipeline is protected from corrosion with external coating and a cathodic protection system designed in accordance with the National Association of Corrosion Engineers Standard RP-01-69-92. The operation and maintenance of the pipeline was and would continue to be performed by qualified and trained employees. Personnel were and would be capable of monitoring the pipeline’s operating conditions as well as controlling flows and pressures through the pipeline. Field operations personnel inspect and conduct routine maintenance of the pipeline facilities regularly. The pipeline also is inspected by aerial surveillance regularly. There have been 31 pipeline failures of varying types and sizes during the 35 years the coal-slurry pipeline was in operation; however, only one event occurred in the first 20 years of operation that was not the result of human error (e.g., third-party backhoe excavation accidents, operator error with a control valve). Some of these failures appeared to be the result of corrosion acting on poor-quality pipe. Extensive wall thickness losses have been observed in random joints of the pipe. Adjacent joints, produced by the same mill and with the same specifications and wall thickness, exhibited widely different corrosion rates. Remote pressure-monitoring devices were installed after the pipeline had operated for some time that would prevent many of the leaks that occurred initially and would prevent many potential leaks in the reconstructed system. The existing pipeline has reached its design life of 35 years. For that reason, the new pipeline is proposed. However, the potential for rupture along the route is possible. In the event of rupture, the rupture is detected by control personnel, the flow is stopped to minimize the amount of coal slurry spilled, and the location of the rupture is identified and that segment of pipeline is isolated. If needed, the slurry in that segment of pipeline is pumped into a pond, designed and constructed for that purpose, at the closest pump station along the pipeline. Erosion, subsidence, and flooding issues could occur as a result of a rupture and there could be the possibility of personal injury. Safety procedures have been established to respond immediately to a rupture event once it is detected. Facilities at the pump stations include pump houses, a water well, a cooling tower, a water pond, and coal-slurry pond. Chemicals used at the facility include ethylene glycol (for pump temperature control), a liquid-oxygen scavenger (to prevent rust in the pipeline), oil, paint, and various greases and lubricants. Chemical wastes at the pump station are collected and hauled off site by a licensed contractor for disposal (Solberg 2005).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-164

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.18.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System The proposed C aquifer water-supply system well field is situated near the community of Leupp, Arizona, which is a rural community on the Navajo Reservation. A small community of approximately 50 residences is located to the north of the well field. From the well field, the proposed water supply would convey the water to the Black Mesa Complex through areas that are rural and undeveloped with the exception of the community of Kykotsmovi. No large commercial or industrial facilities are located in or near the proposed well field or along the proposed pipeline route.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

3-165

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

c pe 4 ha t r

e i onme a nv r nt l c onsqu nc s e e e

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter provides a description of the effects on the environment that potentially could occur under each alternative group of actions as described in Chapter 2. This chapter begins with a summary of the terms used for the impact assessment and then, for each resource, describes the impacts that could result from each alternative. The information about the existing condition of the environment from Chapter 3 was used as a baseline by which to measure and identify potential impacts from the project. The EIS team then considered and incorporated, where appropriate, mitigation measures to avoid or minimize the magnitude of an impact, or conservation measures to compensate or offset an impact, before arriving at the impacts described here. An impact, or effect, is defined as a modification of the environment brought about by an outside action. Impacts vary in significance from no change, or only slightly discernible change, to a full modification or elimination of the environmental condition. Impacts can be beneficial (positive) or adverse (negative). Impacts can be short-term, or those changes to the environment during and following ground-disturbing activities that generally revert to predisturbance conditions at or within a few years after the ground disturbance has taken place. Long-term impacts are defined as those that would remain substantially beyond short-term ground-disturbing activities. For the mining operations, short-term impacts are those that would occur from the time mining begins in a coal-producing unit through reclamation when vegetation has been reestablished. The mining operation continually advances with contemporaneous reclamation activities. That is, earth material excavated from a coal-producing unit is deposited to backfill the adjacent, previously mined unit. When the unit has been backfilled, the area is regraded and revegetated. When vegetation has been reestablished, limited use of the land may be allowed. This sequence continues until all the coal has been removed from a given coalresource area (Appendix A-1). Long-term impacts are those that would persist beyond or occur after reclamation. For the coal-slurry pipeline and water-supply system, local short-term impacts of the project are those that would occur during construction of the pipelines (and water-supply well field) plus a reasonable period for reclamation (i.e., a total of about five years). Long-term impacts are those that would persist beyond or occur after the five-year construction and reclamation period. An action can have direct or indirect effects, and it can contribute to cumulative effects. Direct effects occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are later in time or farther in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative effects result from the proposed action’s incremental impacts when these impacts are added to the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of the agency or person who undertakes them (Federal or non-Federal). Also in identifying impacts, the vulnerability of resources also is considered. The status of a resource, resource use, or related issue in this regard is evaluated against the following: •	 Resource significance—a measure of formal concern for a resource through legal protection or by designation of special status •	 Resource sensitivity—the probable response of a particular resource to project-related activities •	 Resource quality—a measure of rarity, intrinsic worth, or distinctiveness, including the local value and importance of a resource

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-1

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

•	 Resource quantity—a measure of resource abundance and the amount of the resource potentially affected Several resources are more conducive to quantification than others. For example, impacts on vegetation can be characterized partly using acreage, and air quality can be measured against air quality standards. Evaluations of some resources are inherently difficult to quantify with exactitude. In these cases, levels of impact are based on best available information and professional judgment. For purposes of discussion and to enable use of a common scale for all resources, resource specialists considered the following impact levels in qualitative terms. The terms major, moderate, minor, negligible, or none that follow, consider the anticipated magnitude, or importance, of impacts, including those on the human environment. •	 Major—impacts that potentially could cause irretrievable loss of a resource; significant depletion, change, or stress to resources; or stress within the social, cultural, and economic realm. Degradation of a resource defined by laws, regulations, and/or policy •	 Moderate—impacts that potentially could cause some change or stress (ranging between significant and insignificant) to an environmental resource or use; readily apparent effects •	 Minor—impacts that potentially could be detectable but slight •	 Negligible—impacts in the lower limit of detection that potentially could cause an insignificant change or stress to an environmental resource or use •	 None—no discernible or measurable impacts Impacts are described for the major components under Alternative A (Black Mesa Complex, coal-slurry pipeline, and C aquifer water-supply system). Under Alternatives B and C, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed nor operate in the future; thus, no adverse or beneficial impacts associated with the coal-slurry pipeline would occur under Alternatives B and C. Under Alternatives B and C, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be built; thus, no adverse or beneficial impacts associated with the C aquifer water-supply system would occur under Alternatives B and C. Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 are summaries of the areas affected by the three Black Mesa Project alternatives. Table 4-1 presents the acres associated with rights-of-entry. Table 4-2 presents the acres associated with the OSM permit for the Black Mesa Complex and the acres that have been disturbed by mining through 2007, the acres proposed for mining from 2008 through 2026, and the acres that could be mined after 2026. Table 4-3 is a summary of the existing and proposed right-of-way acreages associated with the coal-slurry pipeline. Table 4-4 is a summary of the proposed right-of-way acreages associated with the C aquifer water-supply system.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-2

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-1

Black Mesa Complex Right-of-Entry Acreages

Right-of-Entry Documents Acres Joint Hopi/Navajo coal leases Numbers 14-20-0603-9910 and 40,000 14-20-0450-5743 Navajo-only coal lease Number 14-20-0603-8580 24,858 Conveyor, railroad, power line rights-of-way and easements 362 Coal-slurry preparation-plant lease 40 Existing right-of-entry area total 65,260 127 Proposed new coal-haul road right-of-way1 Existing and proposed right-of-entry area total 65,3872 NOTES: 1 Area shown on Drawing 85360, SW Sheet in the life-of-mine application. 2 The total existing and proposed right-of-entry area is larger than the 63,057 acres proposed for the permit area under the life-of-mine revision. The difference is the 2,330-acre area in the northeast corner of Navajo Lease No. 14-20-0603-8580, which is not proposed to be within the permit area because it contains no mineable coal.

Table 4-2

Black Mesa Complex Permit and Disturbance Acreages
Permit Area 44,073 63,057 62,930 44,073 Area Disturbed Through 2007 15,266 20,990 20,990 20,990 Proposed 2008-2026 Disturbance 7,736 12,409 6,942 6,942 Foreseeable Post-2026 Disturbance1 6,5182 8,313 13,780 07

Area Existing OSM permit area OSM Permit Area Alternative A3, 4 OSM Permit Area Alternative B5 OSM Permit Area Alternative C6 NOTES: 1 This is the area where mining is reasonably foreseeable, although not specifically proposed in the life-of­ mine (LOM) revision, and which is evaluated in the cumulative impacts assessment. Under Alternatives A and B, mining all remaining reserves within the existing leases to supply the Navajo Generating Station is reasonably foreseeable beyond 2026; however, under Alternative A, the continued operation of Mohave Generating Station is not reasonably foreseeable due to the lack of foreseeable source of cooling water after 2026. Under Alternative B, the Black Mesa mining operation would not be approved (i.e., would not be resumed), but it is reasonably foreseeable that all coal reserves within the leases would be mined after 2026 to supply the Navajo Generating Station. Under Alternative C, the Black Mesa mining operation would not be approved (i.e., would not be resumed), and the Kayenta mining operation would cease after the currently permitted coal reserves are depleted (i.e., the Kayenta mining operation would not continue past 2026). 2 The LOM revision proposes mining coal-resource areas within the existing OSM permit area that are not currently approved for mining (e.g., J-23 and J-28), and the acreages of those coal-resource areas are included in both the (1) additional area proposed in LOM revision proposed 2008-2026 disturbance for Alternative A and (2) existing OSM permit area foreseeable post-2026 disturbance. 3 Includes 127 acres for the proposed new coal-haul road right-of-way. 4 This would be the OSM permit area and disturbance acreages if the LOM revision is approved. 5 This would be the OSM permit area and disturbance acreages if the LOM revision is approved. 6 This would be the OSM permit area if the LOM revision is disapproved. 7 Although it is reasonably foreseeable under Alternative C (disapproval of the LOM revision) that Peabody Western Coal Company would request future permit revisions to mine all remaining coal reserves within the lease area, the cumulative impacts of such foreseeable future permitting would be addressed under Alternative B; thus, Alternative C assumes that none of the initial program area coal reserves within the leases would be mined after 2026 (for the purpose of evaluating cumulative impacts under a disapproval of all future mining, other than that which is currently approved in the existing permit).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-3

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-3

Black Mesa Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing and Proposed Rights-of-way Acreages
New Total Existing New Permanent Permanent Permanent Temporary Total Right-of-way1 Right-of-way1 Right-of-way Right-of-way2 Right-of-way 1,655 0 1,655 496 2,151

Affected Area Existing route (273 miles) Existing route with realignments 0 1,485 445 1,930 1,4853 • Existing route (245 miles) 6 6 2 8 • Moenkopi Wash realignments (1 mile) 170 170 51 221 • Kingman reroute (28 mile) Pump stations4 160 0 160 0 160 Total Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing 1,815 0 1,815 496 2,311 Total Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Realigned 1,645 176 1,821 498 2,319 SOURCE: Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. 2006 NOTES: 1	 Permanent right-of-way would be 50 feet wide for length of the pipeline. 2	 An additional 15-foot-wide temporary right-of-way (adjoining the permanent right-of-way for the length of the pipeline) would be required for construction, with a few exceptions along short stretches of rough terrain where up to 100 feet would be needed. 3	 Existing right-of-way for sections of pipeline that would be abandoned due to realignment would be relinquished in accordance with right-of-way conditions for relinquishment. 4	 The existing right-of-way for the pump stations would not change nor would additional temporary construction right-of-way be needed to accommodate pump-station upgrades that may be implemented (e.g., pump replacements).

Table 4-4

C Aquifer Water-Supply System Proposed Rights-of-way Acreages
Permanent Right-of-way -7 60 0 1 1 69 13 80 0 1 1 95 264 1 370 4 Additional Temporary Right-of-way -4 36 47 2 2 91 6 48 67 2 2 125 397 4 0 0 Total Right-of-way -11 96 47 3 3 160 19 128 67 3 3 220 661 5 370 4

Affected Area Well Field: 6,000 af/yr 12 wells1 Access roads, collector pipelines, power lines for 12 wells2 Additional distribution power lines for 12 wells2 Water-storage tank3 Electrical substation4 Total Well Field: 11,600 af/y 21 wells1 Access roads, collector pipelines, power lines for 21 wells2 Additional distribution power lines for 21 wells2 Water-storage tank3 Electrical substation4 Total Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route Pipeline, power line, access road corridor (108 miles)5 Pump stations (2)6 69kV transmission line7 Additional right-of-way for access roads8

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-4

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Total Affected Area Right-of-way Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route 337 505 842 Pipeline, power line, access road corridor (137 miles)5 Pump stations (4)9 2 8 10 655 0 655 69kV transmission line7 38 0 38 Additional right-of-way for access roads10 Total 6,000 af/yr Eastern Route 702 499 1,201 Total 11,600 af/yr Eastern Route 722 539 1,261 Total 6,000 af/yr Western Route 1,095 611 1,706 Total 11,600 af/yr Western Route 1,115 651 1,766 SOURCE: Southern California Edison Company 2006
 NOTES: 
 1 Each well site would require temporary construction right-of-way of 200 feet by 200 feet (0.9 acre)
 and permanent right-of-way of 50 feet by 50 feet (0.06 acre). 2	 The collector pipelines and well-field distribution power lines would share the same right-of-way as the access roads where possible (40 feet wide for temporary construction right-of-way and 25 feet wide for permanent right-of-way). Some spans of distribution power lines would be outside of the access road right-of-way. The distribution power line would be owned by Navajo Tribal Utility Authority and have a 30-foot tribal right-of-way centered on the line; thus, only temporary right-of-way acreages are shown. 3	 The water-storage tank would require temporary right-of-way of 300 feet by 300 feet for construction (2.1 acres) and permanent right-of-way of 215 feet by 215 feet (1.1 acres). 4 The electrical substation would require temporary right-of-way of 295 feet by 295 feet for construction (2.0 acre) and permanent right-of-way of 200 feet by 200 feet (0.9 acre). 5	 The temporary right-of-way for pipeline construction would be 30 feet wide and the permanent rightof-way would be 20 feet wide. The pipeline right-of-way would be contiguous with rights-of-way for existing roads to the extent possible and the pipeline’s access roads and power lines would share the pipeline right-of-way. 6	 Each pump station would require temporary right-of-way of about 295 feet by 295 feet for construction (2.0 acres). Tolani Lake pump station would require a permanent right-of-way of about 170 feet by 150 feet (0.6 acre), and Oraibi pump station would require a permanent right-of-way of about 165 feet by 190 feet (0.7 acre). 7	 The 69kV transmission line serving the pump stations would have a 50-foot-wide right-of-way. 8	 Additional 5 feet of pipeline right-of-way would be needed between water-supply pipeline (WSP) Mileposts 72 and 77 and for about 2 miles at Dinnebito Wash (where the pipeline is not next to a road) to accommodate the access road. 9	 Each pump station would require temporary right-of-way of about 295 feet by 295 feet for construction (2.0 acres) and permanent right-of-way of about 170 feet by 150 feet (0.6 acre). 10 Additional 5 feet of pipeline right-of-way would be needed between WSP Mileposts 33 and 59, 71 and 91, 126 and 139; and 4 miles total would be needed at wash crossings (where the pipeline is not next to a road) to accommodate the access road. af/yr = acre feet per year kV = kilovolt

Permanent Right-of-way

Additional Temporary Right-of-way

Also considered, and described at the end of the chapter, are (1) the conservation measures, (2) summary of mitigation measures (including best management practices), (3) short-term uses versus long-term productivity, (4) irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, (5) indirect effects associated with resuming operation at Mohave Generating Station (dependent in part on implementation of the coalsupply components of Alternative A), and (6) cumulative effects.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-5

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

4.1 4.1.1	

LANDFORMS AND TOPOGRAPHY Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station Black Mesa Complex

4.1.1.1

The impact on landforms and topography resulting from mining activities in the permit area is extensive and permanent, and would continue under Alternative A through the proposed life of the mine. Removal of the coal would drastically alter topographic features such as slope gradient and surface-drainage patterns. Surface mining of overburden and subsurface coal resources would continue to remove up to 250 feet of rock and drastically modify topographic and landform features, such as hills, slopes, and surface drainage patterns, while forming highwalls in the mining pits and temporary spoil stockpiles of crushed overburden rock. The narrow, deep washes would not be altered because coal on the steep sides of many washes has been burned in place as a result of natural processes. Site reclamation is an important part of the mining process. Reclamation of the approximate original contour is required and includes backfilling pits and grading highwalls and spoil to approximate the original shape, topographic relief, and major drainage patterns. Reclamation operations are required to be contemporaneous with mining operations. Backfilling and grading of mined areas generally would begin when four spoil ridges have accumulated and would continue as mining progressed until the final pit is backfilled and the entire mined area is regraded. Restoration of the approximate original contour would reestablish the drainage pattern of the mined area to approximate original conditions and conform to drainage in the surrounding unmined areas, to minimize the impact on topography and landforms. Generally, regraded mined land will have the same general landform as the land had before mining but without any steep slopes (i.e., no steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical [3h:1v]). To promote slope stability where necessary, highwall slope steepness would be reduced to 3h:1v or less. Embankments for sediment-control dams and ponds, and for existing and future roads, would range from 1.5h:1v or less in cuts in unmined areas to 4h:1v or less in fill areas. These features would be stable with regard to landslides and slumping resulting from slope failure. There would be long-term impacts on landforms and topography resulting from coal mining. The impact on landforms and topography is permanent, but the disturbance is mitigated by site reclamation. The reclaimed area generally would have gently rolling hills with smoother contours and less topographic relief than the original topography, and no pronounced landforms (e.g., no cliffs, steep buttes, or narrow canyons). The flatter topography would make the reclaimed area more suitable for multiple land uses. Disturbance from construction of the coal-washing facility would occur within approximately 2 acres surficially and is not expected to affect landforms and topography. Construction of the coal-haul road would result in disturbance within approximately 127 acres along a 2-mile-long corridor. Embankments for the road would range from 1.5h:1v in cuts in unmined areas to 4h:1v for fill areas. These features would be stable with regard to landslides and slumping. By using approved construction methods to maintain the slope stability, there would be no significant impacts on landforms and topography. 4.1.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline

Alternative A would result in no impact on landforms and topography where reconstruction of the coalslurry pipeline would follow the existing coal-slurry pipeline route. Along the coal-slurry pipeline Moenkopi Wash realignment and Kingman reroute, construction would be restricted to a 65-foot-wide right-of-way, and the trench would be backfilled and regraded to conform to the original topography.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-6

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

During construction, alterations of the topography or cutting into landforms would be avoided to the extent practicable. Thus, there would be negligible to no impact on landforms and topography along the Moenkopi Wash realignments and Kingman reroute. In the unlikely event of a pipeline failure, the decreased pressure and flow rate in the pipeline would be detected, remotely operated block valves would close, and the flow of coal slurry would stop. The volume of slurry released would depend on the location of the leak on the pipeline (top of the pipe versus bottom of the pipe), and the terrain where the leak occurs (a flat location versus on a slope). Using historical data on slurry pipeline releases, BMPI estimates that the amount of slurry released may range from an average of 100 cubic yards (or less) to a maximum of about 565 cubic yards. The maximum coal-slurry release would cover approximately 0.7 acre with 6 inches of nontoxic coal fines, while the fresh water in which the coal was entrained would soak into the ground (see Appendix A-2). Minor localized erosion of the land would result if the release occurred on a slope. 4.1.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System

Construction of the well field would not require alteration of the topography. Construction of the watersupply pipeline and associated access roads, where needed, whether the eastern or western alternative is selected, would be restricted to a 65-foot-wide right-of-way, and the trench would be backfilled and regraded to conform to the original topography. Alterations of the topography or cutting into the landforms would be avoided to the extent practicable. There would be negligible to no impact on landforms and topography along the preferred pipeline alternative route. There would be impacts on landforms and topography along the alternative pipeline route right-of-way because there is more topographic relief, which would require more cut and fill where the pipeline route would crosses the Adeii Eechii Cliffs, Ward Terrace, and Coal Mine Canyon. Construction of the two pump stations would result in surface disturbance, but no impact on landforms or topography is anticipated. It is unlikely that the water-supply pipeline would fail. The pipeline would be made of steel pipe, lined with concrete mortar, and wrapped in tape, or coated with epoxy or polyurethane for corrosion protection. In the unlikely event of a pipeline failure, the decreased pressure and flow rate in the pipeline would be detected, remotely operated block valves would close, and the flow of water would stop. In the event of a failure, some flooding would occur in topographic lows and drainage channels. If failure were to occur on a steep slope, there would be a minor impact from localized erosion and the possibility of damage to a cliff face or slope. 4.1.2 4.1.2.1 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative) Black Mesa Complex

Under Alternative B, the overall impact on landforms and topography would be the same as those under Alternative A, except that the area disturbed would be much less; that is, 6,942 acres disturbed by mining between 2008 and 2026 rather than the 12,409 acres under Alternative A. Also, 127 acres would not be disturbed by construction of the coal-haul road. The Black Mesa mining operation would cease. Reclamation of the mined portion of the Black Mesa mining operation area would conform to the reclamation methods described above and result in a postmining land surface with approximately the original shape, topographic relief, and drainage patterns as the premining topography. Because approved construction methods would be used, the reconstructed slopes and drainage patterns would have no significant impact on landforms and topography. Although, under Alternative B, the unmined coal resources would be incorporated into the permanent program permit area, mining of those resources would not be authorized. However, the unmined coal resources could be mined in the future if an application were submitted to, and approved by, BLM and OSM.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-7

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

4.1.3	 4.1.3.1

Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) Black Mesa Complex

Under Alternative C, the overall impact on landforms and topography would be the same as those under Alternative B, except no additional acreage would become a part of the permitted area. The coal-haul road would not be constructed. 4.2 4.2.1	 4.2.1.1 4.2.1.1.1 GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station Black Mesa Complex Surface Mining

4.2.1.1.1.1 Geology Resources Under Alternative A, mining would remove about 250 feet of overburden (non-coal-bearing rocks above the coal seams) and interburden (non-coal-bearing rocks between the coal seams) on approximately 12,409 acres in the Black Mesa Complex. The existing geology in the upper 250 feet of the mined areas, consisting of sedimentary rock lithology and a gently sloping structure, would be disturbed permanently. Under Alternative A, the surface and shallow subsurface geology would be modified substantively by mining activities. The open pits would be backfilled with unconsolidated, crushed rock from the strata overlying the coal seams that have been mined. This material would have grain sizes ranging from finegrained sand and clayey shales to boulders. It would be graded to approximate the original topographic contours. The unconsolidated backfill material would not be placed on steep slopes where geologic hazards such as landslides can develop. The unconsolidated fill would impact the lateral continuity of water-bearing sedimentary rocks to depths of 250 feet and severely reduce or eliminate groundwater flow in the saturated zones of the Wepo Formation. 4.2.1.1.1.2 Mineral Resources Coal. By law and regulation, coal-mining activities must be conducted in a manner that maximizes recovery of the coal resources and protects coal resources remaining after mining (Appendix A-1). Mining activity at the Black Mesa Complex removes coal seams in the Wepo Formation. The USGS estimates that 4.8 billion tons of coal are present in the Wepo Formation in the Black Mesa area. An average thickness of 20 feet of coal would be extracted from multiple coal seams in the Wepo Formation. Peabody estimates that approximately 11.6 percent of the coal reserves would be lost during mining activities due to normal overburden stripping. The impact of this permanent loss of coal resources is considered normal given current mining technology and stratigraphic nature of the coal being mined. Coal resources in the Wepo Formation would be produced. There would be no impact on coal resources in the Toreva Formation and Dakota Sandstone because they are below 250 feet and cannot be mined by surface-mining methods. Uranium and Vanadium. Uranium and vanadium deposits, found in the Salt Wash Member of the Jurassic Morrison Formation, the Triassic Chinle Formation, and the Toreva Formation, would not be impacted by the proposed coal mining because they underlie the Wepo Formation. These deposits would remain available for future development. However, exploitation of these resources is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future because the Navajo Nation Tribal Council passed legislation to prohibit uraniummining activities on the Navajo Reservation.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-8

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Oil and Gas. Oil and gas resources are produced primarily from Paleozoic sedimentary formations in the Paradox Basin northeast of Black Mesa. Although inadequately tested, correlative formations may contain economic deposits of oil and gas in deep sedimentary rocks underlying the Black Mesa Complex. Exploration for those resources would be restricted during the life of the mine; however, there are no oil and gas or coalbed natural gas exploration activities anticipated for the area. Oil and gas resources would not be impacted by the proposed coal mining because, if present, they would occur in formations below the mineable coal seams. These resources are not likely to be exploited in the reasonable foreseeable future, and would remain available for future exploration on Black Mesa. 4.2.1.1.1.3 Paleontological Resources There are abundant plant and animal fossils in the Cretaceous-age coal-bearing strata that outcrop on Black Mesa. Paleontological resources in those strata have been studied and are well documented. Outcrops of trace fossils, such as footprints, also have been recorded. No unique fossil-collection areas have been identified in the proposed mining area; therefore, impact on unique and important fossil specimens in the proposed mining area is not anticipated. 4.2.1.1.2 Coal-Washing Facility

Construction of the coal-washing facility would disturb approximately 2 acres and is not expected to affect geologic or mineral resources because, other than coal, none are known to exist in the area. 4.2.1.1.3 Coal-Haul Road

Construction of the coal-haul road is not expected to affect geologic or mineral resources because, other than coal, none are known to exist in the area. 4.2.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline

No known geological or paleontological resources are expected to be impacted by reconstruction of the pipeline. Because of the pipeline’s narrow temporary or permanent rights-of-way, none of these resources would be excluded from use or made permanently inaccessible during the life of the pipeline. Although moderate-to-high potential for the presence of oil and gas resources exists along several portions of the coal-slurry pipeline alignment, exploitation of these resources is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future because of the lack of information about oil and gas resources in this area creates a significant risk for exploration. Exploration and development would not be inhibited by the presence of the pipeline, which is in a narrow corridor. There is high potential for coal resources in the Black Mesa Basin along the coal-slurry pipeline alignment. Based on Peabody’s proposed LOM revision, exploitation of these coal resources is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. High potential for uranium and vanadium mineral resources exists in the Cameron district. However, exploitation of these resources is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future because the Navajo Nation Tribal Council voted on legislation to prohibit uranium mining activities on the Navajo Reservation. The coal-slurry pipeline could be affected by swelling clays that are commonly encountered in volcanicash deposits of the Chinle Formation. These swelling clays could cause soil shifting and cracking that could damage the pipeline. However, this potential for pipeline damage would be minimized or eliminated through appropriate design, engineering, and construction of the pipeline.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-9

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

4.2.1.3

C Aquifer Water-Supply System

As discussed in Chapter 3, there are no known geological resources or economic mineral resources in the area of the proposed well field; therefore, it is anticipated that implementation of Alternative A would result in no impact on known mineral and geological resources within the C-aquifer well field or along either the eastern or western alternative routes of the water-supply pipeline because those resources would remain accessible from outside the narrow pipeline corridor. Thus, none of these resources would be excluded from use or made permanently inaccessible. In the unlikely event of a pipeline failure, some flooding would result in topographic lows and drainage channels. If failure were to occur on a steep slope, there could be minor impact by localized erosion. There is high potential for the presence of oil and gas resources beneath the C-aquifer well field and in some areas along either alternative route of the water-supply pipeline. However, exploitation of these resources is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future because the lack of information on oil and gas resources in this area results in a significant risk for exploration. Exploration and development would not be inhibited by the presence of the pipeline due to the narrow width of the corridor. There is high potential for coal in the Black Mesa Basin along either alternative route of the water-supply pipeline. However, based on Peabody’s proposed LOM revision, exploitation of these resources is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future and would not be inhibited by the presence of the pipeline. There is no known interest in exploitation of the coal resources along the pipeline. The water-supply pipeline could be impacted by swelling clays that are commonly encountered in volcanic-ash deposits of the Chinle Formation. These clays could cause soil shifting and cracking that could damage the pipeline. However, this potential for pipeline damage would be minimized or eliminated through appropriate design, engineering, and construction of the pipeline. There are no known geological or unique paleontological resources within the areas to be disturbed; therefore, no impact on these resources is expected by construction or operation of the pipeline. 4.2.2 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative)

Under Alternative B, the types of impacts on geologic and mineral resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A, but the coal-haul road would not be constructed. Although, under Alternative B, the unmined coal resources would not be authorized, mining of these resources (approximately 72 million tons) would not be authorized. However, the unmined coal-resource areas could be mined in the future if an application were submitted to, and approved by, BLM and OSM. 4.2.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action)

Under Alternative C, the overall impact on geologic and mineral resources would be the similar to those under Alternative B, but coal resources at the Black Mesa mining operation area would remain unmined (but available for future mining, if pursued) and the coal-haul road would not be constructed.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-10

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

4.3 4.3.1	

SOILS Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station Black Mesa Complex Surface Mining

4.3.1.1 4.3.1.1.1

Surface-mining activities blend and homogenize soil resources. The topsoil and suitable subsoil would be removed and stockpiled for reclamation following backfilling and regrading of the mined areas. Approximately 12,409 acres would be disturbed by surface-mining activities. The permit to conduct surface coal-mining operations includes requirements to conduct surface reclamation and soil restoration operations on the disturbed land as part of the mine closure. OSM guidelines for reclamation programs and projects identify soil and slope conditions that must be considered during reclamation including soil pH and acid-forming spoils, sodic zones, toxic substance occurrence in soil, percent and length of slope, and slope stability. Slope reclamation operations generally include regrading, smoothing, and slope contouring to approximate the original topographic contours. Peabody prepared an approved Surface Stability and Drainage System Development Plan to reestablish a more stable and controlled drainage pattern. Reestablishing of the drainage pattern would be followed by replacing soil, topsoil, and vegetation. 4.3.1.1.1.1 Soil Loss Conserving, protecting, and replacing the soil resource is important because it reclaims the ground surface, promotes revegetation that stabilizes slopes in the area, retains water on slopes, mitigates runoff and erosion, and restores the productivity and capability of the reclaimed lands. Erosion and soil loss from regraded and revegetated slopes were predicted using both the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation and SEDIMOT II. In accordance with SMCRA, Peabody prepared an approved Minesoil Reconstruction Plan to minimize erosion by using the best technology currently available (BTCA). The BTCA practices used to reduce soil loss would vary depending on topography, soil chemical and physical properties, and revegetation success. BTCA practices include reclaiming slopes with material having low erosion potential; then terracing, ripping, and contour furrowing; followed by seeding and mulching. Following mining operations, the potential for erosion of redistributed soil would be minimized by regrading slopes to approximate original contours. Mechanical manipulation of the surface topography to stabilize the surface and control erosion would be accomplished by terracing, ripping, contour furrowing, and other methods. By implementing the approved Surface Stability and Drainage System Development Plan and BTCA practices, the impact of soil loss by erosion on newly reclaimed and terraced slopes would range from 1 to 3 tons per acre per year (tons/acre/yr) depending on the slope length and gradient, compared to 5 to 125 tons/acre/yr on slopes where no terraces or BTCA practices other than contour seeding are implemented (2002 LOM Plan). The soil loss on restored land would be approximately 3 to 9 tons/acre/yr after 10 years, which is less than the 7 to 22 tons/acre/yr that can be expected on undisturbed slopes. 4.3.1.1.1.2 Soil Suitability The LOM revision identifies that 12,409 acres would be disturbed. By salvaging topsoil and suitable subsoil from areas to be disturbed prior to mining, Peabody estimates approximately 1.9 feet of soil material is available to uniformly cover all reclaimed areas (2003 LOM Plan). The Minesoil Reconstruction Plan proposes to salvage the topsoil (as defined in 30 CFR Part 701.5i) together with suitable subsoil and underlying unconsolidated material to provide a topsoil mixture suitable for reclamation. Salvaged material is either redistributed immediately or stockpiled for use as topsoil on

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-11

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

future regraded areas. Topsoil stockpiles are protected from wind and water erosion by seeding the stockpiles and placing berms around the perimeter of the stockpile. As summarized in Section 3.3, during the past 15 years Peabody has collected and evaluated soilresources data to examine the suitability of soil and overburden to be used in reclamation. Graded spoil is sampled and inventoried to determine how much topsoil and/or supplemental plant growth material is needed to create a 4-foot-deep nontoxic, non-acid-forming root zone. Spoil suitability for use in the root zone is based on several soil parameters including: sodic zones that have elevated SARs, salinity, pH, and acid-forming potential (2004 LOM Plan). Implementation of the Minesoil Reconstruction Plan would identify and characterize the location and depth of spoils unsuitable for restoration. Those areas containing unsuitable graded spoil would be covered with suitable topsoil or spoils material to a thickness based upon the depth at which unsuitable materials were encountered. Graded suitable overburden material would be covered with up to 12 inches of soil. Implementation of the Minesoil Reconstruction Plan would result in the creation of a 4-foot nontoxic, non-acid-forming root zone capable of restoring or exceeding the predisturbance productivity of the disturbed areas. 4.3.1.1.1.3 Soil Productivity In the long term, soil erosional stability would be maintained by an effective and permanent vegetative cover. The original soil profile would be lost permanently. Although the reclaimed (postmining) land cannot be restored to premining productive use immediately due to the long timeframe required for plant succession in the arid climate, productivity would be maximized by reclamation procedures that create a suitable 4-foot-deep plant root zone over the entire reclaimed area and establish an effective, diverse, and permanent vegetative cover. The LOM plan reports that historical overgrazing on Black Mesa has degraded the productivity of the soil. Soil reconstruction and revegetation would be undertaken to restore the land to productive use and, in the long term, soil productivity should exceed premining capability (2000 LOM Plan). Construction of the coal-washing facility would result in disturbance of soils within an approximately 2-acre area. The facility would be isolated by stormwater-control structures and procedures from discharging any sediment load to adjacent receiving waters. Any incidental erosion would be corrected as part of routine maintenance. Soil reconstruction and revegetation would occur following mine closure would allow for resumption of the premining grazing use. In the long term, soil productivity would exceed premining capability (2000 LOM Plan). Construction and operation of the coal-haul road would result in disturbance of soils within an approximately 127-acre area. The proposed road would cross Red Peak Wash and adjacent tributaries. It would be constructed to comply with OSM and tribal standards for surface-mine-site transportation facilities, including proper drainage for the road itself and crossings over existing streams, diversions, and drainage structures. Any incidental erosion caused by the road would be corrected as part of routine maintenance. Dust suppression, using tanked and sprayed nonpotable water, would be a normal maintenance procedure. Soil restoration and revegetation following mine closure would restore the road corridor to productive use and, in the long term, soil productivity should exceed premining use (2000 LOM Plan). 4.3.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline

A 65-foot-wide swath of soils was disturbed during construction of the pipeline in the 1960s. Under Alternative A, soil within the 65-foot-wide temporary construction right-of-way (approximately 2,319 acres) for the coal-slurry pipeline would be disturbed during reconstruction. The topsoil and subsoil

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-12

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

would be segregated during excavation and stockpiled. Disturbed land would be reclaimed following construction of the pipeline in accordance with approved procedures (Section 4.19 and Appendix A-2). Soil reconstruction and revegetation would be implemented to restore the pipeline right-of-way to productive use. Unsuitable material that would affect soil productivity would be backfilled beneath a 4-foot-deep root zone of suitable material. Therefore, the impact of disturbing the soils would be mitigated. In the unlikely event of a pipeline failure, the decreased pressure and flow rate in the pipeline would be detected, remotely operated block valves would close, and the flow of coal slurry would stop (Appendix A-2). The volume of coal slurry released to the surface would depend on the location of the leak on the pipeline (top of the pipe versus bottom of the pipe), and the terrain where the leak occurs (a flat location versus on a slope). Using historical data on Black Mesa coal-slurry pipeline releases, BMPI estimates that the amount of slurry released may range from an average of 100 cubic yards (or less) to a maximum of about 565 cubic yards. The maximum coal-slurry release would cover approximately 0.7 acre with 6 inches of nontoxic fines, while the fresh water in which the coal was entrained would soak into the ground. Typically, the slurry would leak to the surface and flow in a narrow meandering path, the direction and length of which would depend on the terrain. The release generally would be confined to a local area, and minor localized soil erosion would result if the release occurred on a slope. If the volume of the release was sufficient to warrant mechanical removal of the coal, the potential damage to the soil or ground surface caused by the removal of the deposit might outweigh the benefit of removing the coal. This would have to be determined by the appropriate agency and/or landowner and BMPI on a sitespecific basis. 4.3.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System

Construction of the well-field facilities (i.e., wells, access roads, collector pipelines, power lines, substation, water-storage tank) would disturb soils of up to approximately 160 acres for the 6,000 af/yr alternative (for 12 wells) and up to approximately 220 acres for the 11,600 af/yr alternative (for 21 wells). Construction of the water-supply pipeline and associated facilities (i.e., pipeline, power line, access roads, pump stations) would disturb up to approximately 1,040 acres for the eastern pipeline alternative and up to approximately 1,545 acres for the western pipeline alternative. Construction areas would be cleared of vegetation, the topsoil would be removed and segregated for use in reclamation, and, for the pipelines, the subsoil would be excavated for the trench. Following placement of the pipeline in the trench, the trench would be backfilled with the subsoil (a minimum of about 36 inches of cover). The site and corridor contours would be restored to conform to adjacent areas. The topsoil would be replaced and the disturbed area would be reseeded. The primary short-term impact on soils, the potential for accelerated soil erosion, would be minimized using best management practices and mitigation (described in Section 4.19 and Appendix A-3). The aboveground facilities would occupy their locations long term while the pipeline rights-of-way could be returned for appropriate land uses. Along the water-supply-pipeline routes, susceptibility to soil-induced corrosion of concrete is low. Corrosion is not anticipated since the steel pipe is concrete-mortar lined and tape wrapped, or epoxy or polyurethane coated, for corrosion protection. In the unlikely event of a pipeline failure, the decreased pressure and flow rate in the pipeline would be detected, remotely operated block valves would close, and the flow of water would stop. Some flooding would occur in topographic lows and drainage channels. If failure were to occur on a steep slope, there would be minor impacts from localized erosion and possible of damage to a cliff face or slope. Damage would be repaired by a maintenance and/or response crew.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-13

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

4.3.2

Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision (Preferred Alternative)

Under Alternative B, the overall impacts on soil resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A, except that the Black Mesa mining operation would not resume and, consequently, fewer acres would be disturbed by mining (i.e., 6,942 acres between 2008 and 2026 instead of 12,409 acres under Alternative A). The coal-haul road would not be constructed. The mined areas of the Black Mesa mining operation would be reclaimed. Although the reclaimed (postmining) land cannot be restored to premining productive use immediately due to the long time required for plant succession in the arid climate, long-term productivity would be maximized by reclamation procedures that create a suitable 4­ foot-deep plant root zone over the entire reclaimed area and establish an effective, diverse, and permanent vegetative cover. Peabody would undertake soil reconstruction and revegetation to restore the land to productive use and, in the long term, it is anticipated that soil productivity would exceed premining capability (2008 LOM Plan). 4.3.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action)

Under Alternative C, the types of impacts on soil resources would be similar to those described under Alternative B. Approximately 6,942 acres would be disturbed by mining between 2008 and 2026 instead of 12,409 acres under Alternative A; however, the coal-haul road would not be constructed. Approximately 5,467 acres that were projected to be mined on the Black Mesa mining operation area under Alternative A would not be impacted under this alternative. Reclamation would begin on approximately 2,500 disturbed acres on the Black Mesa mining operation area. Although the reclaimed (postmining) land cannot be restored to premining productive use immediately due to the long time required for plant succession in the arid climate, productivity would be maximized by reclamation procedures that create a suitable 4-foot-deep plant root zone over the entire reclaimed area and establish an effective, diverse, and permanent vegetative cover. The soil reconstruction and revegetation activities would restore the land to productive use, and it is anticipated that soil productivity would exceed premining use. 4.4 WATER RESOURCES (HYDROLOGY)

Impacts on surface-water and groundwater quantity and quality can occur as a result of coal mining and the construction of pipelines and other surface facilities. These activities have the potential to impact the flow and quality of surface water and the shallow groundwater system. Impacts are measured by changes in water flows and water quality and are generally limited to an area within a few miles of the mining operations or construction site. Impacts on surface water and groundwater due to pumping of the C and/or N aquifers for mining-related and coal-slurry pipeline water supplies are the result of changes in the water levels in the aquifers. These changes can occur over relatively large areas, especially in the confined portions of the aquifer systems. Data and measurements used to assign degrees of impact are discussed in Appendix H. Potential impacts on surface water and groundwater for each alternative are described below. Federal Water Resources Permits Applicable to All Alternatives. The proposed project actions and the alternative actions are subject to Federal permitting requirements for protecting the nation’s surface-water resources. The primary regulatory authorities and responsibilities of the appropriate Federal, tribal, and State agencies are discussed in this section. Applications for appropriate permits would be made during the project design phase when site-specific details are available. Coordination with the USACE and other regulatory agencies would continue through project design in order to assure that the assumptions made in this document would be met.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-14

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States without a permit from the USACE. The USACE may issue individual permits or nationwide permits, depending on the type and magnitude of project impacts. Because the Black Mesa Project is being evaluated in this EIS, the USACE has advised that project activities would be covered under Nationwide Permits 12 (utility-line activities), 21 (surface-coal-mining activities) and, possibly, 14 (linear transportation projects) (USACE 2004a, 2004b, and 2005). This determination assumes that no wetlands would be affected by the project, all crossings of jurisdictional waters would be perpendicular and involve only temporary impacts, and that a preconstruction notice would be provided to the USACE. These permits would cover activities associated with construction of the water-supply system and coalslurry pipeline, and any necessary access roads, as well as modifications at the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. Nationwide permits carry specific conditions that must be met in order to assure water-quality standards (USACE 2002), and these conditions would be included in project design specifications. Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires the applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity, which may result in any discharge to navigable waters, to provide the permitting agency with certification that any such discharge will comply with applicable water-quality standards. Authority for water-quality certification under Section 401 in Arizona is delegated to the NNEPA for waters of the U.S. occurring on tribal lands and to the ADEQ for other locations. Work conducted under Nationwide Permits 12, 14, and 21 requires water-quality certification by the appropriate agencies. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) prohibits obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the United States without permission of the USACE. For this project, a Section 10 permit, if needed, would apply to the coal-slurry-pipeline crossing of the Colorado River. The USACE would evaluate the need for a Section 10 permit based on project design and construction requirements. Preliminary discussions conducted as part of the EIS studies indicate that the pipeline should be installed using horizontal boring under the Colorado River, with at least 50 feet between the bed of the river and the boring entry point, and that contingency plans must be in place (USACE 2004a and 2005). 4.4.1	 4.4.1.1 4.4.1.1.1 Alternative A – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Components Associated with Coal Supply to Mohave Generating Station Black Mesa Complex Surface Water

Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations must comply with SMCRA and CWA regulations, which require that surface-water runoff from constructed surfaces be controlled to “prevent, to the extent possible using the best technology currently available, additional contributions of suspended solids to streamflow, or runoff outside the permit area.” The CWA requires that discharges to streams meet all applicable water-quality standards. OSM-approved procedures for controlling sediment transport include berms, terraces, sediment ponds, and other energy-dissipative channel structures that allow water to pond and sediment to accumulate. To support the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations, Peabody’s LOM application proposes 158 impoundments to exist in 2005 and an additional 104 future ponds as part of the LOM revision. Of these 262 impoundments, Peabody proposes to retain 51 as permanent impoundments in the postmining reclaimed landscape, which would be transferred with other mine facilities to the tribes when Peabody relinquishes the leases (refer to Map 3-7). In addition, there would be numerous watercontrol berms. Surface-water management activities related to mining operations can cause three potential impairments to water use on and off of the leasehold:

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-15

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

•	 Degradation of surface-water quality by adding suspended sediment, dissolved pollutants, or otherwise poor-quality water to existing streamflows •	 Changes in channel geometry, morphology, or location due to changes in flow hydraulics or hydrology •	 General diminution of flow due to increased channel- or pond-bottom area contact and resultant infiltration, or through evaporation from the surface of ponds or channels These potential impacts are discussed below. 4.4.1.1.1.1 Degradation of Surface-Water Quality Surface-water quality must be protected by handling earth materials and runoff in a manner that minimizes the formation of acidic or toxic drainage, prevents additional contribution of suspended solids to streamflow outside the permit area to the extent possible using the BTCA, and otherwise prevents water pollution (30 CFR 816.41(d)(1)). To comply with this requirement, sedimentation structures are built near the disturbed area to impound surface-water runoff and sediment. Peabody is authorized to discharge the retained surface water subject to compliance with NPDES permit NN0022179. Discharge of the impounded surface water may be necessary to maintain the appropriate design storage capacity after the storm event, or surface-water discharge may result when the surface-water runoff exceeds the design storm-flow event. Some sedimentation-control structures are designed not to discharge, and are proposed to be retained for livestock watering as part of the approved postmining landscape. The 2004 and 2005 Annual Hydrology Reports (Peabody 2004, 2005c) contain comparisons of water quality collected at ponds during each reporting period with recommended livestock drinking-water standards. Although both reports show that some water-quality samples from the ponds have constituents that are higher than one or more recommended standards, most can be explained by contributions from groundwater sources or high suspended solids from recent runoff that will lessen over a relatively short time due to settling. A few are anomalous compared with the historical water-quality record for each pond and with respect to the entire water-quality data set collected from all ponds. As of the end of 2005, there have been 488 water-quality samples collected since 1986 from 84 proposed permanent impoundments and temporary sediment ponds. During this period, a few of the impoundments proposed in the LOM plan revision application have shown water quality in excess of recommended water-quality parameters. Permanent impoundments must meet specific performance standards as outlined in 30 CFR 816.49(b), including having water quality suitable for the intended land use (livestock grazing). Peabody will be required to submit information to OSM to demonstrate that each of the permanent impoundments meets the performance standards. If any of the impoundments do not meet the performance standards, OSM will not approve them to be retained in the landscape. As discussed in Section 3.4.1.1, seeps have developed downstream from some sedimentation ponds. Since the onset of mining, some 220 sediment ponds have been constructed, and seeps have been observed below 33 sediment ponds since the onset of sediment-pond construction in 1972. Seeps occur intermittently at the sediment ponds depending on the amount and duration of water impounded in each pond. As of 2005, 70 sediment ponds had been reclaimed, and of those 70 reclaimed structures, seeps had been observed historically below three. An assessment of the hydrologic implications of seeps was presented to USEPA in the 1999 Seepage Monitoring and Management Report. This was the first of seven annual reports submitted to USEPA in accordance with the Seepage Management Plan, and the report presented detailed hydrologic impact assessments including comparisons of 1999 seep-monitoring results with historical data, statistical trend

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-16

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

analyses, and mixing calculations. The assessments indicated that no significant impacts had occurred on the prevailing hydrologic balance, although some seeps monitored in 1999 exceeded some of the livestock water-quality standards. Peabody concluded the seeps had little potential to impact the prevailing hydrologic balance for three principal reasons. (1) The pH of the water controls the solubility and transport of most trace elements. Other than at the immediate area of the seeps, the pH of surrounding ground and surface water is alkaline. Most metals that become soluble in low-pH seep water are rapidly lost to a solid phase (precipitation) over a short distance down gradient. (2) Some of the constituents of concern are already as high or higher in the natural groundwater and surface water systems. (3) Seep flow rates and associated total chemical loads are relatively small in comparison to the flow rates and chemical loads typically measured in alluvial groundwater and surface water runoff below the seeps. During 2005, seeps were observed at 20 of the sediment ponds that were inspected, 17 of which also have NPDES-permitted outfalls. Of those 17 sediment ponds, five exhibited seep-water quality that had at least one exceedence of a livestock standard. Five of the six sampled seeps (two seeps below one pond were sampled) exceeded the livestock standard for pH. The livestock standard for selenium was exceeded at one seep, the standard for aluminum was exceeded at one seep, and the livestock standard for TDS may have been exceeded at one seep (refer to Table 3-3). At the remaining 12 sediment ponds, which also have NPDES-permitted outfalls, seeps met livestock water-quality standards. Flow rates of the seeps monitored in 2005 were well within the historical range of seep flows (less than 0.0003 gpm up to 15.6 gpm). Likewise, the number of ponds exhibiting poor seep-water quality during 2005 and the values of those constituents that exceeded water-quality standards were well within the historical ranges. Under the current Seepage Management Plan, Peabody dewaters sediment ponds at the earliest practicable opportunity to prevent seeps, and constructs fences around the areas below dams to prevent livestock from accessing those seeps that have not met livestock water-quality standards. In addition, Peabody has planted willows and cattails in the area below a dam to reduce downstream flow from several seeps. These activities have proved to be effective to some degree. However, fencing provides only a limited measure of protection for livestock access, and does not completely protect the beneficial use of seep water for livestock and wildlife. The USEPA has recommended other measures to protect water-quality standards and beneficial uses, such as treating the water, eliminating the sediment pond, sealing the pond, capturing the water and infiltrating it upstream of the pond, or intercepting the seep water and pumping it back into the pond. Peabody recently applied to USEPA to renew its NPDES permit, and USEPA is currently reviewing the renewal application. USEPA and Peabody are negotiating new and modified seep-management measures to improve the effectiveness of the Seepage Management Plan and to ensure compliance with the CWA. The improved management measures would be applied at all NPDES sediment ponds with poor seep-water quality, including proposed permanent impoundments. If approved by USEPA, Peabody would install passive-treatment systems to treat seep water below two existing impoundments, and remove several existing temporary sediment ponds with seeps exhibiting poor water quality, which is expected to eliminate the seeps associated with those temporary ponds. The renewed NPDES permit is expected to require continued implementation of the modified Seepage Management Plan, including using existing seep-management measures, performing pond inspections, and reporting the monitoring results. Peabody also would use design and construction methods that would minimize seeps for new sediment ponds by identifying geochemically inert materials for constructing the embankments, compacting the embankments to meet engineering design standards, and siting embankments at locations with low permeable geologic units to the extent practicable. Future ponds to be built during the life of mining that would serve as NPDES outfalls would be subject to the requirements of the modified Seepage Management Plan in the renewed NPDES permit. Future ponds where seeps develop would be evaluated in accordance with the Seepage Management Plan. Therefore, the impacts of the existing seeps associated

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-17

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

with existing sediment ponds and future seeps that may occur below new sediment structures are considered to be minor. Changes in Channel Morphology. Design and operation of the sedimentation ponds would result in a sediment load below equilibrium with the natural hydraulic regime of many washes and channels on the Black Mesa Complex. Erosion of the sides and substrate of the wash would be expected for a short distance downstream of any discharge point, as the stream regained geomorphic equilibrium. Ponddischarge structures are designed in anticipation of this behavior, and allow the water (using grade-control structures, gabion aprons, and bank stabilizers) to attain equilibrium in a gradual and nondestructive fashion. In all cases, erosional scouring of sediment would reach equilibrium before the washes exit the Black Mesa Complex. In addition, failures to meet performance standards are monitored and corrected by Peabody staff as they are observed, confirmed by regular OSM and tribal inspection, and monitored by BIA to ensure compliance with lease terms and conditions. Diversions of natural streamflow also are designed to preserve geomorphic stability and prevent uncontrolled or destructive erosion and sedimentation. All diversions on the Black Mesa Complex are developed using quantitative hydraulic modeling programs (e.g., SEDIMOT II) that simulate the geometry required to maintain geomorphic equilibrium in a natural channel. Where this is not possible, short, specific structures (such as grade-control structures) are designed and constructed in the channel to correct the problem. Similar to the pond discharges, these channels and structures are regularly inspected and maintained by Peabody staff and reviewed by OSM and tribal inspectors. Peabody would ensure, under permit conditions, any impacts of the mine’s drainage system on the natural stream patterns in the affected environment would be confined to the Black Mesa Complex. Because these variations would be far less than the natural variability of these washes and would include a small proportion of the affected washes within the permit area, the impact of the mine on the geometry, morphology, or location of the natural stream patterns is expected to be negligible outside the permit area. Diminution of Flow. Sediment ponds are designed to detain water long enough to allow settling of suspended sediment to settle before the water is released into the local drainage, where surface-water impoundments retain water permanently. Further, contour furrows and terraces on reclaimed slopes are placed in the path of runoff to decrease the amount of or slow down water that would have entered the surface-drainage system. Use of sediment ponds results in some amount of surface water being lost, either through infiltration into the ground or evaporation from the surface of the ponded water. This lost potential surface flow represents a diminution of surface-water quantity at the permit boundary, relative to the reaches of the local drainage system that are not under a sediment-management system. Loss of runoff also occurs where many originally existing streams in the permit area are diverted from their channels to allow surface-mine excavations and reclamation to proceed. The effect of this volumetric loss on downstream water quantities (principally Coal Mine, Moenkopi, and Dinnebito Washes) was examined as part of the Chapter 18, Probable Hydrologic Consequences of the permit application package (Peabody 1986, amended 2008). The examination concluded that the volume of water retained or detained by the drainage-control structures is a very small proportion of the total runoff in the affected watersheds. At the end of the next five-year mining plan (December 2013), approximately 0.7 percent of the Dennebito drainage area and 2.7 percent of the Moenkopi drainage area would be impounded. After mining, about 0.5 percent of the Dinnebito Wash and 2.2 percent of the Moenkopi Wash watershed areas would be impounded permanently. The permanent impoundments are estimated to result in a diminution of flow at the lower end of Dinnebito and Moenkopi Washes of about 1 and 5 percent, respectively, of the average annual runoff (Peabody 1986, amended 2008). Assuming a similar ratio of impoundment area to flow loss, the maximum diminution of flow at the lower end of the basins is estimated to be 1.4 percent for Dennebito
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 4-18 Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Wash and 6.4 percent for Moenkopi Wash, volumes that would be difficult to detect using available streamflow measurement technology. The analysis described above assumes no transmission loss of flow between the Black Mesa Complex and the downstream USGS streamflow gage near Moenkopi. In fact, measurements indicate that loss through infiltration is very high in Moenkopi Wash, with rates of about 1 inch per hour (Peabody 1986, amended 2008). Using a 644 acre-foot volume (equal to the total impounded volume for 1998 to 1999), the analysis indicated that the flow could travel about 45 miles downstream before it was completely absorbed by the bed material. This is short of the 70 miles to the first downgradient use location at the town of Moenkopi, where most irrigation operations are located. This estimate is supported by measurements from a storm event on July 27, 1998, where 206.7 acre-feet of water were gauged at the permit boundary of Moenkopi Wash, and 14 acre-feet were measured at the USGS gage near Moenkopi from July 27 to 29, 1998. Given these observations, it appears that the amount of surface-water flow lost by the mining operations would be small when compared to the amount naturally lost through infiltration in the wash. The change in streamflow would be difficult to measure, leading to the conclusion that there would be negligible to no surface-water quantity impacts from surface-water diversion, impoundments, and sediment ponds on the mining operations areas. 4.4.1.1.2 Groundwater

4.4.1.1.2.1 Impacts on the Wepo and Alluvial Aquifers On the Black Mesa Complex, groundwater occurs in the more permeable beds within the Wepo Formation and within the alluvium associated with the stream channels. Mining can have potential impacts on these aquifers as follows: • • • • Dewatering of the coal seam and shallow aquifers by exposure of the pit walls Diversion of shallow groundwater movement by structures such as dams and pit walls Impairment of the water quality through infiltration of poor-quality surface water Impairment of water quality by leaching spoils and migration to adjacent groundwater aquifers

As of 2005, there were 25 Wepo Formation and 32 active alluvial-aquifer sites being monitored for water level and water quality (Peabody 2005c). Mining of coal seams and interbedded porous rock frequently results in the exposure of saturated zones and discharge of groundwater to the pit face or sides (Peabody 1986, amended 2004). Several of the Wepo Formation coal seams are saturated. Peabody has monitored the quality and quantity of the Wepo Formation’s aquifer water since the initiation of mining. Peabody modeled the potential impact of mine dewatering on the alluvial and Wepo aquifer wells. Water-level drawdowns of up to 65 feet by 2013 were predicted. However, actual water-level drawdowns in 2004 were typically an order of magnitude less than predicted, suggesting that the modeling is conservative, even given the additional nine years in the modeling period. In 2004, measured drawdown had exceeded historic fluctuations by more than 5 feet in five of the alluvial wells and two of the Wepo aquifer wells (Peabody 1986, amended 2004). Some local wells or springs would be mined out. However, under these circumstances, Peabody would be required to provide alternative water supplies as near to the original supply as practicable. Upon completion of backfilling, regrading, and revegetation, the replaced spoil would resaturate and a new, different hydrogeologic regime would be established on the reclaimed land. Some springs would return to availability and some would not, in an individually unpredictable fashion. Based on estimates of the hydrogeologic behavior of similarly reclaimed land, porosities and hydraulic conductivity should

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-19

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

increase. However, this does not mean that water levels would return to original levels. It is likely that there would be some minimal impact on local groundwater levels in the coal seam and shallow and alluvial aquifers on the reclaimed and adjacent lands during mining. After reclamation is complete, the hydrologic regime would reach a new equilibrium. The Wepo and alluvial aquifers do not provide water of suitable quality for domestic use. The quality for stockwatering is marginal. Where shallow groundwater wells have been impacted by mining, Peabody has provided alternative supplies. Two windmill wells have been removed by mining and one additional windmill well will be removed in the future. Peabody has committed to replacing all three wells. Peabody has installed two water stands that provide free potable (N-aquifer) water to the public on a 24-hour, 7-days-a-week. Overall the impact on the use of the shallow groundwater system due to mine dewatering is considered negligible. Surface-water flow events recharge the alluvial aquifers associated with the stream channels. Reduced flows in washes might be expected to decrease the amount of recharge; however, the impoundment of water and subsequent seepage of pond water into the banks and substrate of the ponds locally enhance recharge. Although it is difficult to quantify, only a small proportion of the premining runoff would actually evaporate or be consumed by mine activities. Therefore, it is expected that reduction in recharge, if any, would be immeasurable and there would be negligible impact on the quantity of recharge to the alluvial aquifers from mining activity. Chemical reaction of groundwater with spoil material (i.e., broken and crushed rock) has the potential to create groundwater of a lower quality than would occur in an unmined subsurface environment. This is because the reactions common in these settings are enhanced by the greater surface area and oxygen flux afforded by the broken rock and enhanced porosity of the spoil. Dissolution of salts on the surfaces of shales and clays could raise the specific conductivity of the spoil groundwater. Several studies suggest a 50 to 130 percent increase in dissolved solids in similar spoil aquifers in the western United States (Peabody 1986, amended 2008). Acid reactions in the spoil water also are likely. However, there are sufficient carbonate materials and alkaline salts available in the overburden materials to neutralize most acid production from the oxidation of sulfides. All but one of the overburden core samples taken on the leasehold had excess neutralization potential. These cores also indicate that there are no high concentrations of metals in the overburden. As acid water comes in contact with the alkaline overburden, the pH rises and metals that are present tend to precipitate. This is supported by the analysis of ground water in the Wepo and alluvial aquifer-monitoring wells; metals in these wells generally do not exceed livestock watering standards (Peabody 1989, revised 2003). Although there are specific procedures in the mine plan to reduce acid-forming materials, and the presence of carbonate material in the Wepo overburden and inter-burden is sufficient to achieve neutrality, some local pockets of acidic water could be formed. This could result in the release of trace elements associated with SO4 and sulfide as these reactions proceed toward equilibrium. These chemical reactions could result in some minor-to-moderate water-quality impacts on local wells, increasing the levels of salinity and trace elements to a level that decreases their usability. Peabody would be required to provide alternative water supplies to any wells rendered unusable due to violation of water-quality standards. Similarly, the spoil water also could discharge to the surface water as springs or seeps. Some degradation of surface-water quality could result, particularly in the vicinity of the springs. However, the impact on the surface-water flows would be minor in volume compared to stormwater runoff. As noted above, discharges from springs with low pH water are neutralized by the alkaline soils. Since streams are
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 4-20 Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

intermittent and generally flow only after precipitation events, any poor-quality spring-water discharges tend to be diluted by the much larger streamflows. Streamflow events tend to carry high sediment loads and are generally not suitable for use by livestock, resulting in little potential exposure of livestock to poor-quality spoil water. Finally, the opposite condition, degradation of groundwater by infiltration of surface water, also is a possible impact from surface-mining activities. Controlled surface water would be allowed to infiltrate to the shallow subsurface in impoundments, sediment ponds, or diversions. Increases in some soluble ions (Ca, Mg, Na, SO4 and bicarbonate) and TDS would occur. The potential for formation of acid and tracemetal migration is minimal due to the high carbonate content of the soil materials. The magnitude of the impact on groundwater quality should be limited to the immediate pit areas due to low transmissivity and groundwater gradients in the shallow aquifers (Peabody 1986, revised 2003). Runoff from shops or other facilities using petroleum products and hazardous materials is controlled under Peabody’s Spill Control and Countermeasure plan. This plan specifies measures for handling and controlling these materials as well as cleanup procedures in the event of a spill. The coal-washing facility would use water from the C or N aquifer, depending on the final selection between these options. In either case, the volumes of water used would be consistent with the production of high-quality coal required by the Mojave Generating Station. The facility would use various watersaving and recycling technologies. Initially, the plant would require approximately 330 acre-feet of water. A moisture balance on the entering coal, exiting clean coal, and waste would result in an annual deficit of 324 acre-feet, to be supplied by either aquifer. In the LOM plan revision, an estimate of 500 af/yr (from the C aquifer or the N aquifer) has been evaluated. The coal-washing facility would be constructed near the existing coal-processing facilities. Runoff from the facility would be contained in the existing NPDES-permitted sediment ponds. The coal-washing facility is designed to recycle water, with essentially no process-water discharge. A small, nondischarging surge pond would be constructed adjacent to the plant to contain water that could be drained periodically from plant tanks during repairs. The Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure plan would be modified to address this pond. Coal waste initially would be disposed in the N-06 pit for approximately 3 years, and then new waste would be disposed in the J-23 pit for the remaining 14 years. A study commissioned by Peabody to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of this plan on the hydrologic balance of the affected environment concluded that the coal-wash refuse (earth material) is no more likely to interact with groundwater or produce poorquality leachate than regraded spoil material, and that any adverse effects would be temporary and immeasurable (Western Water & Land, Inc. 2003). The study concluded that there would be a negligible impact from disposal of the coal-wash refuse, as proposed. The study relied on surrogate core samples and leachate tests to provide chemical data to assess impacts, because actual wash-plant refuse from the coal-washing facility would not be available until operations resume at the Black Mesa mining operation in 2010. A degree of uncertainty was introduced to the study results because the core samples were not expected to have the same physical characteristics as the refuse material and were not subjected to a washing process. As a result, Peabody would develop and submit for regulatory approval a Refuse Sampling and Disposal Plan that would be incorporated into the mining permit. The plan would be implemented when the coalwashing facility begins operating. The plan would consist of periodic sampling of refuse based upon the source (pit and seam) of run-of-mine coal being processed to ensure a representative cross section of the refuse material is sampled. Samples would be analyzed for the same chemical constituents (including trace elements) employing the same analytical techniques used to analyze the core samples as described in the study. The analytical data results would be compared to the chemical data assessed in the study. If the analytical data results from coal-wash-refuse samples exceed concentrations from the initial core
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 4-21 Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

samples, new model simulations would be conducted using the new data and the same models used to predict impacts in the study. If the coal-washing-refuse sample data and model results do not deviate from the study data and model results, the refuse would be disposed in the pits (N-06 and J-23) using standard practices currently outlined in the permit application. If the data and model results deviate significantly from the study and indicate the potential for greater impacts, Peabody would implement special refusedisposal procedures such as placing the refuse in pit areas over preconstructed liners consisting of compacted clay spoil and capping the refuse with compacted clay spoils, or mixing the refuse with greater volumes of specially handled spoil having chemical characteristics suitable for diluting or neutralizing the refuse. Locations where special disposal procedures are implemented would be surveyed and recorded. Following final grading and reseeding, a downgradient spoil-monitoring well would be installed, and monitoring of water levels and chemistry would be conducted at frequencies and for parameters as described in the plan and approved by OSM to confirm the special disposal procedures are effective. The coal-haul road, shown on Figure 2-1, would be constructed and maintained in full compliance with Peabody’s OSM and tribal standards for surface-mine-site transportation facilities, including proper drainage for the road itself and for crossings over existing streams, diversions, and drainage structures. Dust suppression, using tanked and sprayed nonpotable water, would be a normal maintenance procedure. Impacts on groundwater quantity and quality from construction and maintenance of the road would be similar to those from existing roads, and are expected to be negligible. The impact on surface-water quantity would be to increase, slightly, the amount of runoff over that from undisturbed land. Stormwater runoff from the coal-haul road would be treated by implementing best management practices as described in Peabody’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is required by Peabody’s coverage under the Multi-Sector General NPDES Permit for Storm Water, and the existing SWPPP would be modified to include the new coal-haul road. Implementing best management practices along the new coal-haul road as part of the SWPPP would result in negligible impacts on downstream surface water. 4.4.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline

Short-term disturbances of surface-water drainages and, in rare instances, the shallow groundwater system would result along the coal-slurry pipeline right-of-way during construction. The primary impact would be a short-term increase in sedimentation resulting from excavation of the trench and vehicular construction traffic. Impacts would be confined largely to the pipeline right-of-way and would be negligible. In the unlikely event of a pipeline failure, the decreased pressure and flow rate in the pipeline would be detected, remotely operated block valves would close, and the flow of coal slurry would stop (Appendix A-2). The volume of coal slurry released to the surface would depend on the location of the leak on the pipeline (top of the pipe versus bottom of the pipe), and the terrain where the leak occurs (a flat location versus on a slope). Using historical data on Black Mesa coal-slurry-pipeline releases, BMPI estimates that the amount of slurry released may range from an average of 100 cubic yards (or less) to a maximum of about 565 cubic yards. The maximum coal-slurry release would cover approximately 0.7 acre with 6 inches of nontoxic fines, while the fresh water in which the coal is entrained would soak into the ground. Typically, the slurry would leak to the surface and flow in a narrow, meandering path, the direction and length of which would depend on the terrain. The release generally would be confined to a local area and the impact would be short term and, in the majority of instances, negligible on surface-water resources. If the volume of the release was sufficient to warrant mechanical removal of the coal, the potential damage to soil or drainage caused by the removal of the deposit might outweigh the benefit of removing the coal. This would have to be determined by the appropriate agency and/or landowner and BMPI on a sitespecific basis.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-22

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

One of the potential risks associated with horizontal boring under a watercourse, such as the Colorado River, is the escape of drilling mud into the environment as a result of release, tunnel collapse, or rupture (from excessive drilling pressure) of mud to the surface. If the rupture occurs in the watercourse, the fine clay particles would disperse and settle on the bottom of the watercourse. Ruptures are difficult to detect underwater, but the potential for a rupture would be minimized through proper geotechnical practices, adequate drill planning and execution, careful monitoring, and use of appropriate equipment and response plans in the unlikely event that a rupture were to occur. During operation, it is unlikely that the pipeline would fail and release slurry into the watercourse. Based on historical performance of the existing pipeline (Appendix A-2), no failures and consequent leaks occurred in or near the river during the 35 years of operation. Considering this and the proposed conceptual design of the reinforced pipeline, failures are not anticipated. In the unlikely event of a release, the extent of the impact is uncertain, as such a determination would depend on the amount of slurry released and the conditions of the watercourse (e.g., flow rate). Generally, the nontoxic fines released would be suspended in the water, carried an uncertain distance by the current, and disperse over the bottom of the watercourse. This impact on water would be temporary and negligible. There would be no impacts on the deep groundwater aquifers during construction or operation. 4.4.1.3 Water Supply

Water demands for the mining operations, coal-slurry pipeline, and coal-washing facility would be supplied by groundwater from either a combination of the C and N aquifers or the N aquifer. As described in Chapter 3, these aquifers are regional in extent, underlying much of the northwestern corner of Arizona. The N aquifer underlies Black Mesa and is the current source of water to the Black Mesa Complex and many of the communities on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations. While the C aquifer exists under Black Mesa, it is deep (greater than 5,000 feet under the Black Mesa Complex) and of poor quality. In areas where the C aquifer is at or near the ground surface, including in the area of the proposed C aquifer well field, the water quality is suitable for most uses. The N and C aquifers are separated by approximately 1,000 feet of low-permeability semi-consolidated silts and clays of the Chinle and Moenkopi Formations. There is essentially no hydraulic connection between the N and C aquifers. Impacts due to pumping of these aquifers to supply the Black Mesa Complex are, therefore, discussed separately. The impact of groundwater pumping is commonly assessed by a measured or projected lowering of the water level in the pumping wells and in wells located within the cone of depression created by the pumping well(s). The lowering of the water level has the potential to result in five primary effects as follows:

•	 Increase in the cost of pumping due to increased lift to get the water to the land surface. •	 Reduction in saturated thickness and consequently a decrease in the transmissivity (ability of the
aquifer to transmit water to the well) in unconfined aquifers. In severe cases, a well can cease to produce water or “go dry.”

•	 Diminution of stream baseflow and spring flow (groundwater discharge to the surface-water
system) due to a lowering of aquifer water levels in the area of perennial streams and springs.

•	 Migration of man-caused or natural poor-quality groundwater toward the well field. •	 Potential for subsidence in unconsolidated aquifer systems due to compression of fine-grained
layers. Also, the removal of cavity filling material and dissolution of limestone in some limestone aquifers can foster sinkhole development. These effects are not a concern in this study, however,
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 4-23 Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

due to the fact that the primary water-bearing units of the N and C aquifers are not composed of unconsolidated material or limestone (refer to Appendix H). In large, complicated aquifers and stream systems with multiple pumping centers, it is necessary to use numerical models to assess the relationship between groundwater pumping and streamflow diminution. Three separate models have been developed over the past several years that have assessed the potential stream diminution from C-aquifer pumping in the area of Clear and Chevelon Creeks. These models are briefly described below: •	 Western Navajo and Hopi Water Supply Needs, Alternative and Impacts Study—In 2003, under Reclamation’s Western Navajo and Hopi Water Supply Needs, Alternative and Impacts Study, HDR developed a three-dimensional (3-D) numerical flow model of the Clear and Chevelon Creek area. The numerical model (MODFLOW) covered only a portion of the C aquifer and did not include all pumping centers. The area outside the numerical model was simulated with an analytical model (HDR 2003). •	 USGS Superposition Model—The USGS developed a numerical model of the entire C aquifer for Reclamation. Given the schedule constraints of the Black Mesa EIS, the USGS developed a simplified model of the C aquifer that addressed only pumpage from the proposed well field and its impact on Clear and Chevelon Creek streamflow. This “superposition model” is a twodimensional (2-D) MODFLOW numerical model designed to be conservative in that the efficiency of the connection between the groundwater and surface water in the creeks was assumed to be high. In addition, the model does not include any natural recharge or regional groundwater flow. It assumes all water pumped from the proposed well field comes from aquifer storage or Clear and Chevelon Creeks. This model was not calibrated to reflect historic flow in Clear and Chevelon Creeks (Leake et al. 2005). •	 SSPA Model—SSPA developed a three-dimensional (3-D) MODFLOW model of the entire C aquifer that includes considerations of recharge, regional flow, and all known pumping centers. The model was calibrated to measured flows in lower Clear and lower Chevelon Creeks and water-level changes in wells (SSPA 2005). The three C-aquifer groundwater models were developed independently. However, the USGS and SSPA models predict essentially the same streamflow depletion in lower Clear and Chevelon Creeks. These models predict greater depletion than the HDR model, due in part to the lower project pumpage assumed in the HDR model. However, all three models predict small streamflow depletion values resulting from project pumping over the planning period (refer to Appendix H). The N aquifer has been modeled by the USGS and two consultants retained by Peabody. These models are described below: •	 USGS Black Mesa Model—The USGS developed a finite-difference model of the N aquifer in 1983 that was upgraded in 1988 and 2000. The model was designed to evaluate the impacts of current and future groundwater withdrawals for the Black Mesa Complex, as well as municipal withdrawals from surrounding Indian communities. The model is 2-D and comprised of one layer that represents the N aquifer. A general head boundary was used to simulate vertical flow between the D aquifer and N aquifer (Brown and Eychaner 1988; Eychaner 1983). •	 HSI GeoTrans and Waterstone D and N Aquifer Model—HSI GeoTrans and Waterstone (GeoTrans) developed a finite-difference model of the D and N aquifers using the MODFLOW numerical code. This is a regional 3-D groundwater-flow model developed to estimate the effects of pumping by Peabody and several American Indian communities on the aquifers and on surface-water flows. The GeoTrans model covers a slightly larger area than the USGS model.
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 4-24 Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Additional hydrogeologic field data were collected and compiled as a part of the studies to develop the model. The model has undergone extensive sensitivity testing and validation. Evaluation of the model indicates that it successfully simulates historic water-level response to pumping in the N aquifer. It also produces N-aquifer drawdowns that are essentially the same as the USGS model (Peabody 1999, GeoTrans 2005, 2006). This model has been accepted by OSM for use in evaluating impacts due to mine-related pumpage. In this EIS, the USGS superposition, SSPA and GeoTrans numerical models are used to assess the impacts of pumping from the C and N aquifers, respectively, as these models are the most representative of the complexities of these aquifer systems (refer to Appendix H). 4.4.1.4 C Aquifer Water-Supply System

As described in Chapter 2, there are two possible C-aquifer pumping subalternatives. These are summarized in Table 4-5. Table 4-5
Subalternative Pumping Rate (af/yr)

Pumping Rate Subalternatives

Comment Project only (including coal slurry and coal washing 6,000 through 2026) Project (6,000 af/yr) plus 5,600 af/yr for tribal domestic, 11,600 municipal, industrial, and commercial use (2010 to 2060) NOTE: af/yr = acre feet per year

Impacts of these pumping subalternatives on surface-water and groundwater resources in the study area are described below. 4.4.1.4.1 Well Field

4.4.1.4.1.1 Increased Cost of Pumping Since the siting of individual wells in the C-aquifer well field has not yet been determined, location of the nearest existing stock well is unknown. However, drawdown in any nearby well would not be more than the drawdown in the center of the well field. Static water level in the well-field area is approximately 240 feet bgs. The estimated annual energy cost of pumping for a stock-watering well from this depth is $130 (refer to Appendix H). Under the maximum well-field pumping (up to 11,600 af/yr), drawdown of the water level in the center of the C-aquifer well field is projected to be 58 feet (SSPA 2005). Thus, the maximum pumping lift would be 298 feet (240 feet plus 58 feet) after 50 years of well-field operation. This would result in an annual pumping cost of $150, an increase of 15 percent, or a negligible impact. The impact on pumping cost for 6,000 af/yr would result in less than half the pumping cost increase, or about 7 percent, also a negligible impact (refer to Appendix H). As noted in Appendix H, many C-aquifer stock-watering wells have windmills rather than electric pumps. For these wells, costs do not increase when the water level declines, as long as the decline does not require the pump to be set deeper. The pump-setting depth in wells in the area is generally unknown. Assessing the impact of project pumping on these wells relies on available data concerning the height of the water column in the well (depth of the well minus the static water level) and is evaluated in the same manner as the potential reduction in aquifer saturated thickness, as described in the subsequent subsection

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-25

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

4.4.1.4.1.2 Reduction in Aquifer Saturated Thickness The C aquifer in the area of the well field is unconfined; average saturated thickness of the C aquifer in the well-field area is about 700 feet (Reclamation 2005). As noted above, under maximum well-field pumping (up to 11,600 af/yr), maximum drawdown of the water level in the center of the C-aquifer well field is projected to be 58 feet in 2060 (SSPA 2005), or about 8 percent of the aquifer thickness after 50 years of pumping. This level of drawdown would have a negligible impact on the aquifer (refer to Appendix H). The impact on the pumping cost for 6,000 af/yr, which would pump less than one-half the groundwater, would be an increase of less than 4 percent. While the overall reduction in aquifer saturated thickness is small, some local wells would be impacted. Maps 4-1 and 4-2 show the anticipated 2060 drawdown due to pumping for the 6,000 and 11,600 af/yr subalternatives, respectively. The saturated thickness in wells with known depths and water levels also is shown. The number shown is the height of the water table above the bottom of the well, in feet. Under the 6,000 af/yr subalternative, two wells would experience a reduction of saturated thickness of between 29 and 32 percent, resulting in a minor to moderate impact (refer to Appendix H). At the 11,600 af/yr withdrawal rate, 11 wells would have a reduction in saturated thickness of between 21 and 70 percent, with corresponding impacts of minor to major. While the impact on individual wells is significant, the number of wells affected is relatively small, two and 11 out of a total of 71 known wells for each subalternative, respectively. Some additional wells may not have been identified or their saturated thickness data may not be available. Depending on the specific design of the C-aquifer well field and distribution facilities, some affected well owners could receive replacement water from the proposed well field. Other impacted owners could require that wells be deepened or new wells drilled. Specific actions would be taken to address impacts on existing water users in coordination with the tribes. Under the 11,600 af/yr subalternative, local water levels in the Leupp area are projected to rise, since some of existing current demand would be supplied from the C-aquifer well field with concurrent reductions in local well use. This water-level rise creates the difference in the pattern of drawdown south of Leupp between the 6,000 af/yr (Map 4-1) and 11,600 af/yr (Map 4-2) scenarios. 4.4.1.4.1.3 Diminution of Stream and Spring Flow Stream baseflow diminution in lower Clear Creek and lower Chevelon Creek was estimated using the USGS and SSPA groundwater models (Leake et al. 2005; SSPA 2005). At the end of the planning period (2060), the maximum diminution would occur at the confluence of the creeks with the Little Colorado River (Table 4-6).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-26

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Map 4-1

Drawdown vs. Saturated Thickness, C Aquifer 6,000 af/yr Subalternative

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-27

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Map 4-2

Drawdown vs. Saturated Thickness, C Aquifer 11,600 af/yr

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-28

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-6

Projected Baseflow Diminution in Upper East Clear Creek, 
 Lower Clear Creek, and Lower Chevelon Creek 


Upper East Clear Lower Clear Lower Chevelon Subalternative Creek (cfs)1 Creek (cfs)2 Creek (cfs)2 6,000 af/yr less than 0.001 0.05 0.03 11,600 af/yr less than 0.001 0.06 0.04 SOURCES: 1Leake et al. 2005; 2 S.S. Papadopoulos and Associates 2005 
 NOTES: af/yr = acre feet per year, cfs = cubic feet per second 


Model-predicted diminution of stream baseflow in upper East Clear Creek is essentially zero. Maximum predicted baseflow reduction in lower Clear Creek is 0.06 cfs for the 11,600 af/yr subalternative or 1.1 percent of the average baseflow and 0.05 cfs or 1.0 percent for the 6,000 af/yr subalternative, a negligible impact in both cases. For lower Chevelon Creek, the diminutions for the 11,600 and 6,000 af/yr subalternative are respectively 1.5 and 1.1 percent of the 2005 baseflow (2.7 cfs), also a negligible impact for both scenarios (refer to Appendix H). As discussed in Chapter 3, while baseflow constitutes essentially all of the streamflow in some days during the summer months, the baseflow is a relatively small percentage of the average annual streamflow of 83 cfs in lower Clear Creek and 54 cfs in lower Chevelon Creek. Maximum diminution of average annual flow by maximum project groundwater pumping (11,600 af/yr) is 0.1 percent, resulting in a negligible impact on human uses. Blue Springs is the major discharge point for the C aquifer, releasing more than 164,000 af/yr into the Little Colorado River, upstream from its confluence with the Colorado River. Water from the springs is not potable (salinity is 3,000 ppm), but is of cultural significance to the Hopi and Navajo people and supports critical habitat for the Little Colorado River humpback chub. Blue Springs is approximately 77 miles north-northwest of the C-aquifer well field (refer to Map 3-4). Model-predicted changes in flow at Blue Springs due to project pumping are essentially zero (SSPA 2005), resulting in no effects from this project. The only other known C-aquifer springs within the project area are those that support baseflow in Clear and Chevelon Creeks. Effects on these springs are identified in the discussion of impact on streamflow and Table 4-6 above. 4.4.1.4.1.4 Migration of Poor-Quality Groundwater As noted in Chapter 3, groundwater quality in the C-aquifer well field is suitable for most drinking water and industrial uses. However, the quality of the groundwater declines to the northeast, with TDS levels reaching 2,000 mg/L approximately 10 miles from the center of the proposed well field. The potential for this water to migrate into the well field was evaluated using particle-tracking methods. The capture area of the well-field pumping at the maximum rate (11,600 af/yr) does not reach the 2,000 mg/L isopleth, although it does reach the 1,500 mg/L isopleth. Based on the modeling, it was concluded that water quality would remain suitable for drinking-water purposes over the modeled period (SSPA 2005). Under the 6,000 af/yr subalternative, pumping would be confined to a 16-year period (mid-2009 through 2025). It is highly unlikely that any change in water quality would occur over this period. Some change in water quality over the longer planning period (until 2060) and higher pumping rate of up to 11,600 af/yr cannot be ruled out, but is unlikely to make the water unsuitable for domestic use as any poor-quality water migrating from the northeast would be blended with good quality water moving from the southwest into the well field. Any increase in salinity, if it occurs, would take place gradually over years, and would be detectable through simple routine monitoring so that engineering and/or management solutions could be implemented before the users of the water are affected.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-29

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

4.4.1.4.2

C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline

Because the pipeline would be constructed near land surface, construction and operation would not affect existing groundwater in the regional D, N, or C aquifers, which generally have water levels below the level of excavation for the pipeline trench. The pipeline would cross numerous washes where, locally, groundwater could be near the surface. On the Black Mesa Complex, the pipeline would cross the Wepo and shallow alluvial aquifers. In areas with shallow groundwater, some temporary discharge of groundwater to the excavation may occur during construction. The impact on other users, if any, is expected to be limited in both time and distance from the excavation. Based on the conceptual design, engineering, and construction of the pipeline (Appendix A-3), it is unlikely that the water-supply pipeline would fail. However, if a failure were to occur, the decreased pressure and flow rate in the pipeline would be detected, remotely operated block valves would close, and the flow of water would stop. In the event of a failure, some flooding would occur in topographic lows and drainage channels and some erosion and sediment transport might occur at the point of failure. The area affected would be limited. Releases resulting from pipeline failure would not be expected to have an adverse impact on local water quality. Overall, construction and operation of the C aquifer water-supply pipeline is expected to have a negligible impact on the existing surface-water and groundwater resources. 4.4.1.5 D and N Aquifer Water-Supply System

Two potential options for mining-related and coal-slurry pipeline water supply have been identified. As indicated in Section 2.2.1.2.2.1, there are two potential subalternatives for using the existing N-aquifer water supply. Under one subalternative, N aquifer water-supply system would not be relied on for mining or industrial use, while the proposed new C aquifer water-supply system would provide the majority of the water needed for the mining operations. The N-aquifer wells would need to be pumped periodically to keep them in operating condition until being returned to the Navajo Nation, and they also would be used as a temporary back-up supply in case the primary C-aquifer water supply failed for any reason. Under a second subalternative, the N aquifer water-supply system would continue to be used as the sole water supply for mining-related purposes and coal slurry. As discussed in Appendix H, the analysis of impacts due to pumping from the D and N aquifers relies on the 3-D groundwater flow model developed for Peabody by GeoTrans. The effects of N-aquifer pumping associated with each option is discussed in the following subsections. 4.4.1.5.1 Alternative A, Supplemental Use of N-Aquifer Water

Under Alternative A, recent past average annual use (2000 through 2004) of the N aquifer (4,400 af/yr) would be reduced to an average rate of about 480 af/yr over the life of the mining operations. Therefore, even though pumping of the N aquifer may continue, water levels in the area of the well field may rise due to a decrease in the pumping compared to previous years. Pumping would consist of up to 500 af/yr from mid-2009 through 2025 for mine-related and public use; 505 af/yr for mine reclamation and domestic use from 2026 through 2028; and 444 af/yr would be used from 2029 through 2038. These pumping rates assume that no N-aquifer water is needed as a back-up supply and the C-aquifer water supply does not fail for any reason. Since water-supply systems historically have been highly reliable, it is expected that the actual pumping during the LOM permit period would be similar to the projected amounts.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-30

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

4.4.1.5.1.1 Cost of Pumping Peabody modeled the effects on nearby N-aquifer community wells under various mine-pumping scenarios (Geotrans 2006). Predicted water-level change is given in Table 4-7. Table 4-7 N-Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative A, Supplemental Use of N-Aquifer Water, 2005 to 2025
Water Level, 2005 (feet msl) All but Peabody All 5,533.4 5,465.2 5,667.6 5,469.1 5,488.5 5,454.7 5,799.2 5,790.6 5,461.6 5,438.6 5,712.9 5,640.7 5,609.2 5,516.0 5,719.4 5,717.8 Water Level, 2025 (feet msl) All but Peabody All 5,516.0 5,481.2 5,653.2 5,563.9 5,438.3 5,418.6 5,781.8 5,770.3 5,413.3 5,383.8 5,680.1 5,620.4 5,594.1 5,523.2 5,717.8 5,715.8 Drawdown (feet)1 All but Peabody All Peabody 17.4 -16.1 -33.5 14.4 -94.8 -109.3 50.2 36.1 -14.1 17.4 20.3 3.0 48.2 55.1 6.6 32.8 20.3 -12.5 15.1 -7.5 -22.3 1.6 2.0 0.3

Community Well Chilchinbeto PM3 Forest Lake NTUA 1 4T-523 Kayenta West 8T-541 Keams Canyon PM2 Kykotsmovi PM1 Pinion PM6 Rocky Ridge PM2 Rough Rock 10R-111 SOURCE: Geotrans 2006
 NOTE: 1 Negative sign (-) indicates rise in water level. 
 Msl = mean sea level, NTUA = Navajo Tribal Utility Authority 


Five of the eight wells modeled show a rise in water level due to a reduction in N-aquifer pumping under this alternative. As would be expected, wells closest to the mine’s well field have the greatest predicted response. The well with the greatest total drawdown is at Kykotsmovi (55.1 feet); however, the drawdown due to the project (6.6 feet) is 3 percent of the 2004 depth to water (229 feet bgs), resulting in a negligible impact (refer to Appendix H). Some of the Peabody production wells pump from both the D and N aquifers, with about 3 percent of the water coming from the D aquifer (Peabody 1986, revised 2005). The communities of Chilchinbito, Kitsillie, Kykotsmovi, and Polacca also use D-aquifer water but are located far enough from the mine that drawdown due to maximum project pumping is limited to about 1 foot (OSM 2006). This level of drawdown would have no measurable impact on pumping cost. D-aquifer uses near the leasehold are primarily for stock watering using windmill-driven pumps. While these wells are not subject to increased pumping costs, they can be adversely impacted if water levels decline in the wells to a point where pumps must be lowered and/or the wells deepened to remain productive. Two windmill wells in the D aquifer are within 15 miles of the Peabody pumping center, identified as 4T-402 and 4K-387. Windmill Well 4K-387 is screened in both the Cow Springs and Dakota Formations, and is approximately 15 miles from the Peabody pumping center. Windmill Well 4T-402 withdraws water from the Dakota Sandstone Formation and is approximately 1 mile from the Peabody pumping center. Due to the reduction in pumpage associated with this alternative, the water level in Windmill Well 4T-402 is projected to rise over the 2005 to 2025 period, resulting in no adverse impact (OSM 2006). 4.4.1.5.1.2 Reduction in Aquifer Saturated Thickness All the N-aquifer and D-aquifer wells that are predicted to experience water-level declines are located in the confined portion of the aquifer and are not predicted to have their water levels lowered below the top

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-31

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

of the aquifer. In other words, no reduction in saturated thickness is predicted for N- and D-aquifer wells within the confined area of the aquifer. There would be no impact. Near the boundary between the confined and unconfined areas of the aquifer, a small water-level draw­ down in the unconfined aquifer is predicted. This occurs primarily to the north of the leasehold in the area of Kayenta and Shonto. The effects of mine-related pumpage are small compared to community pumping. 4.4.1.5.1.3 Diminution of Stream and Spring Flow As discussed in Chapter 3, The USGS has been monitoring N-aquifer spring flow from four springs (Moenkopi School, Pasture Canyon Spring, Burro Spring, and an unnamed spring near Dinnehotso) for a minimum of 10 years (some springs have been monitored for much longer but not always at the same location). The closest USGS-monitored spring (the unnamed spring near Dinnehotso) is more than 35 miles from the Black Mesa Complex. The USGS concludes that “for the consistent periods of record at all four springs, the discharges have fluctuated but long-term trends are not apparent” (USGS 2005a). It appears that pumping to date has not measurably reduced the monitored N-aquifer spring flow. However, modeling of N-aquifer groundwater discharge suggests that as future nonmining-related groundwater pumping near some of these springs increases, flows from springs could be impacted (GeoTrans 2006). There are other N-aquifer springs that are not monitored, and past changes to these springs, if any, are unknown. As discussed in Appendix H, numerical models of the N aquifer are not designed to simulate discharge from individual springs (Brown and Eychaner 1988; GeoTrans 1999). However, the GeoTrans model does simulate groundwater discharge to Begashibito Wash approximately 25 miles west of the leasehold. Cow Springs, located at the southwestern extent of Begashibito Wash, is an area of groundwater discharge as expressed by seeps and small springs. Cow Springs is the closest modeled area of seeps and springs to the mine and would therefore experience the greatest impact due to project pumping. The model predicts changes in groundwater discharge into Begashibito Wash and Cow Springs combined. Model-predicted groundwater discharge diminution due to Peabody pumping is given in Table 4-8. Under the scenario for minimum pumpage, the 2025 diminution in Begashibito Wash/Cow Springs is predicted to be 13.6 af/yr. This is 0.63 percent of the estimated 2005 discharge of 2,169 af/yr, or a negligible impact. 4.4.1.5.1.4 Migration of Poor Quality Groundwater Throughout the Black Mesa region, water levels in the D aquifer are typically higher than in the N aquifer. Therefore, there is a downward component of groundwater flow and the potential for poorerquality D-aquifer water to migrate into better-quality N-aquifer water. Flow and water-quality conditions between the N and D aquifers are documented in recent USGS publications (Truini 2003, 2005). These studies conclude that leakage through the Carmel Formation from the overlying D aquifer to the underlying N aquifer has occurred for thousands of years, and that the historical and continued leakage is greatest in the southern half of the Black Mesa region due to lithologic conditions in confining Carmel Formation.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-32

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-8 Projected Groundwater Discharge Diminution of Black Mesa (N-Aquifer) Streams, in af/yr, Alternative A, Supplemental N-Aquifer Use, 2005 to 2025
2005 Pumping All Chinle Wash 498.8 Laguna Creek 2,434.5 Pasture Canyon 389.4 Moenkopi Wash 4,283.3 Dinnebito Wash 515.0 Oraibi Wash 455.5 Polacca Wash 431.1 Jaidito Wash 2,015.1 Begashibito Wash/ Cow Springs 2,169.1 SOURCE: Geotrans 2006 NonPeabody 498.8 2,443.2 389.4 4,302.7 515.3 455.9 432.1 2,018.2 2,177.3 All 498.8 2,381.7 330.5 4,275.5 514.2 452.3 422.3 1,999.3 2,153.5 2025 NonPeabody 498.8 2,390.4 330.5 4,299.5 514.9 453.6 424.2 2,007.8 2,175.3 Change Due to Pumping NonAll Peabody Peabody 0.1 0.1 0.0 52.8 52.8 -0.1 58.9 58.9 0.0 7.8 3.2 4.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 3.1 2.3 0.8 8.8 7.9 0.9 15.8 10.3 5.5 15.6 2.0 13.6 Percent Peabody 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.09 0.17 0.22 0.27 0.63

The USGS indicated that an increase in downward leakage from the D aquifer to the N aquifer would first appear as increased TDS or electrical conductivity (Eychaner 1983). The USGS also identified increased Cl and SO4 concentrations as important indicators of downward leakage. The USGS monitors water quality in the confined N aquifer throughout the Black Mesa region as part of a 1991 Cooperators Agreement among BIA, USGS, ADWR, and Peabody. The USGS monitoring program collects samples at some of the Peabody’s pumping wells to validate Peabody’s N aquifer water-quality-monitoring program, which began in 1980. To date, USGS’ and Peabody’s N aquifer water-quality data indicate that no increasing or decreasing trends are apparent in TDS, Cl, or SO4 concentrations, although small year-to­ year variations in concentrations do occur (USGS 2005a). Most of Peabody’s production wells are partially screened in the water-bearing units composing the D aquifer, as well as being screened in the N aquifer. Hydraulic heads in the D aquifer are about 250 feet higher than in the N aquifer in the area of the well field. When the production wells are not pumping, D-aquifer water has the hydraulic potential to flow downward from the D aquifer screened interval to the N aquifer. Reduction in pumping since December 2005 has resulted in some of Peabody’s production wells being turned off for extended periods (weeks), with the potential for D-aquifer water to mix with N-aquifer water in the immediate vicinity of those wells. However, Peabody’s water-quality-monitoring data for the first quarter of 2006 indicate that degradation of the N aquifer in the vicinity of Peabody’s production wells is not occurring. Water-quality samples collected in February and March 2006 from the production wells that had been idle since December 2005 showed no increases in electrical conductivity, TDS, Cl, or SO4 concentrations compared to the historical data (OSM 2006) A shutdown of the mine well field also occurred in the fall of 1985. In the USGS 1987 report on the Black Mesa monitoring program, no degradation of water quality in the well field was noted (Hill and Sottilare 1987). Peabody conducted an analysis of potential leakage from the D aquifer to the N aquifer using the GeoTrans model and standard mixing calculations. Pumping from the N aquifer was similar to that proposed under the 11,600-af/yr scenario with the exception of some additional pumpage that was simulated for well-field maintenance (Scenario K). Results of this analysis indicated a maximum increase in N-aquifer SO4 concentration of 1 percent by 2039 (Peabody 1986, revised 2003). The 1 percent increase by 2039, if it occurred, would be confined to the immediate areas of the individual pumping wells and would not change the drinking-water use designation of the N aquifer. The impact, if any, is judged to be negligible.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

4-33

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Peabody is required to continue monitoring the water quality of the N-aquifer production wells and report the data to OSM each quarter. If any degradation in N-aquifer water quality occurs that could affect existing water use, Peabody would be required to take corrective action. Although the applicants propose that no additional N-aquifer water be used for mining or slurry operations, to span the range of impacts that might occur if one or more C-aquifer supply failures were to occur, a worst-case scenario for N-aquifer water use was developed and modeled. If the C aquifer watersupply system were to fail, back-up water use from the N aquifer could range from a few af/yr to 6,000 af/yr, depending on the severity and length of the system failure. Because it is not possible to predict the timing or severity of breakdowns that may occur, a “flat” water use over the LOM permit period was assumed. Since aquifer impacts are cumulative, this methodology was assumed to produce the same or greater impacts than would be expected from a scenario in which a breakdown would occur in a particular year. Since the C-aquifer water supply would not be expected to fail over the entire LOM permit period, a conservative estimate of 2,000 af/yr was assumed (one-third of the total) to be pumped to evaluate impacts. Under the worst-case scenario, the average annual use of the N aquifer would be reduced from 4,400 af/yr (the average use from 2000 to 2004) to 2,000 af/yr over the life of the mining operation (through 2025). (It should be noted that modeling performed to evaluate this scenario used 2,500 af/yr; thus it is somewhat more conservative in its prediction of streamflow depletion and water-level drawdown.) In addition, 505 af/yr would be pumped from 2026 through 2028 for Black Mesa Complex reclamation and 444 af/yr from 2029 through 2038. 4.4.1.5.1.5 Cost of Pumping Drawdowns due to project pumping under this scenario are given in Table 4-9. Table 4-9 N-Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative A, Use of N-Aquifer Water During Outages of C-Aquifer Well Field (2,000 af/yr), 2005 to 2025
Water Level, 2005 (feet msl) All but Peabody All 5,533.4 5,46