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 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement - 2006". To see the original version of the document click here.
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

U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Black Mesa Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DOI DES 06-48 OSM-EIS-33
November 2006 Type of Action: Administrative Prepared by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement In cooperation with the:
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tribes Hopi Tribe Hualapai Tribe Navajo Nation City of Kingman, Arizona County of Mohave, Arizona

Allen D. Klein Regional Director, Western Region Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

COVER SHEET
PROPOSED ACTIONS: Approval of revisions to the life-of-mine operation and reclamation plans for the Kayenta and Black Mesa surface-coal mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex; approval of a coal-slurry preparation plant permit application; granting of rights-of-way, leases and/or permits for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada; and granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for construction of a water-supply system and associated facilities to convey water from a well field in the Coconino aquifer near Leupp, Arizona, to and for use at the Black Mesa Complex. LEAD AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement COOPERATING AGENCIES: Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Department of Agriculture Forest Service FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Peter A. Rutledge Attn: Dennis Winterringer Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Western Regional Coordinating Center P.O. Box 46667 Denver, Colorado 80201-6667 Telephone: (303) 844-1400, extension 1440 ABSTRACT: This Draft 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 numerous revisions to the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plan for the Kayenta and Black Mesa surface-coal mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex in northern Arizona as well as the infrastructure to deliver coal from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station. The Kayenta mining operation has provided coal to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona, since 1973, and, until December 2005, the Black Mesa mining operation provided coal to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada, since 1970. Currently, Peabody is authorized to mine at the Kayenta mining operation through 2026 and to mine at the Black Mesa mining operation until such time that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) makes a decision on the LOM permit application that Peabody submitted to OSM. Three alternatives have been considered. Alternative A, the applicants’ and agencies’ preferred alternative, would involve the approval of the LOM revision and all associated components (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) of the Black Mesa Project. Alternative B would be the conditional approval of the Kayenta mining operation part of the LOM revision and disapproval of the Black Mesa mining operation part of the LOM revision. Alternative C would be the disapproval of the entire 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. The OSM Director (or designee) would approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the permit application submitted by Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. to operate the coal-slurry preparation plant. The BIA, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Forest Service, and BLM would approve, disapprove, and/or amend rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for reconstruction of the Black Mesa coal-slurry pipeline. The BIA, Hopi Tribe, and Navajo Nation would approve or disapprove rights-of-way, leases, and permits for the Coconino aquifer water-supply system (i.e., well field, pipeline, and associated facilities). Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tribes Hopi Tribe Hualapai Tribe Navajo Nation County and City Mohave County City of Kingman

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE AND NEED The Black Mesa Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared to analyze and disclose potential impacts that could result from the Black Mesa Project; the majority of the project is in northern Arizona. The Black Mesa Project consists of several proposed actions, the purpose of and need for which would (1) continue supplying coal from the Kayenta mining operation to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona, and (2) continue supplying coal from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada. The Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations comprise all mining at the Black Mesa Complex. The actions proposed by three applicants are as follows: Peabody Western Coal Company (Peabody) proposes revisions to the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plan for the Kayenta and Black Mesa surface coal-mining operations. Peabody proposes to incorporate into the permanent program LOM permit (1) currently unpermitted parts of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation lease areas (and all associated structures and facilities) and (2) new, proposed rights-of-way and easements. The revisions include, but are not limited to, construction of a coal-washing facility, an increase in coal produced from the Black Mesa mining operation, and increased need for water for slurry and coal washing. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. (BMPI) proposes to operate the Black Mesa coal-slurry preparation plant. BMPI also proposes to reconstruct the 273-mile-long coal-delivery slurry pipeline, which has reached its 35-year design life, from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada. Salt River Project (SRP)1 proposes to construct and operate a new water-supply system, including a proposed well field near Leupp, Arizona, and a 108-mile-long water-supply pipeline to convey the water from the Coconino aquifer (C aquifer) to the Black Mesa Complex for use in the coal slurry and other mining-related purposes. C-aquifer water would be used to replace much of the water that has been used from the Navajo aquifer (N aquifer) for those purposes. Also, the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation have 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 from tribal domestic, municipal, industrial, and commercial uses. Although not a part of the applicants’ proposed project to meet the purpose and need, both tribes have indicated that upsizing the pipeline and expanding the well

Southern California Edison Company (SCE) is currently the operator and majority owner of the Mohave Generating Station. The other co-owners include SRP, Nevada Power Company, and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. In response to a lawsuit concerning air quality, the Mohave Generating Station co-owners entered into a consent decree with several environmental organizations, under which the co-owners would need to install new air-pollution-control technology on the plant in order to operate the Mohave Generating Station beyond December 2005. After a comprehensive reassessment of efforts required to return the power plan to operation, SCE announced on June 19, 2006, that it would not continue to pursue resumed operation of the power plant. Nevada Power Company and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power made similar announcements. 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 EIS process resume while it attempts 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.

1

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-1

Executive Summary

field of the system is an alternative that would fulfill needs of both tribes to significantly expand and improve tribal water supplies at a relatively modest cost. The construction of the tribal water-distribution systems is not currently proposed and, accordingly, is not analyzed in this EIS, and would be the subject of future NEPA review processes, if and when appropriate. The tribes’ potential future withdrawals of C-aquifer water from the proposed well field, which is interrelated with the sizing of the currently proposed water-supply pipeline and well field, and the total amount of C-aquifer water withdrawal from the well field, is analyzed in the EIS. The preparation of the EIS is required because of Federal government approvals required for various project components. The United States Department of the Interior, 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 the EIS include the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Navajo Nation, Mohave County, and City of Kingman. The approvals required include (1) OSM approval of Peabody’s LOM revision and BMPI’s coal-slurry preparation-plant permit application; (2) BLM approval of changes to Peabody’s mine plans; (3) BIA approval for various rights-of-way and leases for the well field, and BIA actions associated with tribal approval of the use of tribal waters on tribal lands, (4) Federal approvals for granting rights-of-way across Federal lands (BLM and Forest Service), and may include (5) USEPA approval of a new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. 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. BACKGROUND The Black Mesa Project facilities are located in Navajo, Coconino, Yavapai, and Mohave Counties in northern Arizona, and in the extreme southern tip of Nevada in Clark County. The Black Mesa Complex, which includes the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations, is located on land leased from the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation within the boundaries of the Hopi and Navajo Indian Reservations near Kayenta in Navajo County, Arizona (about 125 miles northeast of Flagstaff, Arizona). The Black Mesa Complex, which Peabody has operated since the early 1970s, is an area composed of three contiguous leases, and surface rights-of-way and easements granted 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 and approximately 40,000 acres of land in the former Hopi and Navajo Joint Minerals Ownership Lease Areas. The tribes have joint and equal interest in the minerals that underlie the Joint Use Area; however, the surface has been partitioned. The portion of the leasehold that lies in the former Joint Use Area consists of approximately 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 that Peabody may produce up to 290 million tons of coal from the Navajo Lease Area (Lease 14-20-0603-8580) and up to 380 million tons of coal from the Hopi and Navajo Joint Mineral Ownership Lease Area (Leases 14-20-0603-9910 and 14-20-0450-5743) for a combined total of 670 million tons. A complete coal-removal, preparation, and transportation system is in place and, though separate operations, the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations share some facilities and structures. Peabody has been supplying coal from the Kayenta mining operation to the Navajo Generating Station since 1973.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-2

Executive Summary

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 with OSM a permit revision application proposing revisions to the LOM plans (LOM revision) for both the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. Currently, the Kayenta operation is permitted to mine coal reserves that would last into 2026 at current production rates. Peabody is authorized to mine coal at the Black Mesa mining operation until such time that OSM makes a decision on the LOM revision permit application Peabody submitted to OSM. Approval of the LOM revision would allow the continued Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations into 2026. PROJECT COMPONENTS The components of the Black Mesa Project are described below. LOM Revision Peabody’s permit application proposes revisions to the LOM operation and reclamation plans for the Black Mesa Complex. The Kayenta mining operation, which is within the current permit area of 44,073 acres, is currently authorized under a permanent Indian Lands Program permit. The operation produces 8.5 million tons of coal per year. The LOM revision would allow changes to the operation and reclamation plan for the Kayenta mining operation, but would not change the mining methods or the average annual production rate at the Kayenta mining operation. The Black Mesa mining operation is conducted in accordance with OSM’s Initial Program under an administrative delay of OSM’s permanent Indian Lands Program permitting decision instituted in 1990 by the Secretary of the Interior. The administrative delay was imposed because of concerns of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation regarding the use of N-aquifer water for coal slurry and mine-related purposes. Until its suspension in December 2005, the Black Mesa mining operation produced 4.8 million tons of coal annually. With the LOM revision, OSM’s existing Indian Lands Program permit area (the 44,073 acres associated with the Kayenta mining operation) would be expanded to incorporate the unpermitted parts of the existing lease area and existing and proposed rights-of-way (the 18,984 acres associated with the current Black Mesa mining operation including 127 acres on the Hopi Reservation for the proposed 2-mile-long and 500-foot-wide coal-haul road). The revision would change or add coal-reserve areas to be mined within the existing lease area, and add associated facilities (sedimentation ponds, roads, etc.). Annual production would increase from 4.8 to 6.35 million tons. A new coal-washing facility would be constructed near the existing coal-slurry preparation plant and operated to remove about 0.95 million tons per year of coal-processing waste (earth material) before transporting the coal via slurry. Washing the coal is needed to meet anticipated future coal-quality requirements of the Mohave Generating Station. The waste from washing the coal would be hauled by truck for disposal in a mine pit as the pit is backfilled. Approximately 5.4 million tons of coal per year would be transported via slurry. The slurry is a mixture of about 50 percent pulverized coal (5.4 million tons per year) and 50 percent water (3,700 af/yr). (This equates to about 1,360 tons of coal per acre-foot of water, or 8.95 pounds of coal per gallon of water.) If approved, the permit and permit area would not distinguish geographically between the Kayenta mining operation and the Black Mesa mining operation; they would be considered one operation for the purpose of regulation by OSM. Both the Kayenta mining operation and the Black Mesa mining operation would continue into 2026.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-3

Executive Summary

Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant BMPI filed an application for operation of the coal-slurry preparation plant. OSM’s permanent program permitting decision on the preparation plant has been administratively delayed for the same reasons as is the Black Mesa mining operation. Only minor modifications to the existing plant would need to occur; no ground-disturbing activities would result. Coal-Slurry Pipeline The reconstruction of the 273-mile-long coal-delivery slurry pipeline proposed by BMPI, which crosses Federal, tribal, State, and private lands, between the Black Mesa mining operation and Mohave Generating Station would involve burying a new pipeline adjacent and parallel to the existing pipeline for the majority of its length. 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 channel (which 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. C Aquifer Water-Supply System Until December 2005, approximately 4,400 af/yr of water were drawn from the N aquifer within Peabody’s lease. 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 S-1). Table S-1 Proposed Project Use of C-Aquifer Water
Acre-Feet per Year 3,700 500 1,600 200 6,000

Use Coal slurry Coal washing 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 (south of Leupp, Arizona) including 12 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-4

Executive Summary

ALTERNATIVE DECISIONS Under the SMCRA, OSM must make decisions on the LOM revision for the Black Mesa Complex. The primary decision options available to OSM are (1) approval of the LOM revision, (2) conditional approval of the LOM revisions without approval of the Black Mesa mining operation, and (3) disapproval of the LOM revision. 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 for the Black Mesa mining operation. Several other Federal agencies as well as the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation have authority and/or actions (decisions) to perform for the various proposals, addressed in this EIS, related to the mining operation or coal-delivery system from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station. The three alternative decisions addressed in this Draft EIS are described below. Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project Under Alternative A, the lead and cooperating agencies’ preferred alternative, Peabody’s LOM revision would be approved as described above and a Federal permit would be issued to continue surface-coal mining and reclamation operations at the Black Mesa Complex with conditions necessary to meet the requirements of SMCRA. The currently unpermitted 18,984 acres where the Black Mesa mining operation has been conducted would be added to the 44,073 acres in the existing OSM permit area and 127 acres for the proposed coal-haul road right-of-way to form a permit area totaling 63,184 acres for the Black Mesa Complex, and the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations would continue into 2026. The decision to approve the LOM revision would result in the other project components being approved and implemented to achieve the purposes of the Black Mesa Project. The other project components include the coal-slurry preparation plant, reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline, and construction of a C aquifer water-supply system. The coal-slurry pipeline would be reconstructed as proposed by BMPI by burying a new pipeline adjacent and parallel to the centerline of the existing pipeline in the existing right-of-way for the majority of its length. Segments of the pipeline in Moenkopi Wash would be realigned, and the pipeline would be rerouted to the south of the Kingman area. The existing coal-slurry pipeline route is 273 miles long, and the existing route with realignments is slightly longer. Water for the project is proposed to 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 are 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 from tribal purposes. The total maximum amount of water that could be delivered would be

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-5

Executive Summary

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, 6,000 af/yr of water used for project-related purposes would be used by the Navajo Nation when it is no longer needed for project-related purposes (until 2026), 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. 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 S-2. When the 6,000 af/yr of C-aquifer water is not 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. Table S-2 Proposed Use of C-Aquifer Water: 11,600 af/yr
Acre-Feet per Year 3,700 500 1,600 200 6,000 2,000 3,600 5,600 11,600

Use Black Mesa Complex Coal slurry Coal washing Mine-related and domestic uses Contingency Subtotal Black Mesa Complex Tribal Hopi Tribe Navajo Nation Subtotal tribal Grand total

The Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations would cease in 2026, and the mines would be reclaimed. From 2026 to 2028, up to 500 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 project-related uses. The leases 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-6

Executive Summary

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. In order to maintain the N-aquifer well field in an operationally ready state to supply the public and in case of emergencies, the wells must be pumped periodically for extended periods of time. 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. 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 agencies’ preferred alternative, the eastern route, would be about 108 miles long, need two pump stations, and cross both Hopi and Navajo Reservations. Along this eastern 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 (the applicant’s preferred method) or (2) over the river on an abandoned historic road bridge. In the Kykotsmovi area, the pipeline would be buried under a road that passes through the community (the agencies’ preferred alternative) or in a road that bypasses the community. The alternative major route, the western route, would be about 137 miles long, need four pump stations, and cross the Navajo Reservation. Alternative B – Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operations, Coal-Slurry Pipeline, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System The 18,984 acres associated with the Black Mesa mining operation (including the 127 acres for the coalhaul road) would be incorporated into the expanded permit area; however, the Black Mesa mining operation, coal-slurry preparation plant, and coal-slurry pipeline that supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station until December 2005 would not resume operations. The coal-washing facility and the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. Under its current permanent Indian Lands Program permit for the Kayenta mining operation, Peabody already has approved mining, operation, and reclamation plans that allow it to produce all of the coal needed by the Navajo Generating Station into 2026. The Kayenta mining operation would operate through 2026 and use N-aquifer water in amounts averaging 1,236 af/yr from 2006 to 2025. Up to 500 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for reclamation and public use from 2026 to 2028, and up to 444 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for post-reclamation maintenance and public uses from 2029 to 2038. As is the case under Alternative A, the wells would be transferred to the tribes once Peabody completes reclamation and relinquishes the leases. Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) Unmined coal-resource areas of the Black Mesa mining operation would not be incorporated in the expanded permit area of the Black Mesa Complex and would not be mined. The infrastructure for the Black Mesa mining operation would be promptly reclaimed. Therefore, the Black Mesa mining operation, coal-slurry preparation plant, and coal-slurry pipeline that supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-7

Executive Summary

until December 2005 would not resume operations. The coal-washing facility and the C aquifer watersupply system would not be constructed. Under its current permanent Indian Lands Program permit for the Kayenta mining operation, Peabody already has approved operation and reclamation plans that allow it to produce all of the coal needed by the Navajo Generating Station into 2026. Similar to Alternative B, the Kayenta mining operation would use N-aquifer water in amounts averaging 1,236 af/yr from 2006 to 2025, would cease operation in 2026, and the mine would be reclaimed. Up to 500 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for reclamation and public use from 2026 to 2028, and up to 444 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for post-reclamation maintenance and public uses from 2029 to 2038. As is the case under Alternatives A and B, the wells would be transferred to the tribes once Peabody completes reclamation and relinquishes the leases. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Chapter 3 addresses the existing conditions of the human and natural environment that potentially could be affected by 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 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) 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 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. Land Use Cultural Environment Social and Economic Conditions Environmental Justice Indian Trust Assets Noise and Vibration Visual Resources Transportation Recreation Health and Safety

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-8

Executive Summary

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 re-established (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. Long-term impacts are defined as the period when vegetation is established and controlled 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 5 years). Mining and reclamation of a given coal resource area generally spans between 20 and 25 years. Long-term impacts are those that would persist beyond or occur after the 5-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. 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-9

Executive Summary

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 project components under Alternative A. Under Alternatives B and C, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed nor operate in the future, and the C aquifer watersupply system would not be constructed. Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project Black Mesa Complex For the resumption and expansion of Black Mesa mining operations 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 13,529 acres. This would include a loss of about 8,500 acres of piñon/juniper woodland vegetation and about 4,200 acres of sagebrush. The existing vegetation on these 13,529 acres would be permanently removed during mining operations. Before coal is removed, the vegetation is cleared and the 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 (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 selfregeneration 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 Navajo and Hopi people for medicinal or ceremonial purposes also would be planted. Once vegetation has been established on these reseeded areas, limited (or controlled) grazing would be allowed, to facilitate the revegetation process. Controlled 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. All the operations related to mining and handling the coal would result in about 145 tons of particulate matter being generated 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-10

Executive Summary

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, 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 carry out a sampling and testing plan to analyze the actual chemical constituents of the refuse to make sure the results are consistent with what is expected. If they are significantly different from what is expected and indicate a potential for greater adverse impacts, special disposal procedures would be implemented to make sure the material 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. Peabody would relocate 17 Navajo households currently located on land that would be permitted for mining under the proposed project. Peabody would attempt to relocate these families within the residents’ customary use areas (e.g., where ranching activities take place or where socio-cultural ties exist). This relocation 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. Mining-related activities would continue to generate particulate matter (very small solid particles of chemicals, soil or dust, and liquid droplets) 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-11

Executive Summary

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 proposed 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 species; however, no permanent impacts on or threat to the species 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 Ancestral Pueblo 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 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-12

Executive Summary

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 grazing and traffic, and presence of noise and dust from construction of the well field, water-storage facility, and road network; and construction of the watersupply pipeline, pump stations, and powerlines. 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 about 55 residences located within the area identified for the well field. Construction of access roads would temporarily limit access to and from residences, grazing, and other use areas. Pump stations would be located at least 0.25 mile from any permanent residence. There would be a permanent loss of about 160 acres of grazing land due to the construction of permanent structures (i.e., pump houses, water-storage tank, pump stations, power lines, 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 of public facilities. There could potentially 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-13

Executive Summary

There could be a potential minor reduction of about 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 Woodruff downstream to Holbrook. These reaches are important to several native fish species including Little Colorado spinedace, bluehead sucker, Little Colorado sucker, and roundtail chub. 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 powerlines 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, 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 – Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operations, Coal-Slurry Pipeline, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System It is anticipated that, under Alternative B, approximately 8,062 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 8,062 acres would be mined and the coal-haul road [127 acres] would be constructed. 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). 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. 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 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 Project EIS November 2006

ES-14

Executive Summary

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 addressed are related to air quality, water resources (hydrology), vegetation and wildlife habitat, and social and economic conditions. Air Quality. Regionally, the effects of particulates and gaseous air pollutants were assessed. During construction of the pipelines increased particulate matter (PM) 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. 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; 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. Water Resources (Hydrology). According to groundwater modeling completed for the project continued and increasing regional pumping of groundwater from the C aquifer (municipal and industrial, mostly unrelated to the Black Mesa Project) is expected to cause widespread 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 5 feet or more 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. 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 grassland areas and increases in tree density in both grasslands and wooded habitats. Large-scale piñon and juniper removal projects have been conducted in the project area within the past 30 to 50 years, resulting in short- or long-term conversion of woodlands to grasslands. Although reclamation of mined areas at the

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-15

Executive Summary

Black Mesa Complex results largely in grassland, the 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. Cumulative impacts from pumping also would reduce groundwater levels from 5 to 10 feet along lower Chevelon and lower Clear Creeks, but pumping for the Black Mesa project would contribute only to an additional reduction in groundwater levels from 0.1 to 1.0 feet along lower Chevelon and lower Clear Creeks, respectively. The incremental increase of project-related drawdowns when added to projected drawdowns from regional pumping are unlikely to contribute appreciably to cumulative effects on riparian vegetation in these areas. 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 to be appreciable throughout other portions of the year as well. However, project-related groundwater pumping is not expected to contribute to appreciable long-term 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. Project-related pumping would contribute to an additional reduction of 0.1 cfs for lower Clear Creek. 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. 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 2006

ES-16

Executive Summary

AGENCIES’ PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The lead and cooperating agencies’ preferred alternative is Alternative A, which is approval of the LOM revision and all associated components of the Black Mesa Project, which includes the following: Approval of LOM revision for Black Mesa mine complex approval of LOM revision application, including adding 18,984 acres to the permit area, the coal washing facility, increased coal production by the Black Mesa mining operation, revisions to the operation and reclamation plan, and reduced use of Navajo aquifer water in support of mining operations and as an emergency backup water supply approval of changes to the mining plan for the Navajo and Hopi coal leases issuance of right-of-way for the road corridor approval of modification of NPDES permit approval of modification of Title V air quality permit Approval of coal-slurry preparation plant permit application Approval of coal-slurry pipeline reconstruction along the existing alignment with realignments in Moenkopi Wash and a southern reroute around Kingman, Arizona Approval of C aquifer water-supply system along the eastern alignment, capable of delivering up to 11,600 af/yr, using directional drilling to cross under the Little Colorado River, and using the western alignment through Kykotsmovi CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The analyses for this Draft 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; 9 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 and will continue to work 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. 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. OSM will conduct public meetings on the Draft EIS in early January 2007, and comments it receives during the 60-day public review period will be considered and incorporated into the Final EIS, which is expected to be completed in the summer of 2007.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ES-17

Executive Summary

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 Black Mesa Project would (1) continue the supply of coal to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona, from the Kayenta mining operation and (2) supply coal from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada. The alternatives are as follows: Alternative A (agencies’ preferred alternative)—Approval of the life-of-mine (LOM) revision for the Peabody Western Coal Company (Peabody) Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex and approval of all other components of the Black Mesa Project, which include permitting the coal-slurry preparation plant at the Black Mesa Complex, reconstruction of the 273-mile-long coal-slurry pipeline to transport the coal to Mohave Generating Station, and development and use of the Coconino aquifer (C aquifer) water-supply system including a 108mile-long water-supply pipeline. Alternative B—Conditional approval of the LOM revision without approval of the Black Mesa mining operation, coal-slurry preparation plant, reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline, and C aquifer water-supply system. Alternative C—Disapproval of the LOM revision without approval of the coal-slurry preparation plant, reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline, and C aquifer water-supply system. 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; Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Hopi Tribe; Hualapai Tribe; Navajo Nation; Mohave County, Arizona; and City of Kingman, Arizona. This EIS identifies and analyzes the probable impacts on the human environment that would result from the Black Mesa Project: (1) surface coal-mining and reclamation operations at the Black Mesa Complex; (2) operation and reclamation of the coal-slurry preparation plant; (3) reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline; and (4) development of the C aquifer water-supply system. Implementation of the Black Mesa Project is dependent on the Mohave Generating Station resuming operations. The Mohave Generating Station is the sole customer of the Black Mesa mining operation, and the Black Mesa coal-slurry preparation plant and coal-slurry pipeline exist only to supply coal to the Mohave Generating Station. The proposed new C aquifer water-supply system would be constructed only if coal were to be supplied to the power plant from the Black Mesa Complex. Operation of the Mohave Generating Station was suspended in December 2005, during preparation of the EIS, because new air-pollution-control technology had not been installed on the plant under the terms of a consent decree. A number of steps must be completed before the power plant can resume operations including, among others, the construction of approximately $500 million in additional pollution-control systems to significantly reduce emissions from the plant and protect public health and visibility in the Grand Canyon and other national parks. While the Black Mesa Project is necessary for the Mohave Generating Station to resume operations, reconstruction of the Mohave Generating Station is not a part of the Black Mesa Project and is not analyzed in this EIS.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

P-1

Preface

After a comprehensive reassessment of efforts required to return the power plant to operation, Southern California Edison Company (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, Salt River Project (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. This uncertainty led OSM to announce in a July 2006 newsletter that it had suspended activities to publish the Draft EIS. In September 2006, SRP announced that it was accelerating efforts to return the plant to service and requested that the EIS process resume while it attempts 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. At the end of September 2006, OSM announced in another newsletter that it had resumed the EIS process. At this time, the current Mohave Generating Station co-owners are continuing to assess the full range of options for the future of the power plant including, among other things, the option of selling the power plant to a new owner or ownership group and the option of decommissioning the plant and disposing of the plant site. Alternatives B and C analyze and disclose the probable effects if some, or all, of the components of the Black Mesa Project are not approved, which would be the same effects if the power plant is not returned to service. Under any alternative, the Kayenta mining operation would continue through 2026 under the existing OSM permit. This EIS consists of 7 chapters and 12 appendices. Chapter 1 provides a description of the proposed Federal actions and the need for these proposed actions; the proposals of Peabody, SCE, and Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc.; 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 LOM 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; and visual resources.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

P-2

Preface

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .............................................................................1-1 1.2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................1-2 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION ......................................................................................................1-7 1.4 RELATION TO OTHER DEVELOPMENT......................................................................1-8 1.4.1 Navajo Generating Station .....................................................................................1-8 1.4.2 Mohave Generating Station ...................................................................................1-8 1.5 ISSUES IDENTIFIED THROUGH SCOPING................................................................1-10 1.5.1 Scoping ................................................................................................................1-10 1.5.2 Summary of Issues ...............................................................................................1-10 1.5.2.1 Actions and Alternatives......................................................................1-10 1.5.2.2 Environmental Issues...........................................................................1-11 1.5.2.3 Process Concerns .................................................................................1-12 2.0 ALTERNATIVES.........................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 BLACK MESA PROJECT COMPONENTS .....................................................................2-1 2.1.1 LOM Revision and Mining Plan Changes .............................................................2-1 2.1.1.1 Kayenta Mining Operation ....................................................................2-1 2.1.1.2 Black Mesa Mining Operation...............................................................2-2 2.1.1.3 Updated Baselines and Analyses ...........................................................2-2 2.1.1.4 Coal-Slurry Preparation-Plant Permit ....................................................2-7 2.1.2 Reconstruction of the Coal-Slurry Pipeline ...........................................................2-7 2.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System ...........................................................................2-8 2.2 ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................................2-9 2.2.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project...................2-9 2.2.1.1 Coal-Slurry-Pipeline Route Subalternatives ..........................................2-9 2.2.1.2 Project Water Supply ...........................................................................2-13 2.2.1.3 Costs ....................................................................................................2-21 2.2.2 Alternative B – Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operations, Coal-Slurry Pipeline, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................................2-22 2.2.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No-Action Alternative)......2-24 2.3 AGENCY AUTHORITY AND ACTIONS......................................................................2-24 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY IN THE EIS ........................................................................................................2-25 2.4.1 Approval of the Black Mesa Portion of the LOM Revision and Disapproval of the Kayenta Portion of the LOM Revision ......................................................2-25 2.4.2 Other Water Sources ............................................................................................2-25 2.4.2.1 Colorado River Water-Supply Options................................................2-25 2.4.2.2 Groundwater Basins Near the Coal-Slurry Pipeline ............................2-39 2.4.2.3 Groundwater Sources Near the Black Mesa Complex ........................2-40 2.4.2.4 Gray Water Alternatives ......................................................................2-41 2.4.3 Water-Return Pipeline..........................................................................................2-42 2.4.4 Alternative Coal Delivery Methods .....................................................................2-42

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

i

Table of Contents

2.5 2.6 3.0

2.4.4.1 Truck Transportation ...........................................................................2-42 2.4.4.2 Rail Transportation ..............................................................................2-44 2.4.4.3 Other Media for Slurry ........................................................................2-47 2.4.5 No Coal-Washing Facility ...................................................................................2-48 2.4.6 Alternative Energy Sources and Energy Efficiency.............................................2-48 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES............................................................................2-49 AGENCIES’ PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................2-49

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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)..........................................................3-4 3.1.3 Project Water Supply .............................................................................................3-5 3.1.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) ............................................................................................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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)........................................................3-10 3.2.3 Project Water Supply ...........................................................................................3-11 3.2.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) ..........................................................................................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 Project 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 Project Water Supply ...........................................................................................3-32 3.4.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................3-32 3.4.3.2 N and D Aquifer Water-Supply System ..............................................3-37 3.5 CLIMATE .........................................................................................................................3-41 3.5.1 Region ..................................................................................................................3-41 3.5.2 Black Mesa Complex ...........................................................................................3-43

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ii

Table of Contents

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.5.3 Climate Change....................................................................................................3-45 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................3-47 3.6.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.............................................................3-47 3.6.2 Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program.........................3-48 3.6.3 Designation of Air Quality Study Area for Proposed Project ..............................3-48 3.6.4 Black Mesa Complex Ambient Air Monitoring...................................................3-51 3.6.4.1 Average Annual Ambient Air Concentrations.....................................3-52 3.6.4.2 Short-Term (24-hour) Ambient Air Concentrations ............................3-52 3.6.5 Coal-Slurry Pipeline.............................................................................................3-54 3.6.6 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................................3-54 3.6.7 Other Emission Sources in the Region.................................................................3-54 3.6.8 Visibility Conditions ............................................................................................3-56 3.6.9 Air Quality Monitor Data.....................................................................................3-56 VEGETATION .................................................................................................................3-57 3.7.1 Black Mesa Complex ...........................................................................................3-57 3.7.1.1 Vegetation Types .................................................................................3-57 3.7.1.2 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species .................................................3-61 3.7.1.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species ..........................3-61 3.7.1.4 Culturally Important Plant Species ......................................................3-61 3.7.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline.............................................................................................3-61 3.7.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ..................................................3-61 3.7.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)........................................................3-65 3.7.3 Project Water Supply ...........................................................................................3-66 3.7.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) ..........................................................................................3-66 3.7.3.2 N Aquifer Water-Supply System.........................................................3-69 FISH AND WILDLIFE.....................................................................................................3-69 3.8.1 Black Mesa Complex ...........................................................................................3-69 3.8.1.1 Summary of Habitats ...........................................................................3-69 3.8.1.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................3-69 3.8.1.3 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitats ............................................................3-71 3.8.1.4 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Other Special Status Animal Species............................................3-71 3.8.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline.............................................................................................3-72 3.8.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ..................................................3-72 3.8.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)........................................................3-75 3.8.3 Project Water Supply ...........................................................................................3-75 3.8.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................3-75 3.8.3.2 N Aquifer Water-Supply System.........................................................3-80 LAND USE .......................................................................................................................3-80 3.9.1 Black Mesa Complex ...........................................................................................3-83 3.9.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline.............................................................................................3-86 3.9.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ..................................................3-86 3.9.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)........................................................3-88 3.9.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................................3-89 3.9.3.1 Well Field ............................................................................................3-89 3.9.3.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline........................................................3-89

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

iii

Table of Contents

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................3-92 3.10.1 Black Mesa Complex ...........................................................................................3-97 3.10.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline.............................................................................................3-98 3.10.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ..................................................3-98 3.10.3 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) ........................................................................3-100 3.10.4 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................................3-101 3.10.4.1 Well Field ..........................................................................................3-101 3.10.4.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) ........................................................................3-101 3.10.4.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route............................3-104 3.10.5 N Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................................3-105 3.10.6 Summary 3-105 3.11 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .................................................................3-106 3.11.1 Regional Overview of Demographics and Economics ......................................3-107 3.11.2 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................3-109 3.11.2.1 Population in the Local Area .............................................................3-110 3.11.2.2 Unemployment in the Local Area......................................................3-111 3.11.2.3 Employment and Income in the Local Area ......................................3-111 3.11.2.4 Fiscal Conditions ...............................................................................3-113 3.11.2.5 Public Utilities ...................................................................................3-117 3.11.2.6 Education ...........................................................................................3-118 3.11.2.7 Health Care ........................................................................................3-119 3.11.2.8 Public Safety: Law Enforcement and Fire Protection........................3-119 3.11.3 Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant ............................................................................3-119 3.11.4 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...........................................................................................3-120 3.11.5 Project Water Supply .........................................................................................3-121 3.11.5.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................3-121 3.12 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE......................................................................................3-122 3.13 INDIAN TRUST ASSETS .............................................................................................3-129 3.13.1 Indian Trust Assets Definition and Characteristics............................................3-129 3.13.2 Indian Trust Assets Within the Affected Environment......................................3-130 3.13.2.1 Minerals .............................................................................................3-130 3.13.2.2 Land ...................................................................................................3-131 3.13.2.3 Water..................................................................................................3-131 3.13.2.4 Hunting and Gathering and Other Natural Resources .......................3-131 3.14 NOISE AND VIBRATION ............................................................................................3-131 3.14.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................3-134 3.14.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...........................................................................................3-136 3.14.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ................................................3-136 3.14.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)......................................................3-136 3.14.3 Project Water Supply .........................................................................................3-137 3.14.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................3-137 3.15 VISUAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................3-139 3.15.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................3-142 3.15.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...........................................................................................3-142 3.15.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ................................................3-142 3.15.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)......................................................3-144

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

iv

Table of Contents

3.15.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................................3-144 3.15.3.1 Well Field ..........................................................................................3-144 3.15.3.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline......................................................3-144 3.16 TRANSPORTATION .....................................................................................................3-146 3.16.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................3-147 3.16.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...........................................................................................3-148 3.16.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ................................................3-148 3.16.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)......................................................3-149 3.16.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................................3-149 3.16.3.1 Well Field ..........................................................................................3-149 3.16.3.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline......................................................3-150 3.17 RECREATION ...............................................................................................................3-150 3.17.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................3-151 3.17.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...........................................................................................3-151 3.17.2.1 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route ................................................3-151 3.17.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................................3-155 3.17.3.1 Well Field ..........................................................................................3-155 3.17.3.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline......................................................3-155 3.18 HEALTH AND SAFETY ...............................................................................................3-156 3.18.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................3-156 3.18.1.1 Safety Policies, Procedures, and Enforcement ..................................3-156 3.18.1.2 Hazards and Contaminants ................................................................3-157 3.18.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline...........................................................................................3-159 3.18.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................................3-160 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................4-1 4.1 LANDFORMS AND TOPOGRAPHY...............................................................................4-6 4.1.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project...................4-6 4.1.1.1 Black Mesa Complex.............................................................................4-6 4.1.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..............................................................................4-7 4.1.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System ...........................................................4-7 4.1.2 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System ...............................................................................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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project...................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 Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System .............................................................................4-10 4.2.2.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-10

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

v

Table of Contents

4.3

4.4

4.5 4.6

4.7

Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .........................4-10 4.2.3.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-10 SOILS................................................................................................................................4-11 4.3.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project.................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 Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System .............................................................................4-14 4.3.2.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-14 4.3.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .........................4-14 4.3.3.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-14 WATER RESOURCES (HYDROLOGY)........................................................................4-14 4.4.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project.................4-15 4.4.1.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-15 4.4.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ............................................................................4-22 4.4.1.3 Project 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 Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System .............................................................................4-37 4.4.2.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-37 4.4.2.2 Project Water Supply ...........................................................................4-37 4.4.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .........................4-39 4.4.3.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-39 4.4.3.2 Project Water Supply ...........................................................................4-39 CLIMATE .........................................................................................................................4-39 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................4-40 4.6.1 LOM Revision Air Pollutant Emissions ..............................................................4-40 4.6.2 Pipeline Construction Emissions..........................................................................4-41 4.6.3 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project.................4-43 4.6.3.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-43 4.6.3.2 Coal-Slurry and Water-Supply Pipelines.............................................4-45 4.6.3.3 Total Air Quality Impacts of Alternative A.........................................4-50 4.6.4 Alternatives B and C ............................................................................................4-58 4.6.5 Fugitive Dust and Health-Related Issues .............................................................4-58 4.6.6 Acid-Deposition Effects Due to Mining Activities..............................................4-60 4.6.7 Federal Implementation Plan Conformity (Navajo Nation).................................4-61 4.6.8 State Implementation Plan Conformity (Arizona, California and Nevada) .........4-61 VEGETATION .................................................................................................................4-61 4.7.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project.................4-63 4.7.1.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-63 4.7.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ............................................................................4-66 4.7.1.3 Project Water Supply ...........................................................................4-69

4.2.3

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

vi

Table of Contents

Alternative B–Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System .............................................................................4-73 4.7.2.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-73 4.7.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .........................4-74 4.8 FISH AND WILDLIFE.....................................................................................................4-74 4.8.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project.................4-75 4.8.1.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-75 4.8.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ............................................................................4-79 4.8.1.3 Project Water Supply ...........................................................................4-82 4.8.2 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System .............................................................................4-87 4.8.2.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-87 4.8.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .........................4-87 4.9 LAND USE .......................................................................................................................4-87 4.9.1 Alternative A (Applicants’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project.................4-87 4.9.1.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-87 4.9.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ............................................................................4-88 4.9.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .........................................................4-90 4.9.2 Alternative B – Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System ........................................................4-91 4.9.2.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-91 4.9.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .........................4-91 4.9.3.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-91 4.10 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................4-92 4.10.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project.................4-93 4.10.1.1 Black Mesa Complex...........................................................................4-93 4.10.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ............................................................................4-94 4.10.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) ..........................................................................................4-98 4.10.1.4 Continued Use of the N Aquifer ........................................................4-104 4.10.2 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System ...........................................................................4-105 4.10.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-105 4.11 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .................................................................4-105 4.11.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project...............4-107 4.11.1.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-107 4.11.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-109 4.11.1.3 Project Water Supply .........................................................................4-109 4.11.2 Alternative B – Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Application Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System ...................................4-111 4.11.2.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-111

4.7.2

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

vii

Table of Contents

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

4.11.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-112 4.11.2.3 Project Water Supply .........................................................................4-112 4.11.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-112 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE......................................................................................4-113 4.12.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project...............4-113 4.12.1.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-113 4.12.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-114 4.12.1.3 Project Water Supply .........................................................................4-114 4.12.2 Alternative B – Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Application Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System ...................................4-115 4.12.2.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-115 4.12.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-115 4.12.3.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-115 INDIAN TRIBAL ASSETS............................................................................................4-116 4.13.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project...............4-116 4.13.2 Alternative B – Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Application Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operations, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System ...................................4-118 4.13.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-118 NOISE AND VIBRATION ............................................................................................4-118 4.14.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project...............4-119 4.14.1.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-119 4.14.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-120 4.14.1.3 Project Water-Supply.........................................................................4-121 4.14.2 Alternative B – Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Application Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System ...................................4-122 4.14.2.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-122 4.14.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-122 VISUAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................4-122 4.15.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project...............4-124 4.15.1.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-124 4.15.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-124 4.15.1.3 Project Water Supply .........................................................................4-125 4.15.2 Alternative B – Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Application Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System ...................................4-127 4.15.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-127 TRANSPORTATION .....................................................................................................4-128 4.16.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project...............4-128 4.16.1.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-128 4.16.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-128 4.16.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................4-129

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

viii

Table of Contents

4.17

4.18

4.19

4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23

4.16.2 Alternative B – Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System ......................................................4-130 4.16.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-130 RECREATION ...............................................................................................................4-130 4.17.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project...............4-130 4.17.1.1 Black Mesa Complex.........................................................................4-130 4.17.1.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline ..........................................................................4-130 4.17.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................4-131 4.17.2 Alternative B – Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System ......................................................4-132 4.17.3 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) .......................4-132 CONSERVATION MEASURES ...................................................................................4-132 4.18.1 East Clear Creek Watershed Habitat Improvement Projects .............................4-133 4.18.2 Annual Endowment for the Conservation of Native Fish Species.....................4-135 4.18.2.1 Endowment Limitations and Constraints...........................................4-136 4.18.2.2 Project and Endowment Decision-Making Process...........................4-136 4.18.2.3 Endowment Structure ........................................................................4-138 MITIGATION.................................................................................................................4-138 4.19.1 Measures Common to All Project Components.................................................4-138 4.19.2 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................4-140 4.19.2.1 Mine Facilities ...................................................................................4-141 4.19.2.2 Coal Mining .......................................................................................4-142 4.19.2.3 Reclamation .......................................................................................4-144 4.19.2.4 Protection of Fish and Wildlife, and Related Environmental Values ................................................................................................4-146 4.19.3 Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Water-Supply System................................................4-147 4.19.3.1 Clearing and Grading.........................................................................4-150 4.19.3.2 Excavation .........................................................................................4-151 4.19.3.3 Construction Methods in Special Areas.............................................4-152 4.19.3.4 Lowering and Backfilling ..................................................................4-153 4.19.3.5 Cleanup and Restoration....................................................................4-154 4.19.3.6 Hydrostatic Testing............................................................................4-155 MONITORING ...............................................................................................................4-155 4.20.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................4-155 4.20.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Water-Supply System................................................4-157 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .............................4-158 4.21.1 Black Mesa Complex .........................................................................................4-158 4.21.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Water-Supply System................................................4-159 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES........4-160 INDIRECT EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH RESUMING OPERATION AT MOHAVE GENERATING STATION ..........................................................................4-162 4.23.1 Hydrology ..........................................................................................................4-162 4.23.2 Air Quality .........................................................................................................4-162 4.23.3 Climate ...............................................................................................................4-163 4.23.4 Noise and Vibration ...........................................................................................4-164 4.23.5 Social and Economic Conditions .......................................................................4-164 4.23.6 Visual Resources................................................................................................4-164

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ix

Table of Contents

4.23.7 Transportation ....................................................................................................4-164 4.23.8 Other Impacts.....................................................................................................4-165 4.24 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS.............................................................................................4-165 4.24.1 General ...............................................................................................................4-165 4.24.2 Specific to the Black Mesa Complex .................................................................4-170 4.24.3 Specific to the Project Water Supply .................................................................4-171 4.24.3.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System .......................................................4-171 4.24.3.2 N Aquifer Water Supply ....................................................................4-174 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 Formal Consultation...............................................................................................5-2 5.2.2.1 Biological Resources .............................................................................5-2 5.2.2.2 Cultural Resources.................................................................................5-4 5.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...............................................................................................5-5 5.3.1 Notice of Intent ......................................................................................................5-5 5.3.2 Newspaper and Radio Announcements .................................................................5-5 5.3.3 Additional Public Notice........................................................................................5-6 5.4 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS .......................................................................................5-7 5.4.1 Comments Received During Scoping ....................................................................5-7 5.4.2 Review of the Draft EIS.........................................................................................5-8 5.5 DISTRIBUTION AND REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIS...................................................5-8 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS.......................................................................................6-1 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................7-1

6.0 7.0

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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

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

B C D E F G H I J K L

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

xi

Table of Contents

LIST OF MAPS
Map 1-1 Map 1-2 Map 2-1 Map 2-2 Map 2-3 Map 2-4 Map 2-5a Map 2-5b Map 2-6 Map 2-6a Map 2-6b Map 2-7 Map 2-8 Map 2-9 Map 2-10 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 Areas......................................................................................................................1-4 Mine Plan Areas...............................................................................................................2-3 Black Mesa Complex and Facilities ................................................................................2-5 Black Mesa Complex: OSM’s Initial and Permanent Programs......................................2-6 Alternative A – Approval of LOM Revision .................................................................2-11 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Moenkopi Wash Realignment.....................................................2-12 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Kingman Area Reroute ...............................................................2-15 Water-Supply Pipeline Route Alternatives ....................................................................2-16 Water-Supply Pipeline: Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives......................2-19 Water-Supply Pipeline: Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives...........................................2-20 Expanded Permit Area Under Alternative B: Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operations, Coal-Slurry Pipeline, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System..........................................2-23 Permit Area Under Alternative C: Disapproval of the LOM Revision..........................2-26 Percentages of Existing Traffic Volumes, and Traffic Volumes with Trucking Operation........................................................................................................2-43 Conceptual Railroad Spur Alignments ..........................................................................2-45 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 Improvements.....................................................................3-25 C-Aquifer Test Wells and Other Nearby Wells .............................................................3-36 Meteorological Monitoring Stations ..............................................................................3-42 Attainment Classification ..............................................................................................3-49 Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas ..............................................................................3-50 Air Monitoring Stations .................................................................................................3-53 Vegetation......................................................................................................................3-60 AGFD Game Management Units...................................................................................3-73 Clear and Chevelon Creeks Watershed Features ...........................................................3-78 Riparian Areas Potentially Associated with N-Aquifer Discharge................................3-81 Land Use ........................................................................................................................3-82 Existing Land Use: Kingman Area ................................................................................3-85 Existing Land Use: Well Field and Leupp.....................................................................3-90 Existing Land Use: Kykotsmovi Area ...........................................................................3-93 Existing Land Use Along Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Alternative .......................3-94 Scenic Quality..............................................................................................................3-141 Recreation/Special Designations .................................................................................3-152 Drawdown vs. Saturated Thickness, C Aquifer, 6,000 af/yr Subalternative .................4-27 Drawdown vs. Saturated Thickness, C Aquifer, 11,600 af/yr (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative) ....................................................................................................4-28 2023 PM10 Significant Impact Area...............................................................................4-55 2023 NO2 Significant Impact Area ................................................................................4-56

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

xii

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4 Figure 3-5 Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 Figure 4-3 Alternative A Subalternatives ........................................................................................2-10 Stratigraphic Column of Black Mesa Area ......................................................................3-6 Regional Hydrology.......................................................................................................3-21 Historic and Proposed C Aquifer Pumping Centers ......................................................3-39 Monitoring Site Locations at the Black Mesa Complex ................................................3-44 Payroll per Employee, Private-Sector, 2001 Hopi and Navajo Areas .........................3-114 Pumping Centers..........................................................................................................4-172 Lower Chevelon Creek Streamflow Depletion, 11,600 Acre-feet Per Year Project and Other User Pumpage .............................................................................................4-173 Lower Clear Creek Streamflow Depletion, 11,600 Acre-feet Per Year Project and Other User Pumpage ....................................................................................................4-174

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

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 Table 3-23 Issues Raised by the Public and by Government Agencies ...........................................1-12 Coal Resource Areas and Mining Status .........................................................................2-4 Approximate Miles Crossed by the Black Mesa Coal-Slurry Pipeline, by Surface Manager or Owner ...........................................................................................................2-7 Proposed Project Use of C-Aquifer Water.......................................................................2-8 Proposed Use of C-Aquifer Water.................................................................................2-14 Total Costs by Alternative .............................................................................................2-21 Summary of Potential Agency Authorities and Actions................................................2-28 Comparison of Estimated Costs for Transporting Coal by Truck and by Coal Slurry .............................................................................................................................2-44 Comparison of Estimated Costs for Transporting Coal by Rail and by Coal Slurry .....2-46 Summary of Impacts by Alternative ..............................................................................2-50 Mean Concentrations of Chemical Parameters in Stormwater, Stream Monitoring Sites by Site Number (Period of Record 1986-2002) .................................3-24 Mean Concentrations of Chemical Parameters, Permanent Internal Impoundments by Site Number (Period of Record 1986-2002) ....................................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................................................................3-34 Test Well Selected Inorganic Water Quality Parameters, in mg/L except As (Arsenic µg/L) ...............................................................................................................3-34 Estimated 2010 Groundwater Uses................................................................................3-37 Meteorological Conditions of the Study Area ...............................................................3-41 Meteorological Conditions at the Black Mesa Complex ...............................................3-43 Seasonal Meteorological Conditions at the Black Mesa Complex ................................3-45 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.......................................................................3-47 Annual Average Ambient PM10 Monitoring Data (in µg/m3) at Black Mesa Complex 2003-2005 ......................................................................................................3-52 24-hour Average Ambient PM10 Monitoring Data (in µg/m3) at Black Mesa Complex 2003 to 2005...................................................................................................3-54 Major Sources Located within and near the Air Quality Study Area ............................3-55 Standard Visual Ranges from IMPROVE Monitors in and near the Air Quality Study Area .....................................................................................................................3-56 Measured Air Quality Concentrations from Monitors in and near the Air Quality Study Area (Highest Recorded Concentrations During 3-Year Look-Back Period) .....3-58 Acres of Hopi and Navajo Reservation Land in the Black Mesa Complex..................3-84 Archaeological and Historical Sites Along the Coal-Slurry Pipeline1 ..........................3-99 Traditional Cultural Resources along the Coal-Slurry Pipeline...................................3-100 Archaeological and Historical Sites within the Area of Potential Effects for Construction Impacts of the Proposed C Aquifer Water-Supply System1 ..................3-102 Traditional Cultural Resources within Area of Potential Effects for C Aquifer Water-Supply System1 ................................................................................................3-103 Traditional Cultural Resources within Area of Potential Effects for Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route1 ............................................................................................3-105 Summary of the Cultural Resources Inventory............................................................3-106

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

xiv

Table of Contents

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 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

Population in Arizona Counties Residing on Hopi Reservation, Navajo Reservation, or Off-Reservation ..................................................................................3-107 Key Population Characteristics – Regional Level .......................................................3-107 Regional and Local Area Labor Force Characteristics ................................................3-108 Regional Employment, Percent Share by Industry Sector, 2000 .................................3-109 Population and Households in the Local Area of Influence ........................................3-110 Local Area Employment: Total and Percent Share by Industry Sector (2000 Census) ........................................................................................................................3-112 Industry Multipliers .....................................................................................................3-113 State of Arizona Taxes Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company..............................3-114 Navajo Tribal Taxes Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company 1986-2005 (Black Mesa mining operation1) .................................................................................3-115 Coal Royalties and Bonuses Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company: 198620051 ...........................................................................................................................3-116 Water Royalties Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company: 1986-2004 ....................3-116 Total Annual Payments to Hopi and Navajo Tribes: 1986-2005................................3-117 Schools (grades K-12) in the Local Area.....................................................................3-118 States of Arizona and Nevada Taxes Paid by Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc., in 2004 ......3-120 Local Area Population and Households (Pipelines and Well Field)a ..........................3-120 Local Area Employment: Percent Share by Industry Sector (Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Project Water Supply)a .........................................................................................3-122 Race and Ethnicity – Regional Level...........................................................................3-124 Race and Ethnicity – Local Level1 ..............................................................................3-125 Regional Income Characteristics .................................................................................3-127 Local Income Characteristics.......................................................................................3-128 Trends in Percentage of People in Poverty by State and County, 1999 to 2002.........3-128 Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments..............................3-132 Source Noise Used for Estimating Existing Noise Levels1.........................................3-133 Distance Zone Definitions ...........................................................................................3-139 Primary Transportation Corridors................................................................................3-146 Average Annual Number of Permits Issued by Arizona Game and Fish Department Between 2000 and 2005...........................................................................3-154 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 Base Flow Diminution in Upper East Clear Creek, Lower Clear Creek, and Lower Chevelon Creek ...........................................................................................4-29 Projected Streamflow Diminution in Upper East Clear Creek, Lower Clear Creek, and Lower Chevelon Creek in 2060...................................................................4-29 N Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative A, Supplemental Use of N Aquifer Water (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative), 2005-2025....................................................4-31 Projected Groundwater Discharge Diminution to Black Mesa (N Aquifer) Streams, in af/yr, Alternative A, Supplemental N Aquifer Use (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative), 2005-2025 .................................................................................4-33 N Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative A, Use of N Aquifer Water During Outages of C Aquifer Well Field (2,000 af/yr), 2005-2025...........................................4-34

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

xv

Table of Contents

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

Projected Groundwater Discharge Diminution to Black Mesa (N Aquifer) Streams, in af/yr, Alternative A, 2,000 af/yr N Aquifer Use, 2005-2025......................4-35 N Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative A, Maximum Use of N Aquifer Well Field (6,000 af/yr), 2005-2025.......................................................................................4-36 Projected Groundwater Discharge Diminution to Black Mesa (N Aquifer) Streams, in af/yr, Alternative A, 6,000 af/yr N Aquifer Use, 2005-2025......................4-37 N Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative B, Use of N Aquifer Water for Kayenta Mine and Reclamation of Black Mesa Mine, 2005-2025 ..............................................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, 2005-2025..............................................................4-39 Equipment List for Typical Construction of Coal-Slurry Pipeline and WaterSupply Pipeline ..............................................................................................................4-42 Annual Fugitive PM10 Emissions from Black Mesa Complex Operations .................4-43 Air Pollutant Emissions from Vehicle and Equipment Exhaust at Black Mesa Complex 1......................................................................................................................4-44 Particulate Matter Emissions Associated with Earth-moving Activity During Construction of Coal-Slurry and Water-Supply Pipelines (Alternative A only) ...........4-45 Air Pollutant Emissions from Construction Vehicles and Equipment - CoalSlurry Pipeline (Alternative A)......................................................................................4-46 Air Pollutant Emissions from Construction Vehicles and Equipment – WaterSupply Pipeline (Eastern and Western Routes) .............................................................4-47 PM10 Emissions from Portable Rock Crushing Plant 1 ................................................4-48 PM10 Emissions from Portable Concrete Batch Plant 1 ...............................................4-49 Annual Emissions From Construction of Water-Supply Pipeline (Alternative A)........4-50 Maximum Annual Controlled PM10 Emissions During and After Pipeline Construction (Alternative A) .........................................................................................4-50 Assessment of NAAQS Conformance for Black Mesa Complex..................................4-52 Assessment of Impacts From Black Mesa Complex on Local Sensitive Receptors......4-52 Class I and Class II Increments and Significance Thresholds Applicable to PSD Permitting Projects.........................................................................................................4-53 Acid (HNo3) Deposition Contributions From Black Mesa Complex............................4-60 Approximate Acres of Vegetation Types Potentially Affected by 2006-2026 Mining Operations .........................................................................................................4-63 Acres of Vegetation Types Potentially Affected – Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route..............................................................................................................................4-66 Acres of Vegetation Types Potentially Affected – Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments...............................................................................................4-69 Estimated Acres of Potential Impact on Plains and Great Basin Grassland or Great Basin Desertscrub from C-Aquifer Pumping .......................................................4-70 Estimated Acres of Vegetation Types Potentially Affected – Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route..................................................................................................4-71 Acres of Vegetation Types Potentially Affected – Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route................................................................................................................4-72 Potential Adverse Effects on Cultural Resources within the Coal-Haul Road Corridor1........................................................................................................................4-94 Potential Adverse Effects on Archaeological and Historical Sites along the Existing Coal-Slurry Pipeline Route1............................................................................4-95 Potential Impacts on Traditional Cultural Resources along the Existing CoalSlurry Pipeline1 .............................................................................................................4-97

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

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 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Table 5-4

Potential Impacts on Archaeological and Historical Sites along the Coal-Slurry Pipeline Realignments1 .................................................................................................4-98 Potential Impacts on Archaeological and Historical Sites within the C-Aquifer Well Field1 ....................................................................................................................4-99 Potential Impacts on Traditional Cultural Resources within the C-Aquifer Well Field and Related Surface Water1 ...............................................................................4-100 Potential Impacts on Archaeological and Historical Sites along the C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline and Related Facilities: Eastern Route1...................................4-101 Potential Adverse Effects on Traditional Cultural Resources along the C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline and Related Facilities: Eastern Route1...................................4-103 Potential Adverse Effects on Traditional Cultural Resources along the C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline and Related Facilities: Western Route1..................................4-104 Contrast Types Defined ...............................................................................................4-123 Proposed Capital Conservation Projects (described in the East Clear Creek Watershed Health Improvement EA) to Offset Impacts on Federally Listed Fish Species .........................................................................................................................4-134 Proposed Ground Water Monitoring Program, C Aquifer Well Field and Vicinity ....4-158 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources............................................4-161 Mohave Generating Station Criteria Pollutant Emissions ...........................................4-163 Background Point Source Annual PM10 Emissions 1.................................................4-166 Summary of Highest Annual PM10 (tons per year) Increases Over Regional Point Source Emissions for All Three Alternatives .....................................................4-167 Estimated Nonproject C-Aquifer Pumpage, 1950 to 2060, in af/yr............................4-171 Major Industrial Users .................................................................................................4-172 Municipal and Industrial N-Aquifer Annual Usage from 1965-2003.........................4-175 Information Provided by Agency or Tribe Regarding Listed Species in the Project Area .....................................................................................................................5-2 Summary of Meetings Related to Federally Listed Species on the Black Mesa Project ..............................................................................................................................5-3 Newspapers and Dates of Publications ............................................................................5-6 Public Scoping Meeting Dates, Locations, Attendance, and Number of Speakers .........5-7

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

xvii

Table of Contents

LIST OF ACRONYMS
°C °F 2-D 3-D g/L g/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 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

xviii

Table of Contents

BNSF 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

Burlington Northern Santa Fe 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

xix

Table of Contents

FWS 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 N42 Na NAAQS NACE NAGPRA National Register NDEP NDOH NEPA NHA NHPA NNC NNEPA NNHSD NO2 NO3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

xx

Table of Contents

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

Nitrogen oxides National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

xxi

Table of Contents

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

U.S. Highway 160 U.S. Highway 89 Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 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 2006

xxii

Table of Contents

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 Black Mesa Project is composed of four actions, the purpose of and need for which would (1) continue the supply of coal from the Kayenta mining operation to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona, and (2) supply coal from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada (Map 1-1). The Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations comprise the sum of mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex. The four actions proposed by three applicants are as follows: Peabody Western Coal Company (Peabody) proposes revisions to the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for the Black Mesa Complex. Peabody proposes to incorporate into the permanent program LOM permit (1) currently unpermitted parts of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation lease areas (and all associated structures and facilities) and (2) new, proposed rights-of-way and easements. The revisions include, but are not limited to, construction of a coalwashing facility, an increase in the amount of coal produced from the Black Mesa mining operation, and increased need for water for slurry and coal washing. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. (BMPI) proposes to continue to operate the Black Mesa coal-slurry preparation plant. BMPI also proposes to reconstruct the 273-mile-long coal-delivery slurry pipeline, which has reached its 35-year design life, from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station. Salt River Project (SRP)1 proposes to construct a new water-supply system, including a 108-milelong 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. Also, the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation have 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. Although not a part of the applicants’ proposed project to meet the purpose and need of the project, both tribes have indicated that upsizing the pipeline and expanding the well field of the system is an alternative that would fulfill the needs of both tribes to significantly expand and improve tribal water supplies at a relatively modest cost. The construction of these water-distribution systems is not currently proposed and, accordingly, is not analyzed in this EIS, and would be the subject of future NEPA review processes, if and when appropriate. The tribes’ potential future withdrawals of

After a comprehensive reassessment of efforts required to return the power plan to operation, Southern California Edison Company (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 EIS process resume while it attempts 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. Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 1-1 Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

1

C-aquifer water from the proposed well field, which are interrelated with the sizing of the currently proposed water-supply pipeline and well field and the total amount of C-aquifer water ultimately withdrawn from the well field, are analyzed in this EIS. For the purposes of this EIS, construction of the coal-washing facility, reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline, and construction of the C aquifer water-supply system are estimated to begin on January 1, 2008. Production of coal from the Black Mesa mining operation would resume on April 1, 2009. Operation of the C aquifer water-supply system, coal-slurry preparation plant, and delivery of coal-slurry is estimated to begin on July 1, 2009, in preparation for start of operations at the Mohave Generating Station on January 1, 2010. The Kayenta mining operation delivers coal from the Black Mesa Complex to the Navajo Generating Station, a distance of 83 miles, by the Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad. No changes to this coaldelivery system or to the generating station are needed and, therefore, the coal-delivery system and the generating station are not addressed in this EIS. Also, the installation of new pollution controls and other related modifications contemplated for the Mohave Generating Station are not addressed in this EIS due to the specific regulatory exemption under NEPA for air-pollution-control projects. No additional Federal action is required because all permits for the Mohave Generating Station have been obtained, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) previous approval of the Title V permit revision. 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 and local governments cooperating with OSM in the preparation of the EIS include the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), USEPA, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Navajo Nation, Mohave County, and City of Kingman. 1.2 BACKGROUND

The Black Mesa Complex, which Peabody has operated since the early 1970s, is an area composed of three contiguous leases and several surface rights-of-way and easements granted 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 and approximately 40,000 acres of land are located in the former Hopi and Navajo Joint Minerals Ownership Lease Area (Map 1-2). The tribes have joint and equal interest in the minerals that underlie the Joint Use Area; however, the surface has been partitioned. The portion of the leasehold that lies in the former Joint Use Area consists of approximately 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 that Peabody may produce up to 290 million tons of coal from the Navajo Lease Area (Lease 14-20-0603-8580) and up to 380 million tons of coal from the Hopi and Navajo Joint Mineral Ownership Lease Area (Leases 14-20-0603-9910 and 14-20-0450-5743) for a combined total of 670 million tons. While the specified leased coal tonnages are certain, the assignment of coal parcels to a particular buyer of the coal may change, depending on customer demand and coal-quality needs.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

1-2

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Map_1-1_Alignments.pdf

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

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d
La ke

LEGEND
Kayenta Tsegi

a Me s Black

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignments
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

Nevada

Arizona

an
0 13

Clark County

Thief Rock PS

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

0 12

we Po

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative)

ll Ra il

Havasupai Indian Reservation

90

Tuba City Moenkopi
60
70
60

40
80

90

Apache County

lo Co

oR ra d

r ive

roa

d 100

PS #1
10
0 10

Subalternatives (preferred alternative) Western Route Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field PS = Pump Station Peabody Lease Area

110

MP 91 PS
20
30

50

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Surface Management
Bureau of Land Management

Railwa

Mohave County

Hualapai Indian Reservation

Tusayan

70

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2
80

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

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

y

on ny

90

50

50

Ca

Valle
100
40
30

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110

40

120

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
0 23

Grand

Tolani Lake PS

130

30

140

PS #4
170
0 24

Tolani Lake PS Leupp Navajo County
20

150

Seligman

General Features
River Lake Navajo Reservation Boundary Hopi Reservation Boundary

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

10

270

0 25

180

190

200

Kingman
20

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

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

210

220

260

10

Kingman Area Reroute

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow

Little Colorad o River
Holbrook

State Boundary County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005, 2006 Arizona State Land Department 2005 Teal Data Center 2000

ifor Cal
San Bernardino County

Colorado River Indian Reservation

Ariz ona
La Paz County Yavapai County

Camp Verde Indian Reservation

nia

July 2006
Yavapai-Prescott Indian Reservation
0 20 Miles 40

Prepared By:
Gila County

Fort Apache Indian Reservation

Map 1-2 Lease Areas

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

1-4

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

The coal-mining leases provide Peabody rights to prospect, mine, and strip leased lands for coal and kindred products, including other minerals, except for oil and gas, as may be found. Peabody also is given the right to construct support facilities such as buildings, pipelines, tanks, plants, and other support structures; make excavations, opening, stockpiles, ditches, drains, roads, spur tracks, transmission 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 right of ingress and egress, and develop and use water for the mining operations including the transportation by slurry pipeline of coal mined from the leases. There are several grants of rights-of-way and easements on Hopi and Navajo Nation lands allowing Peabody access and use of lands 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. More detailed description of the mine facilities is provided in Appendix A-1. A complete coal-removal, preparation, and transportation system is in place and, though separate operations, the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations share some facilities and structures. Peabody has been supplying coal from the Kayenta mining operation to the Navajo Generating Station since 1973. The Black Mesa mining operation supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station from 1970 to December 2005, when Peabody suspended mining operations due to suspension of operations at the Mohave Generating Station. The Kayenta mining operation currently produces coal and reclaims land under OSM Permit AZ-0001D, originally issued in 1990 under OSM’s permanent Indian lands program. Until December 2005, the Black Mesa mining operation produced coal and reclaimed land under OSM’s initial regulatory program.2 On February 17, 2004, Peabody filed a permit revision application with OSM proposing several revisions to the LOM plans for the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations (LOM revision). Currently, the Kayenta mining operation is permitted to mine coal reserves that would last through 2026 at current production rates. Peabody is authorized to mine coal from the Black Mesa mining operation until such time that OSM makes a decision on the LOM revision that Peabody submitted to OSM. Approval of the LOM revision would allow the continued and increased mining of coal at the Black Mesa mining operation through 2026 and would facilitate the Kayenta mining operation by approving changes to the mine plan, including additional coal-reserve areas. Each mining operation and the generating station it supplies are dependent on one another. The Kayenta mining operation is the sole coal supplier for the Navajo Generating Station, and the Navajo Generating Station is its sole customer. Likewise, the Black Mesa mining operation is the sole coal supplier for the Mohave Generating Station, and the Mohave Generating Station is its sole customer. Currently, the Kayenta mining operation continues to supply coal to the Navajo Generating Station while the Black Mesa mining operation is inactive until such time as the Mohave Generating Station resumes operations. At present, the Mohave Generating Station is not operating, pending installation of air-emissions-control equipment, which, for the purposes of this EIS, is estimated to be completed by January 1, 2010.
Between 1990 and 2005, the Black Mesa mining operation occurred under OSM’s initial regulatory program. 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 an 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 (N 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 2006 1-5 Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
2

Likewise, the Black Mesa mining operation is not producing coal, nor is coal being delivered from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station. Peabody has not indicated that any new customers, and the attendant increased production, are being considered at this time. Under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), OSM must make decisions on the LOM revision for the Black Mesa Complex. The primary decision options available to OSM are (1) approval of the LOM revision, (2) conditional approval of the LOM revision without approval of the Black Mesa mining operation, and (3) disapproval of the LOM revision. In making its decisions, OSM will consider issues associated with use of water from the N aquifer. Several other Federal agencies as well as the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation have authority and/or actions (decisions) to perform for the various proposals related to the mining operation or coal-delivery system from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station. These authorities and actions are summarized below and described in more detail in Section 2.3, Table 2-3. Authorities and actions regarding Peabody’s LOM revision include: OSM approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of Peabody’s LOM revision; BIA and tribal approval of a right-of-way to Peabody for a coal haul-road transportation corridor; BIA and tribal approval of the use of C-aquifer groundwater; BLM approval of changes to Peabody’s mining plan; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (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; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) review of OSM’s biological assessment and, if the action agencies enter into formal consultation, issuance of a biological opinion related to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA); USEPA and NNEPA approval of a major modification of Peabody’s Clean Air Act (CAA) Title V operating permit, or approval of a New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit, depending on the level of emissions associated with modification of the Black Mesa mining operation’s coal handling facilities to accommodate washing coal; and OSM, BIA, BLM, and other Federal action agencies’ consultation with the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office (HCPO), Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), Arizona and Nevada State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), and other tribes pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (Title 16, United States Code, Section 470f [16 U.S.C. 470f]). Authorities and actions regarding BMPI’s coal-slurry preparation plant permit application include: OSM approval or disapproval of BMPI’s preparation-plant permit application; FWS review of OSM’s biological assessment and, if the action agencies enter into formal consultation, issuance of a biological opinion related to Section 7 of the ESA; and
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 1-6 Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

OSM, BIA, BLM, and other Federal action agencies’ consultation with the HCPO, Navajo Nation THPO, Arizona and Nevada SHPOs, and other tribes pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470f ). Authorities and actions regarding reconstruction of BMPI’s coal-slurry pipeline include: BIA and tribal approval(s) of rights-of-way and permits; USACE issuance of a CWA Section 404 permit(s); USACE issuance of a River and Harbors Act Section 10 permit (Colorado River crossing); USEPA (Hopi lands), NNEPA (Navajo lands), and State (Arizona and Nevada) issuance of CWA Section 401 water-quality certification; FWS review of OSM’s biological assessment and, if the action agencies enter into formal consultation, issuance of a biological opinion related to Section 7 of the ESA; OSM, BIA, BLM, and other Federal action agencies’ consultation with the HCPO, Navajo Nation THPO, Arizona and Nevada SHPOs, and other tribes pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470f ); BLM amendment of the existing right-of-way grant; and Forest Service amendment of the existing special-use permit for right-of-way. Authorities and actions regarding the C aquifer water-supply system include: BIA and tribal approval(s) of rights-of-way, leases, and permits for the pipeline and associated facilities; BIA and tribal approval of well leases, drilling permits, and use of water; USACE issuance of CWA Section 404 permit(s); USEPA (Hopi lands) and NNEPA (Navajo lands) issuance of CWA Section 401 water-quality certification; BIA actions associated with tribal approvals of the use of tribal water; FWS review of OSM’s biological assessment and, if the action agencies enter into formal consultation, issuance of a biological opinion related to Section 7 of the ESA; and OSM, BIA, BLM, and other Federal action agencies’ consultation with the HCPO, Navajo Nation THPO, Arizona and Nevada SHPOs, and other tribes pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470f ). 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION

The Black Mesa Project facilities are located in Navajo, Coconino, Yavapai, and Mohave Counties in northern Arizona, and a small part is located in the extreme southern tip of Nevada in Clark County (refer to Map 1-1). The Black Mesa Complex, which includes the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations, is located on about 65,219 acres of land leased within the boundaries of the Hopi and Navajo Indian Reservations near Kayenta in Navajo County, Arizona (about 125 miles northeast of Flagstaff, Arizona). 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, Arizona. Coal from the Black Mesa mining

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

1-7

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

operation is delivered via the 273-mile-long coal-slurry pipeline southwest to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada. The well field for the proposed 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. From the well field, the 108-mile-long pipeline that would deliver water to the mining operations would travel 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 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 that has 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 a distance of 83 miles from the Black Mesa Complex to the Navajo Generating Station. The co-owners of the Navajo Generating Station are SRP (21.7 percent share and plant operator), Reclamation (24.3 percent share), Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (21.2 percent share), Arizona Public Service Company (14.0 percent share), Nevada Power Company (11.3 percent share), and Tucson Electric Power (7.5 percent share). The electrical power is used to serve residential, commercial, and industrial customers in Arizona, Nevada, and California. Also, the power supply 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. 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. Therefore, the Navajo Generating Station is not part of the Black Mesa Project considered in this EIS. However, because approval by OSM of the LOM revision would enable the facility to potentially use coal from additional coal resource areas, a summary description of the 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 year-end 2005, when operation of the power plant was suspended. This facility, which has a generating capacity of 1,580 megawatts of power, was operated by SCE and, until new ownership arrangements are in place, 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 and would continue to be 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 2006

1-8

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

In response to a lawsuit concerning air quality, the co-owners entered into a consent decree 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 air-pollution-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. For the purpose of this EIS, it is estimated that the new pollution-control technology will be installed and the plant will resume operation on January 1, 2010 at a cost estimated to exceed $1 billion. This cost includes 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 coalslurry preparation plant, for mine-related uses, and for the new coal-washing facility. Construction activities at the Mohave Generating Station that are associated with the emission-control improvements do not require any Federal approvals. Environmental regulatory and statutory requirements affecting the Mohave Generating Station result in no requirement for Federal environmental review under NEPA for the reasons that follow: The USEPA has delegated NSR/PSD permitting authority to the State of Nevada. The Federal NSR/PSD regulatory requirements have been incorporated by reference in the Nevada Administrative Code along with state permitting requirements. The consent decree project underwent a PSD applicability determination in approximately December 2001, resulting in a determination by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) Bureau of Air Pollution Control that no significant increase of PSD-regulated air pollutants will occur as a result of the project. As a result of the determination that PSD was not applicable, a PSD permit was not required by the NDEP under the authority delegated by USEPA Region 9. Instead, the consent decree project was granted authorization to construct (an authority or permit to construct) by NDEP and USEPA approval of a Class I-B Minor Revision of Mohave Generating Station’s CAA Title V Operating Permit on February 28, 2002. Under Nevada Administrative Code (NAC445), no environmental assessment of the consent decree project was required. Similarly, 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 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 and is therefore not considered in this EIS. However, since the Mohave Generating Station would operate in the future only if OSM approves the LOM revision, Section 4.22 of this EIS 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 2006

1-9

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

1.5 1.5.1

ISSUES IDENTIFIED THROUGH SCOPING Scoping

OSM has a responsibility to solicit comments from the public regarding the proposed project and to consult with relevant Federal and State agencies, local governments, and 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 a water alternative for
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 1-10 Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

coal slurry or a source of water other than the N aquifer. The C aquifer has 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 proves to be viable. As a solution to the as yet undetermined impacts 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 offered by those who fear 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 a preference for traditional lifestyles by many in the community is closely linked to the natural world. The issue of water—especially the use of groundwater for the coalslurry 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 on the part 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 coal mining 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 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 be a cause of distress to those people in the area. 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

1-11

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

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 concern about 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 adequately address issues important to local Hopi and Navajo communities. 1.5.2.3 Process Concerns

The issue of fairness was frequently at the center of process concerns. Many felt that, in order 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 one 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 Leupp Chapter 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. Table 1-1 Issues Raised by the Public and by Government Agencies
Issues 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 C aquifer instead of the 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. Section(s) of the EIS Where Addressed1 2.4.5.1, Appendix D 2.4.5.2, Appendix E 2.2.1.2 2.4.5.3 2.2.1.1.2, 3.0, 4.0 2.2.1.2.1.2.2, 3.0, 4.0 2.2.1.2.1.2.2, 3.0, 4.0

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

1-12

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

Table 1-1

Issues Raised by the Public and by Government Agencies
Section(s) of the EIS Where Addressed1 2.4.7 3.4, 4.4, 4.4.1.3, Appendix H 4.7.1.3 3.10, 3.10.4.1, 4.10, 4.10.1.3 4.4.1.3, Appendix H 4.4.1.1.2 4.4.1.1 4.4.1.3 4.4.1.1.1 4.4.1.1.1 1.1, 2.4.3.3 4.4 4.4.1.1.1 4.24 3.7, 3.8 3.7.1.4, 3.7.2.1.5, 4.7, 4.8 3.9, 4.9 3.6, 4.7 4.23 4.5, 4.23 3.9.1, 4.9 3.9.2, 4.9.1.2 2.2.1.2.1, 3.9.3.2 3.9.1, 4.9.1 3.14 3.11 3.11.2.7, 4.6.5, 4.11.1.1 3.3.1, 4.3.1.1.1 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, 3.12, 4.8, 4.11

Issues Use alternative fuel sources, such as solar energy, instead of continuing operation of Mohave Generating Station. Need to 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 grazing. Air Quality Impacts of mining on air quality. Impacts of Mohave Generating Station on air quality. Impacts of Mohave Generating Station on global warming (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. 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. 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

1-13

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

Table 1-1

Issues Raised by the Public and by Government Agencies
Issues Section(s) of the EIS Where Addressed1 3.11, 3.12, 4.11, 4.12 3.11, 4.11 3.11, 3.12, 4.11, 4.12

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). 3.10, 4.9 Concern about the inherent value of water to human existence. 3.4, 4.4 Impacts on religious, sacred, and ceremonial resources such as water and native plants. 3.10, 3.10.4 Impacts on the American Indian traditional way of life, including agriculture (Hopi) and grazing (Navajo). 3.10, 4.10 Impacts on the availability of jobs, which provide dignity, a future for one’s children, and a means of 3.11, 3.12, remaining near one’s family. 4.11, 4.12 Impacts on archaeological and historical resources. 3.10, 4.10 Impacts on traditional cultural properties. 3.10, 4.10 EIS Process Concerns Should hold meetings in many locations. 1.4, 5.0 Should provide project-related materials in American Indian languages. 5.4.2 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 NOTE: 1 Sections that provide background information that assist in understanding the issues, concerns, and/or impacts are listed.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

1-14

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

2.0 ALTERNATIVES
This chapter presents the alternatives that are being considered to carry out the proposed actions. The process by which these alternatives were developed, and also alternatives that were considered initially but have been eliminated from detailed study in this EIS, are described. As indicated in Chapter 1, the purpose of this EIS is to analyze and disclose the effects of OSM’s action on the LOM revision for the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations, as well as the effects of other Federal actions that are related to the delivery of coal from the Black Mesa Complex to the Navajo and Mohave Generating Stations. Section 2.1 provides a description of the components that make up the Black Mesa Project. 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 BLACK MESA PROJECT COMPONENTS

The elements of the LOM revision that are associated with mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex are described in this section. Also described are the remaining components that make up the Black Mesa Project; that is, coal-slurry preparation plant, C aquifer water-supply system, and reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline. Some of these components themselves have alternative scenarios that are being considered, which are explained further, as applicable, in Section 2.2. 2.1.1 LOM Revision and Mining Plan Changes

Peabody’s permit application proposes revisions to the LOM mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. The application includes changes to the mine plan and contains some relatively minor changes to the Kayenta mining operation, several major elements related to the Black Mesa mining operation, and updated environmental baselines and hydrologic analyses, as described below. Mine plan areas are shown on Map 2-1. 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. Related to both mining operations, Peabody would obtain a separate and additional off-lease right-of-way from the Hopi Tribe to construct a coal-haul road as a support facility for continued mining at the Black Mesa Complex (Map 2-2). The roadway would be approximately 500 feet wide and approximately 2 miles long (about 127 acres), and would cross lands within the Hopi Reservation. 2.1.1.1 Kayenta Mining Operation

The Kayenta mining operation currently 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 5-year intervals and has been renewed on three occasions: 1995, 2000, and 2005. The current permit area is 44,073 acres (Map 2-3). The Kayenta mining operation produces about 8.5 million tons of coal per year, all of which are delivered to the Navajo Generating Station. The LOM revision would allow changes to the operation and reclamation plans for the Kayenta mining operation. About 928 af/yr of water, used for mine-related purposes, is currently withdrawn from the N aquifer. Water from the proposed C aquifer water-supply system would replace, for the most part, the use of N-aquifer water. The LOM revision would not change the mining methods or the average annual production rate of the Kayenta mining operation.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-1

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

2.1.1.2

Black Mesa Mining Operation

The Black Mesa mining operation is conducted in accordance with OSM’s Initial Program under an administrative delay of OSM’s permanent Indian Lands Program permitting decision instituted in 1990 by the Secretary of the Interior (refer to Map 2-3). The administrative delay was imposed due to the concerns of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation regarding use of N-aquifer water for the coal slurry and mine-related purposes. OSM’s permanent-program permitting decision on the Black Mesa coal-slurry preparation plant, an independent operation adjacent to the Black Mesa Mine main facilities, also is under an administrative delay for the same reasons. If OSM approves the LOM revision for the Black Mesa Complex, the 18,984 acres where the Black Mesa mining operation has been conducted would be added to the 44,073 acres in the existing OSM permit area. The Black Mesa Complex permit area would total 63,057 acres including the 127 acres (2 miles long, 500 feet wide) for the proposed coal-haul road right-of-way. If approved, the 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. 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. The LOM revision would allow the Black Mesa mining operation to continue through 2026 under a permanent Indian Lands Program permit. The LOM revision does not propose to change the Black Mesa mining methods, but would increase the average annual production rate of the Black Mesa mining operation to about 6.35 million tons per year. A new coal-washing facility (refer to Map 2-2) would be constructed adjacent to the existing Black Mesa coal-preparation facilities and operated as part of the Black Mesa mining operation to meet the anticipated future coal-quality requirements of the Mohave Generating Station. 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 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 LOM revision proposes actions to minimize the use of N-aquifer water, the use of which has resulted in the administrative delay in permitting the Black Mesa mining operation and the Black Mesa coal-slurry preparation plant. Under the preferred alternative, about 672 af/yr of water from the proposed C aquifer water-supply system would be used to replace much of the N-aquifer water used by the Black Mesa mining operation; C-aquifer water also would be used for the coal-washing facility. The proposed C aquifer water-supply system is described in more detail in Section 2.2.1.2.1. 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 would be used in mining operations and to provide water to local residents. 2.1.1.3 Updated Baselines and Analyses

As part of the LOM revision permit application, new environmental baseline information was submitted for coal-resource areas within the existing lease area (coal-resource areas N-10, J-02, J-04, J-06, J-08, J09, J-10, J-14, J-15, and J-28) (refer to Map 2-1) to augment the existing environmental baseline information contained in the currently approved permit application and the environmental monitoring data collected since the OSM permit was issued in 1990. Also, the LOM revision permit application provides updated discussion of hydrologic consequences of mining.
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 2-2 Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Map 2-1 Mine Plan Areas

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-3

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-1
Coal Resource Area N-01 N-02 N-06 Total Acres of Unit2 370 700 2,870

Coal Resource Areas and Mining Status1

Mining and Reclamation Status Mined and reclaimed Mined and reclaimed Active mining and reclamation in 970 acres, 1,730 acres reclaimed, 170 acres proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future3 N-7/8 920 Mined and reclaimed N-09 2,170 Active mining and reclamation on 20 acres, 0 acres reclaimed, 2,150 acres to be mined and reclaimed in the future3 N-10 1,790 Active mining and reclamation in temporary cessation; 50 acres disturbed, 130 acres reclaimed, 1,610 acres to be mined and reclaimed in the future3 N-11 740 Mined and being reclaimed, 170 acres reclaimed, 570 acres in reclamation, no additional areas to be mined in the future3 N-14 1,530 Mined and reclaimed N-99 3,880 Undisturbed, to be mined and reclaimed in the future J-01 480 Mined and reclaimed J-02 900 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future J-03 120 Mined and reclaimed J-04 520 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future J-06 1,220 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future J-07 1,050 Mined and reclaimed J-08 730 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future J-09 470 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future J-10 430 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future J-14 950 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future J-15 730 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future J-16 1,230 Mined and reclaimed J-19 3,910 Active mining and reclamation in 1,670 acres, 990 acres reclaimed, 1,250 acres to be mined and reclaimed in the future3 J-21 5,280 Active mining and reclamation in 1,190 acres, 2,260 acres reclaimed, 1,830 acres to be mined and reclaimed in the future3 J-23 2,500 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future J-27 50 Mined and reclaimed J-28 1,440 Undisturbed, proposed to be mined and reclaimed in the future SOURCE: Peabody Western Coal Company 2006 NOTES: 1 In addition to the coal resource areas, about 4,100 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. About 100 additional acres are proposed to be disturbed by construction of a haul road between the J-23 coal resource area and the coal-slurry preparation plant. The proposed coal-washing facility site is within an area currently disturbed by actively used long-term support facilities. 2 Approximate acres subject to OSM regulation—areas mined before the effective date of the SMCRA (December 13, 1977), totaling approximately 2,760 acres, are not included. 3 Approximate acres on January 1, 2006.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-4

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Map_2-2_Mine_Facility.pdf

Map 2-2

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
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Western Route Proposed Coal-Haul Road
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 Preparation Rod Mills

COAL-SLURRY PREPARATION FACILITIES (SEE INSET)

COAL-SLURRY PREPARATION FACILITIES

General Features
Navajo Reservation, Chapter Boundary Hopi Reservation 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

July 2006
1 Miles 2

Prepared By:

Map 2-3 Black Mesa Complex: OSM’s Initial and Permanent Programs

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-6

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

2.1.1.4

Coal-Slurry Preparation-Plant Permit

The coal from the Black Mesa mining operation is prepared at the coal-slurry preparation plant for transportation through the coal-slurry pipeline to the Mohave Generating Station (refer to Map 2-2). BMPI, owner and operator of the coal-slurry preparation plant and coal-slurry pipeline, leases a 40-acre parcel of land 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 above-ground 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. The proposed continuation of the preparation plant operations was included for consideration in the public review and comment period as a part of scoping for the Black Mesa Project. Under the proposed action, about 3,700 af/yr of water would be used to transport about 5.4 million tons of coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Only minor modifications, if any, to the current configuration of the coal-slurry preparation plant would be needed to handle this increase. 2.1.2 Reconstruction of the Coal-Slurry Pipeline

Until December 2005, the 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 counties—Navajo (approximately 25 miles), Coconino (approximately 145 miles), Yavapai (approximately 26 miles), and Mohave (approximately 76 miles) Counties in Arizona, crosses under the Colorado River, and terminates at the 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 Black Mesa 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. Pipeline reconstruction would involve burying a new pipeline adjacent to the existing pipeline. The existing pipeline would be abandoned and left in place underground, but a very limited number of sections would require removal. 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-7

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

The reconstructed pipeline would pass under the Colorado River at Laughlin, Nevada, and under the Little Colorado River east of Cameron, Arizona. It is anticipated that the Colorado River would be crossed by horizontally boring under the river. At the crossing of the Little Colorado River, east of Cameron, Arizona, the existing pipeline is buried in a trench. The Little Colorado River would be crossed by directionally drilling 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) are expected to 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 above-ground earthen waterstorage 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 below-ground pipe and conduits. The layout of the facilities would not change and no acreage would be added. 2.1.3 C Aquifer Water-Supply System

Future 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 to be located near Leupp, Arizona, and conveyed via pipeline to the Black Mesa Complex. The N aquifer would be a contingency standby source to be used in case of interruptions or curtailments of the C-aquifer water supply. Table 2-3 Proposed Project Use of C-Aquifer Water
Use Coal slurry Coal washing Mine-related and domestic purposes Contingency Total Acre-Feet per Year 3,700 500 1,600 200 6,000

The components of the C aquifer water-supply system, as proposed for the Black Mesa Project, 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 (south of Leupp, Arizona) including 12 wells and associated facilities (e.g., well yards, collector pipelines, access roads, electrical 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).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-8

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

2.2

ALTERNATIVES

Based on the description of the applicants’ proposals and the issues derived from public comments received during the scoping process, a list of alternatives to the applicants’ proposals was developed. All of 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. The following issues and/or factors were 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 four actions of the Black Mesa Project: 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. 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. Based on the purpose of and need for the Black Mesa Project, agency authorities, and the issues identified through the scoping process, OSM identified three primary alternative Federal actions as follows: Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM revision, and all necessary associated components of the Black Mesa Project. Alternative B – Conditional approval of the LOM revision without approval of the Black Mesa mining operations, coal-slurry preparation plant, and C aquifer water-supply system. Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM revision. Each of these action alternatives is described in more detail below. 2.2.1 Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project

Under Alternative A, Peabody’s LOM revision would be approved and a Federal permit would be issued to continue surface-coal-mining and reclamation operations at the Black Mesa Complex with conditions necessary to meet the requirements of the SMCRA. The LOM revision and other associated components of the Black Mesa Project would be approved. 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 unpermitted parts of the existing lease area (Map 2-4) and existing and proposed rights-of-way (the 18,984 acres associated with the current Black Mesa mining operation including the 127 acres for the proposed coal-haul road) and the Kayenta mining operation and Black Mesa mining operation would continue through 2026. The decision to approve the LOM revision must be combined with decisions regarding the other project components related to the Black Mesa mining operation to achieve the purposes of the project; that is, 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 2-1. 2.2.1.1 Coal-Slurry-Pipeline Route Subalternatives

For the coal-slurry pipeline, two alternative routes are addressed—the existing route and the existing route with realignments along the Moenkopi Wash and around the Kingman area. Estimated costs for construction and operation and maintenance of the coal-slurry pipeline are shown in Appendix B.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-9

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Figure 2-1 Alternative A Subalternatives

2.2.1.1.1

Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route

As described previously, 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. Permanent access road exists along the majority of the pipeline route within the right-ofway. The existing pipeline would be abandoned and, for the most part, left in place under ground. In a few very limited number of sections, BMPI would remove the old pipeline and rebury new pipeline. The locations of these segments of pipeline would be identified during final engineering and design. 2.2.1.1.2 Coal-Slurry-Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)

The alternative is to reconstruct the coal-slurry pipeline along the existing route for the majority of the route. Two realignments are proposed—Moenkopi Wash Realignment and 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 proposes to realign the pipeline where needed, up to 200 feet on either side of the existing pipeline, to locate the pipeline, still in the wash, but out of the active channel (Map 2-5a). The specific segments of pipeline that would be realigned have not yet been identified. However, along the 20 miles identified on Map 2-5a, it is anticipated that the segments to be realigned would cumulatively add to approximately 1 mile.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-10

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Map 2-4 Alternative A – Approval of LOM Revision

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-11

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Map_2-5a_Moenkopi_Wash.pdf

Kayenta Chapter

Map 2-5a

Inscription House Chapter Chilchinbito Chapter

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Black Mesa Project EIS

Navajo Indian Reservation
Shonto Chapter

Black Mesa Complex

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignment
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Tonalea Chapter Eastern Route (preferred alternative)

2
Western Route

4
Proposed Coal-Haul Road Peabody Lease Area

Surface Management
American Indian Reservation

6

8

10

Coconino County

Navajo County

12

14
Moenkopi Wash Realignment

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

16

18

24

22

20

26

28

Hopi Indian Reservation
July 2006
Hard Rock Chapter
0 2.5 Miles 5

30

32

Prepared By:
Pinon Chapter

The Kingman area reroute would be south of the area of Kingman, Arizona. The existing pipeline route crosses through the City of Kingman in areas that were undeveloped when the pipeline was constructed originally. BMPI proposes to reroute the pipeline to the south, from CSP Mileposts 228 to 255 (27 miles of the existing route; the Kingman reroute would be about 28.5 miles), to avoid construction in these areas that are now residential and commercial developments (refer to Map 1-1; Map 2-5b). 2.2.1.2 Project Water Supply

Water for the project is proposed to come primarily from the C aquifer with some supplemental use of the N aquifer. The proposed new C aquifer water-supply system would provide up to 6,000 af/yr of water for coal-slurry transportation and mine-related use (see Section 2.2.1.2.1 below). The existing N aquifer water-supply system could continue to supply up to 500 af/yr of water for mine-related and domestic uses and also would be used as an emergency back-up supply in the event that the C aquifer failed for an extended period of time (see Section 2.2.1.2.2.1). Use of the existing N aquifer water-supply system as the sole water supply for the proposed project also is an alternative (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 2.2.1.2.2.2). 2.2.1.2.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply System (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)

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. 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. Although SRP is leading the effort to develop the C-aquifer water-supply system, ownership of the system had not been determined at the time this Draft EIS was published. Two different water-withdrawal scenarios and two water-supply pipeline alternative routes are being considered in this EIS. Estimated costs for construction and operation and maintenance of the watersupply system are shown in Appendix B. 2.2.1.2.1.1 Water Withdrawal and Supply Two water-withdrawal scenarios and pipeline capacities are being considered. 2.2.1.2.1.1.1 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 needed annually for the coal-delivery system (coal slurry [3,700 af/yr], coal-washing facility [500 af/yr]), other mine-related and domestic purposes (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. 2.2.1.2.1.1.2 C-Aquifer Water Withdrawal and Supply: 11,600 af/yr (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) Under this alternative, 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 water-supply pipeline in anticipation of the 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-13

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

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 alternative, the 6,000 af/yr of water used for project-related purposes would be used by the Navajo Nation when no longer needed for project-related purposes. Pumping the C-aquifer water up to 11,600 af/yr would continue for the estimated 50-year life of the pipeline (until 2060). In order 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. 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 on such spur pipelines would be subject to NEPA analysis at the time of plan development. 2.2.1.2.1.2 Infrastructure 2.2.1.2.1.2.1 Well Field Test wells used to quantify well yields ranged from 400 to 700 gallons per minute (USGS 2005). To produce 6,000 af/yr of water, a minimum of 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 resulting in a reduction of the numbers of wells needed to produce water for the project. For producing 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) Railroad just north of Red Gap Ranch and Interstate 40 (I40). 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 Railroad, Canyon Diablo, and I-40 (refer to Map 1-1; Map 2-6). Proposed use of the C-aquifer water is shown in Table 2-4. Table 2-4 Proposed Use of C-Aquifer Water
Acre-Feet per Year 3,700 500 1,600 200 6,000 2,000 3,600 5,600 11,600

Use Black Mesa Complex Coal slurry Coal washing Mine-related and domestic uses Contingency Subtotal Black Mesa Complex Tribal Hopi Tribe Navajo Nation Subtotal tribal Grand total

The well field would consist of production wells, access roads, an electric power distribution system, water-storage tank, and associated piping. The locations of the wells are not known at this time; however, the wells would be spaced such that there is a minimum separation between each site of 1.2 to 1.5 miles. 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 above-ground equipment at each well site would

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-14

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Map_2-5b_Kingman_Area.pdf

Map 2-5b

Kingman Area Reroute
Mohave County

Black Mesa Project EIS

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Reroute

236

238

(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

234

232
23 0

Surface Management
Bureau of Land Management State Trust

246

244
240

24 2

22 8

County, Park and Outdoor Recreation Areas Private

8 24

254

252

0 25

256

2

18

28

8 25

4

26

24

22

20
8

6

16
Kingman Area Reroute

14

10

12

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

July 2006
0 2 Miles 4

Prepared By:

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Map_2-6_Wat_Alignments.pdf

Map 2-6

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Water-Supply Pipeline Route Alternatives
Black Mesa Project EIS

Apache County

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignment
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

Pump Station #1
Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline

Navajo County

Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Subalternatives (along preferred alternative) Western Route C-Aquifer Well Field

Hard Rock

90

0 10

80

10

Moenkopi Wash Realignment (Map 2-2a)

Kykotsmovi

70

50

40

Thief Rock Pump Station
110

20

Hotevilla

10 0

40

80

30

70

Leupp

Milepost 91 Pump Station

90

50

60

Coconino County

Well Field Navajo Reservation
July 2006

50

40

10

70

13 0
0 12

Oraibi Pump Station

Peabody Lease Area

Surface Management

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives (Map 2-3b)

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

Tolani Lake Pump Station
30

General Features

30
20

Tolani Lake Pump Station Moenkopi Pump Station

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

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

60

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

0

10 Miles

20

Prepared By:

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 (1,000-foot-deep, 18-inch-diameter standard casing). Single-lane, unpaved access roads, the travel surface of which would be about 10 to 15 feet within a 40-foot-wide temporary right-of-way (25-foot-wide permanent right-of-way), with turnouts for passing, would be constructed to each site from the existing roads in the area. 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 of 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 detail 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-ofway (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. 2.2.1.2.1.2.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply-Pipeline Route Alternatives Two major alternative routes for the water-supply pipeline have been identified (refer to Map 2-6). A permanent access road would be needed to perform maintenance on and repairs to the pipeline. In areas where the pipeline is adjacent to public roads, the public road would serve as that access road. In areas where there is no existing access road, a permanent road approximately 25 feet wide would be maintained within the permanent pipeline right-of-way. C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative). The eastern route for the C aquifer water-supply pipeline is approximately 108 miles long. The route crosses approximately 54 miles of the Hopi Reservation and approximately 54 miles of the Navajo Reservation. It is estimated that 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-17

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives. The water-supply pipeline would cross the Little Colorado River between approximately WSP Mileposts 13 and 14. Two alternative crossings are being considered (Map 2-6a): Crossing under the river by drilling a horizontal tunnel approximately 50 to 200 feet beneath the river and pulling the pipeline through the tunnel, which is the applicant’s and agencies’ preferred alternative. Crossing over the river on an existing but abandoned bridge. Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives. Two minor routing alternatives are being considered in the Kykotsmovi area (Map 2-6b): Along the western subalternative, the water-supply pipeline would be buried beneath the main roadway through the village of Kykotsmovi (agencies’ preferred alternative). This subalternative is preferred by the Hopi. 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 is approximately 137 miles long and crosses lands of the Navajo Reservation (refer to Map 1-1 and Map 2-6). 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 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 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. 2.2.1.2.2 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 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. 2.2.1.2.2.1 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 at a reduced rate. The reliability of the C aquifer is difficult to quantify, but reliability would be very high. 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 as an emergency back-up 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 mine-related or slurry use except as noted below. In order to maintain the N-aquifer well field in an operationally ready state to supply the public and in case water from the well field is needed for emergencies, the wells must be pumped periodically for extended periods of time. 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-18

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Map_2-6a_Leupp_Alt.pdf

16

Map 2-6a

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline:
Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives
Black Mesa Project EIS

o ol le C Litt

ra

do R

ive r
15

LEGEND
Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Subalternative (along preferred alternative) 230kV Power Line

Leupp

North Little Colorado River Crossing (horizontal bore under river)
14

69/12kV Power Line Proposed 69kV Distribution Line Gas Pipeline C-Aquifer Well Field Proposed Substation Site

Proposed Substation Site

LEUPP
13

South Little Colorado River Subalternative (historic highway bridge)

12

SUNRISE

General Features
Leupp

Navajo Chapter Boundary and Name

11

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

Bird Springs
10

July 2006
Well Field Navajo Reservation
0 0.5 Miles 1

Prepared By:
9

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\2-6b_Kykotsmovi_Alt.pdf

Map 2-6b
62

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

OLD ORAIBI

LEGEND
KYKOTSMOVI
Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline West Kykotsmovi Subalternative (preferred alternative) East Kykotsmovi Subalternative Phone Line 69/12kV Power Line Water Line Waste Water Taps
2

61

West Kykotsmovi Subalternative

Waste Water Line

60

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

1

O

ra

ib

iW

as

h

Hopi Reservation

July 2006
0 0.25 Miles 0.5

59

Prepared By:

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 was based on alternating 1- and 6-month duration interruptions of supply from the C aquifer, which would occur at 3-year intervals and extend for the life of the project. Thus, the C aquifer water supply was assumed to be unavailable every 3 years for either 1 month or 6 months, and during this time, full use of N-aquifer water would occur. The Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations would cease in 2026, and the mines would be reclaimed. From 2026 to 2028, up to 500 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 project-related uses (i.e., mine operations, coal delivery, and reclamation). The leases require N-aquifer wells to be transferred to the tribes in operating condition. The wells would be transferred to the tribes once Peabody successfully completes reclamation and relinquishes the leases. 2.2.1.2.2.2 N Aquifer as the Sole Water Supply Under this alternative (see N aquifer water-supply system alternative to the proposed action in Figure 2-1), up to 6,000 af/yr would be drawn from the N aquifer within Peabody’s lease area for the life of the project (i.e., 2010 through mid 2026). This is the amount of water needed annually for the coaldelivery system (coal slurry [3,700 af/yr], coal-washing facility [500 af/yr]), other mine-related and domestic purposes (1,600 af/yr ), and a contingency (200 af/yr). From 2026 to 2028, up to 500 af/yr of water would be needed for mine reclamation and public (domestic) uses. From 2029 to 2038, up to 444 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be needed for post-reclamation maintenance and public uses. 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 completes reclamation and relinquishes the leases. Under this alternative, the concern leading to the administrative delay of OSM’s permanent Indian Lands Program permitting decision described in Section 2.1.1.2 would not be resolved. The delay of permitting decisions for the Black Mesa mining operation and Black Mesa coal-slurry preparation plant stem from the concerns of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation regarding use of N-aquifer water for the 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 by Alternative
Agencies' Preferred Applicants' Proposed Alternative Alternative 11,600 af/yr ($ million) 6,000 af/yr ($ million) Annual Annual Operation and Operation and Capital Cost4 Maintenance4 Capital Cost4 Maintenance4 Eastern Route C Aquifer well field and pump stations Eastern water-supply pipeline3 Construction Costs 42 155 197 3.96 34 145 179 3.26

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-21

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Agencies' Preferred Applicants' Proposed Alternative Alternative 6,000 af/yr ($ million) 11,600 af/yr ($ million) Annual Annual Operation and Operation and Capital Cost4 Maintenance4 Capital Cost4 Maintenance4 5 Water costs for Black Mesa Complex 5.4 5.4 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs 9.3 8.6 Coal-slurry pipeline7 200 24 200 24 Total Estimated Costs for Coal-Delivery 397 33.3 379 32.6 System1 Western Route C Aquifer well field and pump stations 53 6.76 45 66 3 Western water-supply pipeline 179 169 Construction Costs 232 214 Water costs for Black Mesa Complex5 5.4 5.4 Annual Operation and Maintenance 12.1 11.4 Costs5 7 Coal-slurry pipeline 200 24 200 24 Total Estimated Costs for Coal-Delivery 432 36.1 414 35.4 System2 SOURCES: Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. 2005; Peabody Western Coal Company 2005; Southern California Edison Company 2006 NOTES: 1 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. 2 Includes costs for well field, 137 miles of pipeline, and four pump stations. 3 Does not include costs for right-of-way. 4 2006 dollars. 5 Annual water royalties to Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. 6 Includes operation and maintenance for pipeline 7 The capital costs do not include right-of-way costs.

2.2.2

Alternative B – Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operations, Coal-Slurry Pipeline, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System

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 operations. The coalwashing facility and the C aquifer water-supply system, in any configuration, would not be constructed. The 127-acre coal-haul road would, however, be constructed and maintained. Areas previously disturbed by the Black Mesa operation (6,965 acres) would be incorporated into the expanded permit area for the Black Mesa Complex (Map 2-7). 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 2-1). 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 expanded permit area for the Black Mesa Complex, although Peabody does not propose in the current LOM revision to mine them. Under the current permit, Peabody has approval to produce from other mining areas (N-09, N-10, N-99, J-19, and J-21) all of the coal needed by the Navajo Generating Station through 2026. It is anticipated that Peabody would continue to request that OSM renew its permit every 5 years until the coal is mined out. Impacts of an extended

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-22

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Map 2-7 Expanded Permit Area Under Alternative B: Conditional Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Pipeline, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-23

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

mining scenario beyond 2026, which could include mining of some or all of the aforementioned nine coal-resource areas, are addressed in the cumulative effects section of the EIS. In the time period 2006 through 2026, the Black Mesa operation infrastructure would be used as necessary to facilitate mining and reclamation by the Kayenta mining operation. The Kayenta mining operation would continue into 2026 but stop before the year is completed. It would use N-aquifer water in amounts averaging 1,236 af/yr from 2006 to 2025. As proposed in the LOM revision, the Kayenta mining operation would cease in 2026, and the mine would be reclaimed. From 2026 to 2028, up to 500 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for reclamation and public use. From 2029 to 2038, up to 444 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for post-reclamation maintenance and public uses. 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 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 operations. The coalwashing facility and the C aquifer water-supply system, in any configuration, would not be constructed. Areas previously disturbed by the Black Mesa operation (6,965 acres) would not be incorporated into the expanded permit area for the Black Mesa Complex (Map 2-8). The infrastructure for the Black Mesa mining operation (offices, roads, etc.) would be expeditiously reclaimed. Unmined coal-resource areas, totaling 5,950 acres that were previously 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 expanded permit area for the Black Mesa Complex. They would not be mined. Under its current permanent Indian Lands Program permit for the Kayenta mining operation, Peabody 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 use N-aquifer water in amounts averaging 1,240 af/yr from 2006 to 2025. Similar to Alternative B, the Kayenta mining operation would cease after 2026, and the mine would be reclaimed. From 2026 to 2028, up to 500 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for reclamation and public uses. From 2029 to 2038, up to 444 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for post-reclamation maintenance and public uses. The wells would be transferred to the tribes once Peabody successfully completes reclamation and relinquishes the leases. Although it is reasonably foreseeable under Alternative C that Peabody would request future permit revisions to mine all remaining coal reserves within the lease area, the cumulative impacts of such foreseeable future permitting already area addressed under Alternative B; thus, Alternative C assumes that none of the currently unpermitted coal reserves within the leases would be mined after 2026 for the purpose of evaluating impacts (other than those which are currently approved in the existing permit). 2.3 AGENCY AUTHORITY AND ACTIONS

Implementation of the proposed project 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 2006

2-24

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 and need for the project. 2.4.1 Approval of the Black Mesa Portion of the LOM Revision and Disapproval of the Kayenta Portion of the LOM Revision

During scoping, an alternative was proposed that would result in the approval of the Black Mesa portion of the LOM revision and disapproval of the Kayenta portion of the 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 be reclaimed. This alternative is not substantively different than the approval alternative (Alternative A) and therefore is not considered further. For the Kayenta mining operation, the LOM revision proposes to add the J-21 South mining area to the currently permitted mining areas and proposes that the currently permitted N-99 mining area would be a coal supply for both the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. If the Kayenta part of the LOM revision were not approved, the J-21 South mining area would not be mined, but the Kayenta mining operation would continue through 2026 as currently authorized in OSM’s Permit AZ-0001D. 2.4.2 Other Water Sources

Many scoping comments suggested the use of a water alternative for the coal slurry, or a source of water other than the N aquifer be considered. While the latter has been considered and the C aquifer has been identified as the preferred alternative 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. Eventually, all of the Colorado River options were determined to be 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 Lee Ferry, just downstream from Lake Powell (Reclamation 2004).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-25

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Map 2-8 Permit Area Under Alternative C: Disapproval of the LOM Revision

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-26

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

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 divided, or apportioned, by percentage among the states in which the water use occurs. The State of Arizona has only a small allocation from the Upper Basin (50,000 af/yr), which is largely consumed by existing uses on the Navajo 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 would likely require consent of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) because supplies from the Central Arizona Project would likely 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 on 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 pipeline alignments evaluated 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 Basin states, which would likely take a number of years to negotiate with an uncertain outcome. Also, the high cost of an extensive network of pipelines to distribute the water was a consideration (Sommers 2005; SRP 2002). In order to avoid delays associated with resolution of the trans-basin diversion and use issues, a Lower Basin diversion location just downstream of Lee 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. The estimated costs were extremely high. This Lower Basin diversion location was deemed to be technically and economically unacceptable.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-27

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6 Summary of Potential Agency Authorities and Actions
Proposal Requiring Action Life-of-Mine Revision Life-of-mine (LOM) plan revision Agency Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review FEDERAL LOM revision permit approval Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision Relevant Law and/or Regulation 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] Parts 15001508); 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 50 CFR 402 EIS and Record of Decision Approval Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance by Federal land-managing agency and lead agency Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342); 40 CFR 124.9 25 CFR Part 216; 43 CFR 3480 ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq)

Right-of-way for transportation corridor Modification of a Section 404 permit Effects on species listed as critical habitat designated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Modification of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit Changes to the mining plan Amend right-of-way by Federal land-managing agency

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

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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-28

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6
Proposal Requiring Action Effects on historic properties

Summary of Potential Agency Authorities and Actions
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 Part 800

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 OSM

Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant Conduct surface coal-mining operations (coal-slurry preparation plant) on American Indian reservations C-Aquifer Water-Supply System Grant rights-of way for well field, pipeline gathering system, waterconveyance pipeline, and other associated facilities Approval of lease or permits for water supply and related facilities 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

Coal-slurry preparation plant permit

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

BIA1, 3, 4 Phoenix Area Office Navajo Area Office BIA1,3,4 Western Regional Office Navajo Regional Office Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

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 Part 169

25 CFR 162 Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. 101, et seq. 23 CFR 1.23 23 CFR Part 645 23 CFR Part 771 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342); 40 CFR Part 122 33 U.S.C. 403, 1344(a); 33 CFR Parts 320, 322, 323, 325

USEPA (on American Indian reservations) USACE

Section 402 NPDES Permit 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-29

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6
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 Grant right-of-way by Federal landmanaging agency

Summary of Potential Agency Authorities and Actions
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 has 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 ESA compliance by Federal landmanaging agency and lead agency Relevant Law and/or Regulation Executive Order 11988; 33 CFR Part 320.4(l) (USACE) Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(a)); 33 CFR Parts 320, 323, 325 Clean Water Act Section 404(c) (33 U.S.C. 1344(c)); 40 CFR Part 231 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403); 33 CFR Parts 320, 322, 325 Oil Pollution Act of 1990; 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.; 40 CFR Part 112 ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq)

Agency All Federal action agencies USACE

USEPA (Navajo Nation EPA on Navajo Reservation) USACE USEPA Federal land-managing agency, in consultation with FWS

Effects on historic properties

Lead Federal agency, BIA, Navajo THPO, HCPO, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation if it chooses to participate BIA1, tribal consents

Excavation of archaeological sites on tribal lands Potential conflicts with freedom to practice American Indian religions Disturbance of graves, associated funerary objects, sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony

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 means development of a “Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement” Permits to excavate

NHPA of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f); 36 CFR Part 800

Lead Federal agency and BIA1 BIA1, Tribal consents

Consultation with affected American Indians 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 Part 262; 43 CFR Part 7 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) (42 U.S.C. 1996); Executive Order 13007 (61 Federal Register 26771) Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. 3001); 43 CFR Part 10

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-30

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6
Proposal Requiring Action Investigation of cultural and paleontological resources Coal-Slurry Pipeline Rights-of way for coal-slurry pipeline, and other associated facilities Rights-of-way grant for coal-slurry pipeline 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

Summary of Potential Agency Authorities and Actions
Agency Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review Permit for study of historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources Grant of easement for rights-of-way. 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 Relevant Law and/or Regulation Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 432433); 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Parts 3, 7 and 2300; ARPA; 25 CFR Part 262; 43 CFR Part 7 25 CFR Part 169 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Title V (43 U.S.C. 1761-1771) 36 CFR Part 251 FLPMA, Title V (43 U.S.C. 1761-1771) 43 CFR Part 2800 36 CFR Part 251 Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. 101, et seq. 23 CFR 1.23 23 CFR Part 645 23 CFR Part 771 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342); 40 CFR Part 122 33 U.S.C. 403, 1344(a); 33 CFR Parts 320, 322, 323, 325

BIA1

BIA1, 3, 4 Forest Service

BLM 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 Permit 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 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

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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-31

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6
Proposal Requiring Action Placement of structures and construction work in navigable waters of the United States. Potential pollution discharge during construction, operation, and maintenance Grant right-of-way by Federal landmanaging agency Effects on historic property

Summary of Potential Agency Authorities and Actions
Agency Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review Section 10 Permit for construction of obstructions to navigable capacity of navigable waters SPCC Plans for pump stations ESA compliance by Federal landmanaging agency and lead agency 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; a “Section 106 Programmatic Agreement” is being developed Permits to excavate Consultation with affected American Indians 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; 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 Relevant Law and/or Regulation Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403); 33 CFR Parts 320, 322, 325 Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.; 40 CFR Part 112 ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq) NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.); 36 CFR Part 800

USACE USEPA Federal land-managing agency, 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 Federal land-managing agency Affected land-managing agency

Excavation of archaeological sites Potential conflicts with freedom to practice American Indian religions Disturbance of graves, associated funerary objects, sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony Investigation of cultural and paleontological resources Investigation of cultural resources

ARPA (16 U.S.C. 470aa to 470ee) AIRFA (42 U.S.C. 1996); Executive Order 13007 (61 Fed. Reg. 26771) NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001); 43 CFR Part 10 Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 432433); 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Parts 3, 7 and 2300; ARPA; 25 CFR Part 262; 43 CFR Part 7 ARPA (16 U.S.C. 470aa to 470mm); 43 CFR Part 7

Affected land-managing agency

Ground disturbance on Federal land or Federal Aid project

BLM, Forest Service

FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701-1771) Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431433) 7 CFR Part 3100 (Department of Agriculture, including Forest Service) BLM Manual Section 8270

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-32

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6
Proposal Requiring Action Hopi Tribe Use of Hopi lands and resources

Summary of Potential Agency Authorities and Actions
Agency Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review TRIBAL 1) Hopi Tribe’s input in planning for reservation development 2) Procedural review and approval of community development plans 3) Approval of well leases, drilling permits, and use of water Business license; procedures, terms, and conditions of permits and penalties for violation Relevant Law and/or Regulation Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance 55

Hopi Tribal Planning

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

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

Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance 14

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 Construction Hopi Water Resources Program

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 reservation business and protection consumers; bonding requirement for nonresidents Compliance with provisions on prohibitions on the possession or use of Hopi land without permission Provisions for Indian employment Control of new construction on the 1882 reservation outside District 6 Establish water quality standards applicable to all water resources; provide wellhead protection; permits for well drilling and adherence to defined well specifications Removal of construction debris via Environmental Protection Plan 2-33

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 Tribal Resolution H-107-97

Construction debris

Hopi Environmental Protection Office

Solid Waste Ordinance 44

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6
Proposal Requiring Action Preconstruction activities: 1) Historical or scientific research 2) Conducting archaeological surveys and excavations Preconstruction activities – site visit Construction in or removal of range improvements Construction in or removal of woodlands Navajo Nation Modification of Title V air quality permit On-ground investigations for tribal or federally protected species Preconstruction activities, construction, operation, and maintenance Wetlands Permission to survey on Navajo Tribal Trust Land for surveying, map legal description, environmental assessment, ethnographic and archaeological studies Discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States (including wetlands and washes) Construction disturbance in areas of sensitive animal and plant species Construction disturbance in areas of cultural resources Encroachment of all existing rightsof-way

Summary of Potential Agency Authorities and Actions
Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review 1) License authority 2) Tribal approval Written permission from Hopi Tribal Council chairman to visit archaeological or historical site Written authorization for Hopi Department of Range Management Permit to harvest woodland products Title V Permit Biological Investigation Permit Formal written approval (e.g., well leases, drilling permits, use of water) NPDES Permit 401 Water Quality Certification Navajo Nation Council consent letter or permit per Resource Committee Relevant Law and/or Regulation Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance No. 26

Agency Hopi Cultural Preservation Office

Hopi Tribal Council Hopi Office of Range Management Hopi Department of Natural Resources Navajo Nation EPA Navajo Nation Fish and Wildlife Department Resources Committee of the Navajo Nation Council USEPA Region IX Navajo Nation EPA Navajo Nation reviewing departments (*) *Project Review Office Navajo Nation EPA Navajo Nation Fish and Wildlife Department, *Natural Heritage Program *Historic Preservation Department Navajo Nation reviewing departments

Hopi Indian Tribe Executive Order 78-1 Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance No. 43 Hopi Indian Tribe Ordinance No. 47 Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7661a) 40 CFR 71 Government Services Committee Resolution SFCF-3-94 2 Navajo Nation Code (NNC) 164 NNC CJA-16-96 2 NNC 695 25 CFR 169

Section 404 Permit Review and approval by Navajo Nation Review and approval by Navajo Nation Navajo Nation consent letter

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(a)); 33 CFR Parts 320, 323, 325 25 CFR 169.4 to 169.5 25 CFR 169.5 25 CFR 169.3

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-34

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6
Proposal Requiring Action Construct, operate, and maintain right-of-way Restoration of right-of-way Cultural resource investigations on Navajo Nation lands Clearing, transporting, selling, trading, or bartering any Navajo forest product Potential effects on the water of Navajo Nation lands Survey activities for geologic or paleontologic resources Removal of fossil resources for study purposes Arizona C-aquifer groundwater pumping from proposed wells on the Hart Ranch, land owned in fee by the Hopi Tribe Storm water management from potential discharges associated with industrial activity or construction of sites greater than 5 acres (cumulative) Construction across water resources NPDES Permit

Summary of Potential Agency Authorities and Actions
Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review Resource Committee Resolution and Navajo Nation consent letter Review and approval Class B inventory permits, Class C excavation permits, ARPA permits for disturbance to archaeological resources Commercial permit Water use permit Reconnaissance permit Collection permit STATE Relevant Law and/or Regulation 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. 1853; 18 U.S.C. 1855; 18 U.S.C. 1850 Chapter 7, NNC 254 22 NNC 1101 et seq. Government Services Committee Resolution GSCAP-20-94 Government Services Committee Resolution GSCAP-20-94

Agency Resource Committee of Navajo Nation Council; BIA agencies or area office Navajo Nation EPA 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 Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) 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 Clean Water Act (33 CFR Parts 320, 322, 323, 325) Clean Water Act (Section 303, et al.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act Section 208 A.R.S. 49-241 through 49-252, and A.A.C. R18-9-101 through R18-9-403 Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

ADEQ ADEQ

Construction and operation of sedimentation pond Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

ADEQ

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

2-35

Table 2-6
Proposal Requiring Action 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 Lands Loss of special status plant species Disturbance to or loss of special status animal species habitat Potential disturbance to cultural resources on State land Potential disturbance to human remains or funerary objects Pumping groundwater from C aquifer from well field on the Hopi Hart Ranch Nevada Storm water management from potential discharges associated with industrial activity or construction of sites greater than 5 acres (cumulative) Construction across water resources Potential for fugitive dust from project construction Disturbance or modification of special status plant species or habitat Disturbance to or loss of special status animal species

Summary of Potential Agency Authorities and Actions
Agency Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review Compliance with dust control measures and standards Crossing permit, permit for use of rightof-way 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 Notice of Intent to Drill Relevant Law and/or Regulation A.A.C: R-18-2-604, R-18-2-605, R-18-2606, R-18-2-607, R-18-2-612 A.R.S. 28-7053, AAC R17-3-501 through 509 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 A.R.S. 45-596

ADEQ Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona State Land Department Arizona Department of Agriculture Arizona Department of Game and Fish Arizona State Museum SHPO Arizona State Museum ADWR

Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP), Bureau of Water Pollution Control NDEP, Bureau of Water Quality Planning NDEP, Bureau of Air Pollution Control Division of Forestry Division of Wildlife

General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (NVR100000) State Water Quality Certification (State review required for all Federal Section 404 permits) Surface Area Disturbance Permit Authority overridden by Clark County Compliance survey for identification of plant species; permit for lawful take of protected plant Special permit

NRS 445A.300 through 445A.730

Clean Water Act (33 CFR Parts 320, 322, 323, 325); NRS 445A.010 through 445A.730 NAC 445B.22037 NRS 527.050, 527.270, NRS 527.250 NAC 503.093

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-36

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6
Proposal Requiring Action Potential disturbance to human remains or funerary objects Navajo County, Arizona Construction of pipeline Potential encroachment onto county rights-of-way Coconino County, Arizona Construction of pipeline Construction activities Potential encroachment onto county rights-of-way Yavapai County, Arizona Construction of pipeline Potential encroachment onto county rights-of-way Mohave County, Arizona Potential encroachment onto county rights-of-way Construction of pipeline City of Bullhead City, Arizona Construction of pipeline Construction of pipeline Potential encroachment onto city rights-of-way City of Kingman, Arizona Construction of pipeline Construction of pipeline Potential encroachment onto city rights-of-way Clark County, Nevada Potential for fugitive dust from project construction

Summary of Potential Agency Authorities and Actions
Permit, License, Approval, Compliance, or Review Notification of discoveries, consultation with affiliated groups LOCAL Special Use Permit Right-of-Way Use Permit Blanket Permit Grading and Excavation Permit Encroachment Permit Special Use Permit Right-of-Way Permit Right-of-Way Use Permit Special Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Grading Permit Notification 24 hours in advance of work Conditional Use Permit Grading Permit Right-of-Way Permit Dust Control Permit Relevant Law and/or Regulation NRS 383.150 to 383.190

Agency Office of Historic Preservation

Department of Public Works, Planning and Zoning Department of Public Works Public Works Department Public Works Department Public Works Department Department of Public Works Development Services Department Public Works Department Planning and Zoning Office Community Development Department Community Development Department Engineering Department Planning and Zoning Division Building Department Public Works Department Air Quality and Environmental Management

Zoning Ordinance A.R.S. 11-562 County Ordinance County Ordinance County Ordinance 94-01, A.R.S. 11-562 County Ordinance County Ordinance 2001-1, A.R.S. 11-562 A.R.S. 11-562, Mohave County ordinance Zoning Ordinance Municipal Code 17.08 Municipal Code 15.40 Municipal Code 12.04.030 Municipal Code 29.000 Municipal Code Section 3310 Streets and Sidewalks Development Rules and Regulations, Div. 3, 6 Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 94

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-37

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-6

Summary of Potential Agency Authorities and Actions

Permit, License, Approval, Proposal Requiring Action Agency Compliance, or Review Relevant Law and/or Regulation Clearing vegetation, rough grading, Comprehensive Planning Grading Permit County Ordinance 30.32.040 stockpiling, altering natural ground Land Disturbance Permit surface or its elevation Disturbance to or loss of special Comprehensive Planning Incidental Take Permit County Ordinance 30.32.050 status animal species habitat Potential encroachment onto county Department of Development Encroachment Permit County Ordinance 30.32.070 rights-of-way Services Improvement Plans County Ordinance 30.32.080 Construction of pipeline Comprehensive Planning Conditional Use Permit County Ordinance 30.44.010 NOTES: 1 All BIA permits and/or leases require prior Hopi Tribe and/or Navajo Nation concurrences that typically require completed environmental assessment document. 2 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). 3 The proposed C-aquifer pipeline would require a BIA right-of-way approved by the Navajo Regional Director. These rights-of-way permits are administered and processed by the Navajo Regional Office Branch of Real Estate Services (BIA March 11, 2005). 4 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 2006

2-38

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

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, it was never fully evaluated because of increased opposition to using Arizona’s allocation from the Lower Basin for a Nevada-related project. 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 (discussion of 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 the 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 groundwater development potential. However, with the exception of one zone, Zone D–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 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 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 of about 3,000 parts per
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 2-39 Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

million); (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 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 re-evaluated 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 and at 500 af/yr (62 gallons per minute 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 2 to 3 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 total dissolved solids. 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 the proposed LOM revision (2,000 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 able to be used in areas where issues could be avoided regarding potential impact on springs and streams located in the Black Mesa Basin sensitive to the Hopi Tribe. Also, groundwater use by the Navajo Nation is less in the other basins as compared to usage in the Black Mesa Basin. The areas evaluated were the so-called 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 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
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 2-40 Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

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 and Northeast N-aquifer alternatives were rejected primarily because preliminary feedback from the tribes indicated that they were uncomfortable using the N aquifer for mine uses at any location, regardless of the potential impact on tribal water supplies, springs, and streams. Furthermore, a review of potential issues associated with Colorado River water rights indicated potential issues that could preclude development of a well field in either the Northwest or the Northeast N aquifers. Both of these potential water sources are located in the Upper Colorado River Basin (URS Corporation 2002). It appears that well fields developed in the Upper Basin that could be hydraulically connected to surface water could not be constructed unless the user demonstrates the well field is not interfering 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 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 waters recharge the N aquifer in the area in question, so hydraulic communication is documented. Arizona’s allocation 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-level engineering and capital-cost analyses for this alternative were performed (URS Corporation 2003b). This alternative consisted of a new pipeline to deliver the 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). 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 in order 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 dollars. The tie-across pipeline between the city’s two major treatment plants was estimated at another $2 to $3 million. Initially, Flagstaff indicated 4,388 acre-feet of gray water that were 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). In either case, it was insufficient to replace all of
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 2-41 Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

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. 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 of 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 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 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 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 2-9.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-42

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Map 2-9 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 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 PSD applicability determination that could result in the facility undergoing New Source Review under the Clean Air Act. This could result in a change of operations or the installation of additional air–pollution 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 air permitting activities have not been included in the cost estimates cited above. Financing costs also were not included.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-43

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-7 Comparison of Estimated Costs for Transporting Coal by Truck and by Coal Slurry
Trucking Type of Cost Capital cost ($ Millions) Power plant facilities conversion1 ($ Millions) Annual operation and maintenance ($ Millions) Annualized cost per ton of coal2 2,737.2 216.5 271.0 103.86 Coal Slurry3 379.0-414.0 NA 27.18-30.04 13.47-14.674

SOURCES: Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. 2005; Southern California Edison Company 2005; URS Corporation 2005a NOTES: 1 Conversion of the Mohave Generating Station facilities to accept and burn dry coal. 2 The annualized cost per ton of coal is calculated from the annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs divided by the annual coal tonnage. 3 Includes reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline, development of the C-aquifer well field, and water-supply pipeline. The range in costs represents the 108-mile-long eastern (and two pump stations) and 137-mile-long western (and four pump stations) water-supply pipeline routes, and the 6,000 af/yr and 11,600 af/yr alternatives. 4 Includes the coal-slurry pipeline ($24 million), annual water royalties to the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation ($5.4 million, 2006 dollars), and water-supply pipeline depending on the pipeline size and alternative route selected ($3.18 to $6 million). 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. 160 and 89) and in the Laughlin area, public safety, 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 a period of 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 Railroad, the nearest major U.S. east-west rail line—was examined further for this EIS (Appendix E, URS Corporation 2005b). This potential option was found to be economically and technically impractical and eliminated from further consideration as discussed below. To reach the BNSF from the Black Mesa mining operations, a 164-mile-long rail spur south to Winslow, Arizona, would have to be constructed. The spur would run southwest along U.S. Highway 160, pass south of Tuba City, then follow the Little Colorado River southeast to Winslow Arizona. 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 2-10). 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 Railroad 267-mile mainline from Winslow to the eastern approach at Franconia 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 are 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 2006

2-44

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Map 2-10

Conceptual Railroad Spur Alignments

Capital construction costs for new spurs are estimated to be $821.1 million for the new Black Mesa to Winslow spur, $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 at Black Mesa include a new conveyor system from the mine to a new load-out 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 include new unloading facilities, train servicing facilities, and conversion of the Mohave Generating Station to enable burning of dry coal. The new Black Mesa and Mohave Generating Station facilities costs would total $397.3 million, including conversion of the plant to burn dry coal. 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 Clean Air Act. 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 for the eastern approach to the Mohave Generating Station is $1,636.5 million and for the western approach $1,572.7 million. Annual operating and maintenance cost estimates for each of the alternative approaches are 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 Fact,

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-45

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

2004 Edition). The total operation and maintenance cost for 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 from the east via Franconia and $39.18 for the alternative approach from the west. A comparison of the estimated costs of delivering coal by rail with the estimated costs for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline reveals that the costs for the rail option (without consideration of financing costs) are significantly greater, as shown in Table 2-8. Table 2-8 Comparison of Estimated Costs for Transporting Coal by Rail and by Coal Slurry
Type of Cost Capital cost Slurry pipeline reconstruction ($ millions) Water-supply system construction1 ($ millions) BNSF mainline improvements ($ millions) New spur from Black Mesa to Winslow ($ millions) New spur to Mohave Generating Station from either Franconia (eastern approach) or west of Needles (western approach) ($ millions) Unit train equipment (four train sets and spares) ($ millions) New facilities at load out and power plant including dry coal conversion ($ millions) Total capital cost ($ millions) Annual operation and maintenance ($ millions) Annualized cost per ton of coal3 Western Approach Railroad NA NA 150.7 821.1 156.6 Eastern Approach Railroad NA NA 141.0 821.1 230.1 Coal Slurry 200.0 179.0-214.0 NA NA NA

67.5 397.3 1,572.7 45.0 50.18

67.5 397.3 1,636.5 43.1 51.15

NA NA 379.0-414.0 27.18-30.02 13.47-14.672

SOURCE: URS Corporation 2005b NOTES: 1 Includes well field, and the range represents the 108-mile-long eastern (and two pump stations) and 137-mile-long western alternative (and four pump stations) water-supply pipeline routes, and the 6,000 af/yr and 11,600 af/yr alternatives. 2 Includes coal-slurry pipeline ($24 million), annual water royalties to the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation ($5.4 million), and water-supply system depending on the pipeline size and alternative route selected ($3.18 to $6 million). 3 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-46

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

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 may or may not be resolved with engineering. Population growth in the area of Laughlin and Bullhead City has resulted in a substantial amount of 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, the option was deemed to be technically infeasible as well. Finally, it should be recognized that, although not analyzed in detail, implementation of this alternative would entail serious adverse impacts including impacts on safety, residential and commercial developments in the Laughlin and Bullhead City area, and nearby recreation areas; and impacts from noise and increased diesel-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, and carbon dioxide 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, methane, or carbon dioxide was determined to be technically infeasible at this time and 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 one of these media could be considered as a replacement for the existing pipeline. Tests would be required to provide the operating and cost data needed to design and estimate the costs of commercial facilities with an accuracy acceptable to an investor. Even without the benefit of tests, several issues make methanol, methane, and carbon dioxide 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 uses (USDI 1992). Particulate pollution and the potential for explosion are other drawbacks to this option. Transporting the coal using methane or carbon dioxide would require that coal be ground into even finer particles than it is presently. Methane and carbon dioxide both would require special handling—coal preparation may have to be completed in an inert atmosphere, and similar handling could be required at the Mohave Generating Station. Also, the coal and methane combined could be subject to a potential for combustion or explosion. The existing use of water eliminates these problems (i.e., particulates, combustion or explosion hazard). In addition, these three alternatives to water would require substantial modifications in coal preparation, pumping, pipeline design, dewatering, and the 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 carbon dioxide. Provisions would have to be made for venting or selling carbon dioxide, a green-house 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, methane, 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 due to erosion. The high velocities in the pipeline also could “grind” the coal into finer particles
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 2-47 Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

making the ash after combustion more difficult to capture. Thus, there could be a potential for more particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter emissions. 2.4.5 No Coal-Washing Facility

Comments received during scoping suggested that washing the coal before being mixed into slurry is a wasteful use of water and therefore the coal-washing facility should not be constructed. As part of the LOM revision, 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 increase, resulting in decreased plant efficiency. For the past 19 years, the power plant has been burning 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 in order to conform to the plant’s boiler specifications (Lehn 2005). Replacing the boilers to burn efficiently also would entail changing out all the other equipment such as pulverizers, air preheaters, etc. Also, the ash handling, ash disposal, foundations, etc., would have to be changes or modified to handle the high ash condition. Thus, the cost for this probably would be in the range of $8 million to $1 billion for this type of change. The water recovered after washing the coal would be reused. Since the coal-ash content is reduced by the coal-washing process, the quantity of water required for delivering 9 percent ash coal to the Mohave Generating Station is less than delivering an equivalent Btu (British thermal unit) quality of 11.75 percent ash coal. Moving the same equivalent in a decreased usage of water estimated at about 100 to 150 af/yr of water. The water on the recovered coal and refuse must be removed after washing 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 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 (runof-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 coal-washing facility was estimated for this evaluation 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 Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations, these concerns are outside 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,

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-48

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

2004. The study evaluates potential alternatives to, or complementary energy resources for, the Mohave Generating Station. The Final Study Report, issued in February 2006, considered the following generation resources: (1) integrated coal gasification/combined cycle (with carbon dioxide 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 and is posted on SCE’s website and may be accessed at: www.sce.com/law/cpucproceedings.nfs/vwUFiling?SearchView&Query=A.02-05046&Start=1&Count30. 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 2-8 (and in Chapter 4) reflect the incorporation of measures that reduce and/or render the impacts less intense or severe. These measure include best management practices, conservation measures, and other mitigating measures, to which the applicants commit to employ, and 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 A, which is approval of the LOM revision and all associated components of the Black Mesa Project, which includes the following: Approval of LOM revision for Black Mesa mine complex approval of LOM revision application, including adding 18,984 acres to the permit area, the coal washing facility, increased coal production by the Black Mesa mining operation, revisions to the operation and reclamation plan, and reduced use of Navajo aquifer water in support of mining operations and as an emergency backup water supply approval of changes to mining plan for the Navajo and Hopi coal leases issuance of rights-of-way for the road corridor approval of modification of NPDES permit approval of modification of Title V air quality permit Approval of coal-slurry preparation plant permit application Approval of coal-slurry pipeline reconstruction along the existing alignment with realignments in Moenkopi Wash and a southern reroute around Kingman, Arizona Approval of C aquifer water-supply system along the eastern alignment, capable of delivering up to 11,600 af/yr, using directional drilling to cross under the Little Colorado River, and using the western alignment through Kykotsmovi

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-49

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

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

Summary of Impacts by Alternative
Alternative A Alternative B Permanent for 8,062 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 for 13,529 acres, but the disturbance is mitigated by site restoration because of the new landscape constructed; minor long-term impact.

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply

No short- or long-term impact 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 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 (13,529 acres) would be disturbed permanently, but the disturbance is mitigated by site restoration because of the new landscape constructed; minor long-term impact. No impact on geological resources is anticipated (either route). No impact on geological resources is 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 is anticipated. No impact (either route).

NA

NA

NA

Geology and Minerals Impacts on Black Mesa geological resources Complex

Permanent for 8,062 acres, minor long-term impact. NA NA Similar to Alternative A, but for a smaller area.

Same as Alternative B.

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

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex

NA NA Same as Alternative B.

Coal-Slurry Pipeline

NA

NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-50

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Impacts on Black Mesa paleontological Complex resources Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Soils Impacts on soil Black Mesa productivity Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Water Resources (Hydrology) Degradation of Black Mesa surface water quality Complex from discharges and Coal-Slurry sediment Pipeline contribution Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Changes in streamBlack Mesa channel morphology Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex

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

Alternative A No impact (either route). No impact on unique and important fossil specimens is anticipated. No impact on unique and important fossil specimens is anticipated (either route). No impact on unique and important fossil specimens is anticipated (either route). Permanent for 13,529 acres, improved productivity long term. Minor, short and long term (either route). Minor, short and long term (either route).

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

Same as Alternative B. NA NA

Negligible; impacts would be infrequent and of a small magnitude. Negligible to no impact short term; no impact long term (either route). Negligible to no impact short term; no impact 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 short term; no impact long term. Negligible impact 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. 2-51

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

Same as Alternative B. NA NA Same as Alternative B. NA NA Same as Alternative B.

Impacts on volume of stream flow

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Impacts on the Wepo Black Mesa and alluvial aquifer Complex levels and water quality

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

Alternative A No impact, short and long term. No impact, short and long term.

Impacts of groundwater pumping

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) C aquifer

Some minor impact on local groundwater levels in coal seam and shallow alluvial aquifers 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 of the quantity of recharge on alluvial aquifers. Chemical reaction of groundwater with spoil material could result in moderate to minor waterquality 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 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 short and long term. Negligible to no impact short and long term. Pumping costs (6,000 af/yr): Negligible impact short and long term. Pumping costs (11,600 af/yr): Negligible impact short and long term.

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-52

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern

Summary of Impacts by Alternative
Alternative B NA NA Alternative C

N aquifer

Alternative A Reduction in aquifer thickness (6,000 af/yr): Negligible during mining; no impact after mining. Reduction in aquifer thickness (11,600 af/yr): Negligible impact during and after mining. Streams and springs (6,000 af/yr): Negligible during mining; no impact after mining. Streams and springs (11,600 af/yr): Negligible during mining, negligible after mining. Water quality (6,000 af/yr): No impact during or after mining. Water quality (11,600 af/yr): No impact during mining; negligible after mining. Pumping costs: Negligible during mining, no impact after mining for 500 af/yr and 2,000 af/yr pumping scenarios. Minor impact during mining, no impact after mining for 6,000 af/yr pumping scenario. Streams and springs: Negligible during mining; no impact after mining. Water quality: No impact during mining for 500 af/yr and 2,000 af/yr pumping scenarios. Moderate impact during mining; no impact long term for 6,000 af/yr pumping scenario. Negligible, short term.

NA

NA

NA

NA

Negligible short term, no impact long term. Negligible short term, no impact long term. No impact short and long term.

Same as Alternative B.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Climate Impacts on macroclimate and microclimate Air Impacts of particulate matter (PM) from mining activity; PM and gaseous air pollutant emissions from vehicle and equipment exhaust

Regional

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Black Mesa Complex

Minor locally, negligible regionally.

Similar to Alternative A, but less mining activity (lower PM emissions).

Same as Alternative B.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-53

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Impacts of particulate Coal-Slurry matter (PM) from Pipeline and earthmoving; PM and Water-Supply gaseous air pollutant System emissions from vehicle and equipment exhaust Vegetation Impacts on Black Mesa vegetation structure Complex and composition Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply Impacts on species diversity Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply

Summary of Impacts by Alternative
Alternative B NA NA Alternative C

Alternative A Minor locally and negligible regionally during construction (2 years); negligible to no impact long term.

Major short term, major long term, generally beneficial. Major short term, minor long term, moderate long term for piñon/juniper woodland (either route). C-aquifer well field: Moderate to minor short term, minor long term. Other C aquifer water-supply system infrastructure: Major short term, minor long term (either route). Minor short and long term. Minor to negligible short and long term. Minor to negligible short and long term. Moderate during operations, minor to moderate (depending on how easily species re-establish) following reclamation. Minor short and long term. Minor short and long term. Minor short term, negligible 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 impact short term, minor long term .

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

Same as Alternative B. NA NA

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

Same as Alternative B. NA NA Same as Alternative B. NA NA Same as Alternative B. NA NA

Impacts on culturally important species

Impacts on riparian vegetation

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-54

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern

Summary of Impacts by Alternative
Alternative B Alternative C

Impacts of noxious weeds and invasive species

Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply Black Mesa Complex

Alternative A N-aquifer pumping: Minor short and long term. C-aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either route): Negligible short and long term. Minor short and long term. Minor short and long term (either route). Moderate to minor short and long term (either route). No impact. Minor to negligible short and long term (either route). Minor to no impact short and long term (either route). 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 short term, moderate long term (either route). Major short term, moderate long term (either route). No impact. Moderate to minor short term, negligible long term (either route). No impact. NA Major to moderate short term, minor to negligible long term (either route). 2-55

Similar to Alternative A, but for an area reduced in size. NA NA No impact. NA NA Similar to Alternative A, but for an area reduced in size.

Same as Alternative B. NA NA No impact. NA NA Same as Alternative B.

Impacts on threatened, endangered, and special status species Fish and Wildlife Impacts on terrestrial habitats and wildlife

Impacts on game species and burros

Impacts on bighorn sheep

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Impacts on raptors Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply NA

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

Woodland: Minor short term, moderate to minor long term. Open country: Minor short term, moderate and beneficial long term. Minor short and long term (either route). Minor short term and negligible long term (either route). Minor to negligible short term. Negligible to no impact short and long term (either route). Negligible to no impact short and long term (either route). Beneficial short and long term. 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 no impact short and long term (either route). C-aquifer pumping (6,000 af/yr): No impact. C-aquifer pumping (11,600 af/yr): Minor short term, major long term on Little Colorado River spinedace and roundtail chub, minor to negligible on Southwest willow flycatcher. N-aquifer pumping: No impact short term, minor long term. C-aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either route): No impacts.

NA NA Same as Alternative B. NA NA Same as Alternative B. NA NA Same as Alternative B. NA NA

Impacts on riparian habitats and species

Impacts on aquatic habitats and species (including impoundments on Black Mesa Complex) Impacts on threatened and endangered

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-56

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Impacts on other Black Mesa special status species Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply Land Use Impacts on Black Mesa residential uses Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline

Summary of Impacts by Alternative
Alternative B Similar to Alternative A, but for smaller area. NA NA Similar to Alternative A, but fewer relocations. NA Alternative C Same as Alternative B. NA NA Same as Alternative B. NA

Alternative A Minor to negligible short and long term. Moderate to no impact short term, negligible to no impact long term (either route). Moderate to no impact short term, negligible to no impact long term (either route). Impacts from relocation of residents 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 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 short term. Negligible to no impact long term. Eastern route: Minor to negligible short term, no impact long term. The Kykotsmovi 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 due to relocations during mining activities and reclamation. Grazing improved after reclamation.

Project Water Supply (infrastructure)

NA

NA

Impacts on grazing and agriculture

Black Mesa Complex

Coal-Slurry Pipeline

Minor to negligible impacts would result from impeded access and property disturbance during construction. Negligible to no impact long term (either route).

Similar to Alternative A, but fewer relocations and less land would be mined and reclaimed (loss of opportunity for improved grazing). NA

Same as Alternative B.

NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-57

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Project Water Supply

Summary of Impacts by Alternative
Alternative B NA NA Alternative C

Impacts on commercial and industrial uses

Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline

Alternative A Eastern route: Minor short term. Negligible to no impact 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 short term, no impacts long term. No impact. Existing route: Minor to negligible impacts would result from impeded access and property disturbance during construction. Negligible to no impact long term. Existing route with realignments: Short-term impacts would be similar to existing route; negligible to no impacts long term. No impact.

Same as Alternative A. NA

Same as Alternative A. NA

Project Water Supply (infrastructure) Cultural Resources Impacts on archaeological and historical resources Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply

NA

NA

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

No impact. NA NA

No impact. NA NA

Impacts on traditional cultural resources (including human burials)

Same as Alternative A. NA NA

No impact. NA NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-58

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Social and Economic Conditions Impacts on Black Mesa employment and Complex income

Summary of Impacts by Alternative
Alternative A Alternative B Major adverse long term (upon cessation of mining – Kayenta mining operation only). Both short term and long term, 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 NA Alternative C Same as Alternative B.

Major beneficial short term (resumption of Black Mesa mining operation). Major adverse long term (upon cessation of all mining). 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.

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply

Impacts on revenue to governmental entities

Black Mesa Complex

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply

Beneficial, temporary (2 years) during construction. Major in the local area, moderate in the region. If C aquifer water-supply system constructed, beneficial, temporary (2 years) during construction. Major in the local area (either route), moderate in the region. If C aquifer water-supply system constructed, minor short term during operations. Major beneficial short term (resumption of Black Mesa mining operation). Major adverse long term (upon cessation of mining), especially to Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. Beneficial, temporary (2 years) during construction. Major impact, especially sales tax receipts. If C aquifer water-supply system is constructed, minor short term, right-of-way tax revenue during operations.

NA NA

Major adverse long term (upon cessation of mining – Kayenta operation only). NA NA

Same as Alternative B.

NA NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-59

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Impacts on economic Black Mesa development Complex

Summary of Impacts by Alternative
Alternative B NA NA Alternative C

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply

Alternative A Short term, the mining revenues and other jobs and income in local support services would have a minor beneficial effect on economic development. Long term, those services might support industries other than mining, a potential minor beneficial effect. No impact. If C aquifer water-supply system is constructed, major beneficial; lessen concern that N-aquifer water withdrawals for mining-related purposes interfere with water use for tribal economic development. Minor benefit from associated road improvements. If maximum N-aquifer water supply, major adverse impact, 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 area now permitted continues adverse effects.

NA NA

NA NA

Environmental Justice Black Mesa Complex Same as Alternative A. Moderate benefit to residents in or near Black Mesa Complex who live a traditional lifestyle; shutdown of mining within the unpermitted Black Mesa operation area ends its adverse effects. NA NA Moderate to minor, depending on distance to mining operations; fewer persons affected than in Alternative A or B. NA

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply 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, depending on distance to mining operations.

NA NA Similar to Alternative A, but fewer persons affected than for Alternative A. NA

Coal-Slurry Pipeline

Moderate but very short term for a small number of residences (during construction).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-60

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Project Water Supply

Summary of Impacts by Alternative
Alternative B NA NA Alternative C

Impacts from vibration

Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply

Alternative A C-aquifer well field: Negligible to minor during construction, negligible for life of the mining operations. Other C aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either route): Negligible to minor during construction, negligible for life of the mining operations. Moderate to minor, temporary, for a small number of residences. Negligible to no impact (during construction), residences far enough away to prevent greater impacts. C-aquifer well field: Negligible to no impact 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 except moderate where view of water-storage tank detracts. Other C aquifer water-supply system infrastructure (either route): Moderate long term where views of pump stations detract. Minor to no impact elsewhere. Negligible short and long term. Minor to no impact during construction. Minor to no impact during construction. Minor to negligible beneficial effects from new roads.

Moderate to minor, temporary, for a smaller number of residences than in Alternative A. NA NA

Moderate to minor, temporary, for a smaller number of residences than in Alternative A or B. NA NA

Visual Resources Impacts on scenic quality

Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply

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

Same as Alternative B. NA

NA

NA

Transportation Impacts on traffic and transportation

Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply

Same as Alternative A. NA NA

Same as Alternative A. NA NA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

2-61

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

Table 2-9
Issue or Concern Recreation Impacts on recreation Black Mesa Complex Coal-Slurry Pipeline Project Water Supply

Summary of Impacts by Alternative
Alternative A Alternative B Negligible short and long term. NA NA Alternative C Negligible short and long term. NA NA

Negligible short and long term. Negligible short and long term. Negligible short and long term.

NOTES: NA = Not applicable. In Alternatives B and C, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed and the C aquifer water-supply system 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. 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 2006

2-62

Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives

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 from which the impacts that are anticipated to result from implementing the proposed Black Mesa Project or alternatives were assessed. 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 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 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 the most recent data available— 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 remain the same over broader 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 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 also is drained by the Little Colorado River.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-1

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 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 covering 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 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 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 2005, approximately 14,940 acres had been disturbed by the Kayenta mining operation and 6,965 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 re-establish 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 2006

3-2

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Geology\Geology_Resources.pdf

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

Geology

Utah Arizona
Page

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

Black Mesa Project EIS
Blac k
Me s

Nevada

Tertiary basalts Tertiary granite

P

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
La

Kayenta Tsegi

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Jm Realignments
(Existing route with realignments is applicant's preferred alternative)

Arizona

a

PP MC Yg Xg Xm

d an

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

ke

Js

0 13

Thief Rock PS
Ra
ilr o

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

0 12

Km v

Po

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (Applicant's Preferred Alternative) Subalternatives (Along Preferred) Western Route
Apache County

we
ll

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

lora Co

d

iv oR

er

ad 10

0

PS #1 Black Mesa Basin
10
0 10

110

Kmv Cretaceous Mesaverde Group Ks Cretaceous sedimentary rocks

COLORADO PLATEAU
Tusayan
Railwa
y

MP 91 PS
90
30
20

Tuba City Moenkopi
60
70
70

40
80

90

Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field PS = Pump Station Peabody Lease Area

50

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Geology
Physiographic Province

Mohave County

Ks

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2
80

Hotevilla
60

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

Moenkopi PS

s Trc
Trc

50

on ny

Ca

Valle
100

90

50

Jgc

Peach Springs Cenozoic Sedimentary Basin
Cerba

PS #3
110

40

Truxton
160

Tso P
Grand

b QT

40

General Features
River
Tolani Lake PS

120

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
270

PP Xmv
23 0

Tvy
150

TKg

Xm

MC

QTv

30

PS #4
170

Tolani Lake PS Leupp
20

Qy
Holbrook Basin Navajo County

Lake Navajo Reservation Boundary Hopi Reservation Boundary State Boundary

140

30

130

t Mnts.

Seligman

Q
0 25

Laughlin

240

Kingman Bullhead City Tg
260

Qo
Yg
220

Tby
Ash Fork Williams

YXg

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Flagstaff

10

180

190

0 20

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

Tv

da a v a ni Ne ifor l Ca

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

Xg

Ts m

20

Xms

10

Kingman Area Reroute Tsy

Tb
Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Trm
Winslow

Little Colorad o River
Holbrook

SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 Arizona Geologic Survey 2003

TRANSITION ZONE
Cal n ifor
San Bernardino County

Ariz ona

BASIN AND RANGE
La Paz County

Yavapai County

July 2006

ia

0

20 Miles

40

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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)

The Moenkopi Wash realignments would be within the wash but outside the active channel, generally within 200 feet of the existing 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 2006

3-4

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.1.3 3.1.3.1

Project Water Supply C Aquifer Water-Supply System (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) 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 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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) 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 crossing 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-foothigh 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 dominate 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-5

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Figure 3-1

Stratigraphic Column of Black Mesa Area

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-6

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

rocks, separated by thick alluvium-filled sedimentary basins. The transition zone has geologic characteristics of both provinces (refer to Map 3-1). 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 Piute 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 that dip down to the southeast. These monoclinal folds comprise 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 has 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 of the 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 in the 4 to 5 magnitude range have occurred. The region between Flagstaff and the Colorado River has 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 have displacement 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 or Map A-1]). In the northern part of the Black Mesa Complex (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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-7

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

of Black Mesa. The Yale Point Sandstone contains only a minor coal seam or two and is not considered economic to mine. 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 commercially. Economic 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 middle carbonaceous shale 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 economic quantities of coal-bed methane 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. Economic reserves of coal are found in the Wepo Formation. In 2004, more than 13 million tons of coal were extracted by the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. Through 2002, 290 million tons of coal had been mined under existing OSM permits. The USGS’s estimates of the inferred total coal resource in the Wepo Formation exceed 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 (volcanic cinders) 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, from the Black Mesa Mine to about Seligman (including the Moenkopi Wash realignments), 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 2006

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 Mesaverde Group); and Mancos Shale. The Toreva Formation and Mancos Shale are exposed in several washes that down-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 2006

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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) Geologic Environment

The Moenkopi Wash realignments would be entirely within the Colorado Plateau province and traverse surface exposures of the Upper Cretaceous Wepo and Toreva Formations, and 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 Moenkopi Wash realignments 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-10

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.2.2.2.4

Paleontological Resources

The Moenkopi Wash realignments 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. 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 Project Water Supply C Aquifer Water-Supply System (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) 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 Limestone 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 Limestone 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 Limestone. 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 area. 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-11

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 would traverse coal-bearing sedimentary rocks on Black Mesa. Cretaceous coal-bearing strata on Black 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 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 slightly susceptible to wind erosion. On reclaimed surface mines, topsoil is essential for re-establishing 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 post-mining land use. By definition, topsoil means the A and E soil horizon layers of the four master soil horizons (30 CFR Part 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, and acid-forming spoils.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-12

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Map 3-2

Surface Geology and Structure Proposed C-Aquifer Well Field
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-13

Soils developed from coal-bearing Mesaverde Group parent rock 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 on the disturbed areas in support of the topsoil material suitability assessments. 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 re-graded spoils. The overburden assessment for 13 mining areas concluded that there was suspect selenium potential of occurring in seven areas. Most values that exceeded the suspect level of 0.26 parts per million (ppm) approved by OSM were less that 0.3 ppm. More recent analysis of re-graded spoil selenium levels in comparison to selenium blood levels in cattle grazing on reclaimed areas indicate that the selenium levels present in the re-graded spoil do not pose a threat to livestock. No selenium monitoring in the re-graded 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. 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 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-14

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

subsurface. The erosion potential is slight to moderate, typically 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 Moenkopi Wash realignments 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, 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 Project 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 alternative 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 route and approximately the last 20 miles to the coal-slurry preparation plant are welldrained. 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 (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 and available 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 2006

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 overall, 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 and Chevelon creeks 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 of the N aquifer. These springs have shown fluctuations but no long-term 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 2006

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 is named for the Navajo Sandstone and 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 is named for the Coconino Sandstone and includes the Kaibab Limestone, the Coconino Sandstone, and the upper part of the Supai Formation; in some areas the C aquifer is confined by the overlying Moenkopi and Chinle Formations. The Muav-Redwall aquifer (R aquifer) is comprised of the Muav-Redwall limestones that underlie the C aquifer. Over most of the study area the Muav-Redwall limestones are separated from the overlying C aquifer by the relatively impermeable silts and clays of the Supai Formation. However, in the area west of Cameron, water from the C aquifer is thought to move downward through faults and fractures in the Supai Formation into the R aquifer before discharging at Blue Springs. The relationships among these units in the project area is 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 total dissolved solids) 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 rocks 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. Of principal interest to this project are the N and C aquifers, which are the current and proposed sources, respectively, of water supply for mining operations and transportation of coal via the coal-slurry pipeline. These aquifers also are the major sources of potable water for municipal use. Until December 2005 when mining ceased, the N aquifer was the primary source of water supply for the coal-slurry pipeline. The

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-17

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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

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
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignments
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

Black
Me s

Nevada

Arizona

15010009

15010003

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d
La ke

Kayenta Tsegi
14080204

a
an

Clark County

15010006

15010000

0 13

Thief Rock PS

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Subalternatives (preferred alternative) Western Route Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field PS = Pump Station Peabody Lease Area Watersheds Bill Williams River

0 12

90

15010002

Tuba City

40
80

90

Moenkopi Wash
15010005

Moenkopi
60
70
70

50

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS
15020013

Apache County

lora Co

R do

r ive

MP 91 PS

we Po

ll Ra ilr

o ad 10

0

PS #1
10
0 10

110

15020018

20
30

t ac tar Ca

Railwa

Mohave County

Tusayan

15020017

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

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2

Hotevilla
60

15020012

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives

y

Cr k ee

Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi

15010004

50

80

on ny

15010014

Ca

Valle
100

90

15020016

50

Lower San Juan River Verde River

Peach Springs
15010007

PS #3
110
120

40

Truxton
160

40
30

15020014

15010003

Sub-watershed Boundary and Hydrologic Unit Number River Lake Navajo Reservation Boundary Hopi Reservation Boundary State Boundary

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
240

Grand

Tolani Lake PS

General Features
Navajo County
15020011

140

30

130

150

PS #4
23 0

Tolani Lake PS Leupp
20

Seligman
170

Laughlin

Kingman
260

15060201

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff
15020015

10

270

180

0 25

190

0 20

Bullhead City
15030101

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives
15020009

210

da a va ni Ne ifor l Ca

220

g Bi

15030103

20

o in Ch

10

Kingman Area Reroute

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

as W

15030201

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch
15060202

Winslow
15020008

Little Colorad o River
Holbrook

h

15020007

Sacramento Wash

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

15030202

15020002

ifor Cal
San Bernardino County

Ariz ona
15030203 15070102 15030204

Yavapai County

nia

July 2006
15020010 0 15020005 15060203 20 Miles 40

rde Ve r ve Ri

Bill Will ia
15030104

ms Riv er
15070104 15030105

15070103 15060105

La Paz County

Prepared By:
15060103 15060104

Gila County

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Hydrology\Map_3-4_Location_N-Aquifer.pdf

Utah Arizona
Page
Navajo

Map 3-4

9379180
Creek
na C Lagu
k ree

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

rC any hon

at e

W

bit o

Coconino County

Wa

Po

l l Ye oa C

sh

lo

w

Be ga sh i

ash

Forest Lake NTUA
ra
bi

Apache County

Black

Kayenta Tsegi
k

Unnamed near Dennehotso

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignments

aa M es
nd
La
e

Kaibito
ll R we
i

ne Mi

W

h as

BLACK MESA COMPLEX
Reed Valley

INSET AREA
C hi n

(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Subalternatives (preferred alternative) Western Route Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field Peabody Lease Area Streams Well Spring Stream Gage
le Wash

Red Peak Valley

a

oa d

lr

M

iW op nk oe

h as
Yucca Fl at Was h

10R-111

d

Pasture Canyon
ve r
D

b it oW

Pasture Canyo n Wash

ne

as h

Moenkopi School

9401260
Hard Rock

in

O

i

ep

W

Po

la

cc

W

a

a

a or ol C
o

Tuba City Moenkopi

as
W

h

R

i

o

W

Aquifers
C-Aquifer N-Aquifer Confined Area of N-Aquifer (Southeast edge is limit of the model)

sh

Tusayan oconino INSET County
W
w

ate

Cameron BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Hotevilla

yo

n

General Features

9401110

rC

Kykotsmovi
o d it

an

Lake Navajo Reservation Boundary
Wa

Y

o e ll
Co

al

n Mi

e

W

as

h

s

h

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

Burro
a cc

d Je

Re ed

Val ley

Lit

tl e

C olo

ea

kV

y alle

Po

la

W

Valle

a

sh

9400568

Red

P

i to

o Ash Fork M

e

o nk

Wa sh

pi

W

h as

u cca F

Williams

l at Wash

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch
Flagstaff

Leupp

do ra

i

Navajo County

R

r ve

September 2006
0 10 Miles 20

Well Field Navajo Reservation

Di

nn

eb

Y

Prepared By:

Kane County

San Juan County

Page

Kayenta Tsegi
BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Blue Spring

Co l or

ad o

Tuba City
R iv er

Hard Rock Tusayan
Coconino County

Li

ttle
Co
lo
rad o River

Hotevilla

Kykotsmovi

Apache County

Apache County

Valle

Ash Fork

Williams Flagstaff

Leupp
Well Field Navajo Reservation

Navajo County

wo

od

W ash

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow
9399000

L it

rC

re

ek

t Cot l e Colo rad o
9398000

Pu e rc o
R iv
er

Ri

r ve

on

Cl
Blue Ridge Reservoir

C
9398500

h

e ev

9397500
Chevelon Reservoir

Zu n

iR

Yavapai County

9398300

Ri v

Mo
Gila County
Woods Canyon Lake

g ollo n Rim

T o n to C r e e k

Sa
Maricopa County

lt R

er

iv

Greenlee County Graham County
P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Hydrology\Location_C-Aquifer.pdf

Pinal County

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignments Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field Peabody Lease Area

Aqifers C-Aquifer Boundary

Map 3-5

0

10 Miles

20

(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

Prepared By:

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

Confined Area of C-Aquifer (Northern edge is limit of the model) 9399000 Steam Gage Station General Features Stream Reaches Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Navajo Reservation Boundary Eastern Route Critical Habitat Hopi Reservation (preferred alternative) Humpback Chub Boundary Subalternatives Little Colorado Spinedace State Boundary (preferred alternative) Razorback Sucker Western Route County Boundary

Location of Surface Drainages South of Black Mesa and Key C-Aquifer Features
September 2006

Black Mesa Project EIS

ve r

n lo

C

re

t

ea

ek

Holbrook
McHood Reservoir

i

Ver

de

er

Figure 3-2

Regional Hydrology

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-21

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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

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
La ke

LEGEND
Kayenta Tsegi

Black
Me s

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignments

Nevada

Arizona

a
an

Clark County

0 13

Thief Rock PS

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

0 12

we Po

ll Ra ilr

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline
o ad 10
0

90

Apache County

C

oR ra d olo

ive

r

PS #1
10
0 10

Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Subalternatives (preferred alternative) Western Route Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field PS = Pump Station Peabody Lease Area

110

MP 91 PS
20

Tuba City Moenkopi
60
70
60

40
80
50

90

30

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Railwa

Mohave County

Tusayan

70

Aquifers
Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
C Aquifer D Aquifer N Aquifer

y

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi

50

80

on ny

Ca

Valle
100

90

50

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110
120

40
40
30

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
23 0
240

Grand

Tolani Lake PS

General Features
River
Navajo County

140

30

130

150

PS #4
170

Tolani Lake PS Leupp
20

Seligman

Lake Navajo Reservation Boundary

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

10

270

180

0 25

190

0 20

Kingman
260

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

da a va ni Ne ifor l Ca

Hopi Reservation Boundary State Boundary

220

20

10

Kingman Area Reroute

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow

Little Colorad o River

County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005, 2006 Bureau of Reclamation 2005

McHood Reservoir

Holbrook

ifor Cal
San Bernardino County

Ariz ona
La Paz County Yavapai County

Chevelon Reservoir
0

nia

August 2006
20 Miles 40

Prepared By:
Gila County

N aquifer can be characterized as a low transmissivity, sandstone aquifer that is confined beneath the leasehold, the central portion of the Navajo Reservation, and the northeast portion of the Hopi Reservation. The confined area of the N aquifer is shown on Map 3-4. The Peabody well field is in the confined portion of the aquifer. The aquifer is unconfined in the area 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 be approximately 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

Four major drainages convey runoff and spring discharge from the Black Mesa Complex including Coal Mine Wash, Moenkopi Wash, Dinnebito Wash, and Yellow Water Canyon (refer to Map 3-4). The three washes are intermittent and discharge to the Little Colorado River system. Additionally, three relatively large washes feed Moenkopi Wash on the mine leasehold—Yucca Flat, Red Peak Valley, and Reed Valley washes. Yellow Water Canyon is intermittent and discharges to the San Juan River system. 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 0.17 cfs for Moenkopi Wash, 0.002 cfs for Dinnebito Wash, 0.08 cfs for Reed Valley Wash, 0.071 cfs for

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-23

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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, total dissolved solids (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 (Period of Record 1986-2002)
Dinnebito Wash 34 78 8.1 8.0 1,170 1,489 91 87 740 937 166 194 70 98 75 98 17 22 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 Coal Mine Wash Valley 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 8 26 20 10 11 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

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 sub-sites 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 158 impoundments to exist in 2005 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). Location of these impoundments, along with other water features on the permit area, are shown on Map 3-7.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-24

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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

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

ZI E

Coal-Loading Site

W A

SH

N9-J1 T N9-J T

YA Z

N9-I T N9-H T

N10-I

T

N2-D T

T N9-B1 N9-B T

N2-E T N2-RC P N2-RB P T N10-G1

C

N10-J T

O

A

L

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 T N9-D N9-F N9-E T

IN

E

W A

SH

YE LL O CANY W WAT ER ON W ASH

N1-PII#2 N1-RA P N1-RB TPF-D P T T N6-M P T N1-O TPF-A N1-M N10-C T N11-A2 T P TPF-E T N1-L 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 N5-A2 T P KM-E1 N5-E T N5-D N7-E P N1-PII#4 P N1-PII#7 P N1-PII#6

P

N2 P -R A

Overland Conveyor

T TPC-A

KM-TPB1 T P N7-D P

N1-D T N1-E T

COAL MINE DIVERSION
N1-PII#1 P

T N10-G P N10-B N10-A T T N10-F N10-A2 T T P N10-A1 N10-D1 T N11-E T P N10-H N10-D N11-C T N11-G P N11-A P N11-G1 T N11-A1 T N11-G2 T

LEGEND
Black Mesa Complex Kayenta Mining Operation Area, including Coal-Loading Site, Overland Conveyor, and Power Line (permanent permit area) Black Mesa Mining Operation Area (currently unpermitted area) Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)
P N14-F N14-G P

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

N OE

PI KO

AS W

H

B1 0- 2- C N1 N1 1 N6-M

T

AL WA MIN SH E

N6-E T

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Western Route
T J28-J J28-J1 T

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

CO

T WW-6

N14-T T
J16-A P

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

T

-A T CW

P J2-A

N6-C T

T

J16-D T J16-E T

Proposed Coal-Haul Road Impoundments

T J28-D T J28-SL

J28-C T J28-B T

Existing Permanent Impoundment P Existing Temporary Impoundment T

T WW-5 WILD RAM WASH J3-E P T J3-A P H J3-PII#1 BM-FWP AS T IW T T J3-B OP J4-A1 J4-A NK E P T MO J3-D J4-B P J3-PII#2 T J4-D1 T T J3-F T J4-D J4-C T J3-G P 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 J14-F T T WW-4 J27-RB BMEA K VA LL E P YW RED P T P TW J14-B1 T AS T J6-I T J6-J 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

J16-L P J28-G T

Proposed Permanent Impoundment P
RE E

WA S

Proposed Temporary Impoundment T
DV AL
LE YW

H

DU

COAL M IN E

Stream
AS H

GO UT L VAL W EY
J19-A T J19-B T

J19-RA T

Spring

General Features
Navajo Reservation Chapter Boundary
J19-RB P

ASH

Hopi Reservation Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route
T J21-A1 T J21-C2 P J21-A

J19-D T J19-E T J7-JR P

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

H
J23-A T

P J21-C

Power Line

T J21-D T J21-E
T J21-F1 J21-G1 T T J21-F T

YUCCA FLAT WASH

J7-G

T

J7-B1

J23-B T T J23-C J23-D J23-E T J23-F T

T

D

IN

N

E

J8-E T

J8-D T J8-C T J8-B T

J21-G T J7-CD J7-H SH T T J7-E T A J21-H1 SAGEBRUSH J23-G W J7-I T O T J7-F WASH T T T J21-H IT T T J7-J B J7-K J10-E T T J23-K J23-L T J7-U T T LE VALLE Y WA T J23-H J10-F J7-M T G CATT SH J7-T J7-V T J23-I J23-J T T J8-F T T J21-I2 RE S TIN J23-M J23-M1 J7-R1 T J7-S T T J10-D T WW-9C T J21-I1 T T T T P J10-C T -I J9-E 1 J8-A T J7-R 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 YUCCA FLAT T T J9-B T WW-9 T WASH J21-N T J21-M T J9-A

September 2006
0 1 Miles 2

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, Hopi Tribe, and Navajo Nation. With the exception of Impoundment Site #N2-RA, the quality of water in these impoundments is similar in range to natural stormwater flow, with TDS, sulfate, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and chloride 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 (Period of Record 1986-2002)
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 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 8 2 20 54 6 4 4

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

In compliance with NPDES Permit No. AZ0022179, 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 and Navajo Nation have proposed, but have not formally adopted, water-quality 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, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, zinc, and pH. The National Academy of Sciences has recommended livestock standards for other constituents including aluminum, boron, fluoride, nitrate, 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 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 gallons per minute (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 events. 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-26

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

naturally 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, nitrate, 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 that “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 an 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 (nitrate 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, J16-A-S1, J21-A1-S1, and J19-D-S1) (Table 3-3). These 6 sites are below 5 separate ponds. The measurements are similar to previous years, with the exception of the high total recoverable selenium value measured at a seep below one pond (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 2006

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 6.5-9.0 standard units (S.U.) 100.0 mg/L 5.0 mg/L Measured Values 4..86 to 5.18 S.U. 64.9 to 85.6 mg/L 13.4 mg/L Impacts on Livestock Drinking Water and Prevailing Hydrologic Balance Measurements outside of pH range recommended for livestock, indicating seep water is unsuitable for livestock. Levels of elevated nitrate principally due to animal waste. Limited channel reach below Pond BM-A1 indicates this is not a significant source of drinking water for livestock. Proposed (pending USEPA approval) passive treatment system and rock placed along limited reaches to prevent livestock accessing seep water. Data collected from 1999 through 2004 indicate no detrimental impacts on the hydrologic balance have occurred down gradient in terms of increasing trends in nitrate or aluminum, or lowering of pH. 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 Nitrate Total recoverable aluminum

BM-A1-S2

Field pH

6.5-9.0 S.U.

3.42 to 4.25 S.U.

N6-F-S1

Field pH

6.5-9.0 S.U.

3.89 TO 4.18 S.U. 8,610 mg/L 3.60 S.U. 5.3 to 5.57 S.U. 5.42 mg/L

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

TDS Field pH Field pH Total recoverable aluminum

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

SOURCE: Peabody Western Coal Company 2006 NOTES: pH = acidity or alkalinity of a solution, S.U. = standard units, mg/L = milligrams per liter, µg/l = micrograms per liter

Evaluation of water-quality data collected in 2005 indicates that 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. Most metals, dissolved in low-pH water, 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).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-28

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 nitrate, sulfate, 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). 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 up-gradient 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 up-gradient 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 sulfate livestock watering limits of 1,000 mg/L. Of the 32 alluvial wells sampled in 2005, six 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 the 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 zero 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-29

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 basis. Groundwater from the Wepo aquifer is highly variable in chemical quality. Water from sandstone units is generally calcium bicarbonate. Coal water is calcium/magnesium sulfate and water from shale units is sodium/potassium sulfate. Wepo-aquifer water from background wells located a significant distance from the area disturbed by mining indicates median sulfate 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 (sulfate 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). None are unique waters, as defined by ADEQ. The Colorado River is one of the most regulated streams in the West. Where the existing coal-slurry pipeline crosses the Colorado River, the river’s flow is controlled by 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 stream gauging stations vary widely and are reflective of local rainfall, the period of record for the stream gauging 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. Beneficial uses of the streams not on tribal land have been designated only for Cataract Creek, Sacramento Wash, and the Little 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 Navajo Nation EPA and USEPA. On the

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-30

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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). Table 3-4
Stream Cataract Creek

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

Listed Streams Stream Segment Below 1 km downstream of Williams WWTP A&Wc outfall to confluence of Red Lake Wash Sacramento Wash Tributary to Topock Marsh at A&We 34°43'48"/114°29'13" Little Colorado River Below confluence with Puerco River A&Ww Colorado River Lake Powell to Topock A&Wc Tributary Rule Streams Stream Basis of Use Miller Wash Ephemeral Tributary to Cataract Creek A&We Spring Valley Wash Ephemeral Tributary to Cataract Creek A&We Red Lake Wash Ephemeral Tributary to Cataract Creek A&We Martin Dam Draw Ephemeral Tributary to Partridge Creek A&We Big Chino Wash Ephemeral Tributary to the Verde River A&We Muddy Creek Ephemeral Tributary to Big Chino Wash A&We Tuckayou Wash Ephemeral Tributary to Knight Creek A&We Knight Creek Ephemeral Tributary to the Big Sandy River A&We

FBC PBC FBC FBC PBC PBC PBC PBC PBC PBC PBC PBC

AgL

DWS DWS

FC FC

AgL AgI

AgL

State Designated Use

SOURCE: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2003a NOTES: Use abbreviations: 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, WWTP = waste-water treatment plant.

In the hydrologic environment, there is very little difference between the eastern route and the western route. 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 U.S. may be involved. All of 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 the washes of Kletha Valley, which are not encountered by the eastern route. 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 alluvial aquifers of the Basin and Range province. These aquifers are comprised of unconsolidated and semi-consolidated 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-31

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.4.3 3.4.3.1 3.4.3.1.1

Project Water Supply C Aquifer Water-Supply System Surface Water

As discussed previously, 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 (sub-watershed of the Little Colorado River watershed) drains approximately 600 square miles above (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). 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. It would be the monthly average most indicative of base flow conditions and flow minima. There are two USGS stream gauging 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 and lower Clear Creeks, 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 creek bed 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 where Clear Creek and the Little Colorado River join.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-32

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 stream gauging stations: USGS 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 time period that 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. June median flows from the periods of record on Chevelon Creek 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 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, nitrate, pH, etc.). TDS range from about 500 to 3,600 mg/L. 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 Coconino Sandstone). In this area, groundwater is thought to move downward through faults and fractures in the Supai Formation 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 Formation. The saturated thickness of the C aquifer varies from 0 to more than 900 feet and averages 400 feet within the watershed.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-33

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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). For 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. Table 3-5 Aquifer Parameters for C Aquifer Well Field
Site 1 2.0 52,400 28 NA 0.1 14 0.06 2 x10-6 0.5 Site 2 7.5 134,700 42 0.5 NA 24 0.08 2 x10-6 0.2 Site 3 2.4 40,400 11 0.2 0.2 6 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 Formation Effective hydraulic conductivity1 (ft/day) Specific yield (dimensionless) Specific storage (1/ft) Vertical anisotropy (dimensionless)

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2005 1 NOTE: Weighted hydraulic conductivity of the entire aquifer thickness. ft/day = feet per day

Table 3-6
Site 1 2 Well Number PW-1A OW-1 PW-2B OW-2B 3 PW-3 OW-3C 05T-320

Test Well Selected Inorganic Water Quality Parameters, in mg/L except As (Arsenic µg/L)
TDS 837 838 592 594 770 773 606 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 Supai Depth Interval (feet) 837-1077 686-1086 577-715 715-977 698-740 740-998 696-740 740-1000 1000-1076 1150-1170 -

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-34

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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). Selected inorganic water-quality parameters for the C aquifer well-field test wells 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, arsenic, and fluoride are well below the drinking-water standards for these parameters; however, sulfate is slightly above the secondary, nonmandatory drinking water limit of 250 mg/L. 3.4.3.1.2 Infrastructure

3.4.3.1.2.1 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, as shown on Map 3-8. 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 up to 12 production wells drilled to approximately 1,100 feet bgs. Well spacing would be approximately 1 mile. 3.4.3.1.2.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline Routes In the hydrologic environment, there are some differences between the eastern route and the western water-supply pipeline routes. 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 U.S. may be involved. All of 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 the washes of Kletha Valley, which are not encountered by the eastern route. 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-35

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 Selected ADWR Registered Well Location Surface Management Navajo Reservation Private State Trust General Features Interstate State Route Major Streams Township Section

OW-2A

PW-2A

18

17

16

15

14

1

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

Site 2

19

20

21

22
05M-86

23

2

30

29
34

28
35

27

26

2

Site 1

05T-533 05T-320

31

32

05M-88 34

30

PW-3

OW-3A OW-3C 35

34

35
05T-536

3

Site 3

31
PW-1, PW-1A OW-1 590952 590953

32

33

34

35

36

04

03

02

01

03
597831

02
590955

590954

01

07
601277 597834

08

09

10

11

12

R12.5E R13E

09

10

11

613875

12
R12E R12.5E

10

11

12

18
597833

17
601273 601274 601272

597832

16

15

14

13

Hopi Hart Ranch

597835 590956

16
1

15 15 SCALE
0 1

14
Miles

13

15
40

613868

14

13

19

20

21

601278 590152

590338

22

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

3.4.3.1.3

Water Withdrawal

Current groundwater use in the C aquifer is estimated to be on the order 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). 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 Abitibi Consolidated 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 3-7 (Reclamation 2005). Location of these users are shown on Figure 3-3. Table 3-7 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 Abitibi Paper Mill

SOURCE: S.S. Papadopulos and Associates 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 System

The N aquifer includes the Navajo Sandstone, sandstones of the Kayenta Formation, and the Lukachukai member of the Wingate Formation. The N aquifer comprises 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 average 0.10, with a range of 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 to 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-37

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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: 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 non-pumping 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 has the largest measured regional drawdown compared to prepumping conditions in 1965. In BM-6 the depth to groundwater had increased 155 feet by 2004 (USGS 1985-2005). The USGS groundwater monitoring also indicates 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).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-38

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Figure 3-3
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

Historic and Proposed C Aquifer Pumping Centers
3-39 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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. 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 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. Closest communities to the Peabody well field are Forest Lake, Kitsillie, Chilchinbito, and Kayenta. 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 remainder is community water use. Groundwater pumpage 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 to local residents, most of the pumping is outside of 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-40

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

that 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.

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 3-8. Table 3-8
Monitor Mean Monthly Temperature Average (oF)a Betakin Tuba City Winslow Airport Flagstaff Mean Monthly Precipitation Average (inches)a Betakin Tuba City Winslow Airport Flagstaff Mean Monthly Snowfall Average (inches)a Betakin Tuba City Winslow Airport Flagstaff Average Wind Speed (miles per hour)b 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)c 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)c 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)b Kingman Airport 7.8 10.2 10.6 8.1 9.2 SOURCES: Western Regional Climate Center 2005a, 2005b NOTES: aFor mean monthly temperature, mean monthly precipitation, and mean monthly snowfall, the period used for Betakin is 1948-2005, for Tuba City it is 1900-2005, for the Winslow Airport it is 1898-2005, and for Flagstaff it is 19502005. b For average wind speed values, averages are based on data collected between 1992 and 2002. c For mean monthly temperature and mean monthly precipitation averages, the period used for Bullhead City is 1977-2005 and for Yucca it is 1950-2005.

6.7 9.5 6.1 7.0 Western Region

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-41

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Air\Meteorological.pdf

Map 3-9
Colorado
Montezuma County

Nevada

Lincoln County

Saint George

Washington County

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Kane County

San Juan County

Meteorological Monitoring Stations
Black Mesa Project EIS

Utah

Utah
Site 9

Arizona
San Juan County
Page

Utah

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignments
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

a Me s Black

Site 8

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION

Kayenta

Betakin

Nevada

Arizona

Tsegi

d an
ak e
Po
Thief Rock PS
Ra ilr

L

Clark County

Site 12

13

0

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

12 0

ll

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Subalternatives (preferred alternative)
Apache County

we

Clark

Site 1

Las Vegas

Co

lor

R ado

ive

r
MP 91 PS

o a d 10

0

PS #1
10
10

110

90
30

Buckskin Lo
90

0

Hopi Point #1 (GRCA1)

Tuba City

Tuba City Moenkopi
60
70
60
50

40
80

50

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Western Route Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field PS = Pump Station Black Mesa Complex Kayenta Mining Operation Area, including Coal-Loading Site, Overland Conveyor, and Power Line (permanent permit area) Black Mesa Mining Operation Area (currently unpermitted area) Proposed Coal-Haul Road
New Mexico
McKinley County

20

Railwa

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2
80

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

on ny

Ca

Valle
100

90

50

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110

40
40

Arizona

Mohave County

Tusayan

70

y

Climatic Data Locations
Climate Study Area Meteorological Monitoring Station

120

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION

Grand

30

Tolani Lake PS

140

30

130

150

Union Pass
270
25

Kingman Airport
23
24 0

PS #4
170

Tolani Lake PS Leupp Navajo County
20

Seligman

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

0

10

General Features
Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

180

0

190

20

Kingman
20
260

River Lake Navajo Reservation Boundary Hopi Reservation Boundary
Cibola County
Holbrook

210

Catron County

Riverside County Maricopa County

da va nia Ne ifor l Ca

0

220

Bullhead City

10

Bullhead City

Kingman Area Reroute

Flagstaff
Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch
Winslow

Winslow Airport

Yucca

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

Little Colorad o River
Yavapai County

ona Ariz ia forn Cali
San Bernardino County La Paz County

September 2006
0
Gila County

25 Miles

50

Prepared By:

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 (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 are summarized in Table 3-9. Table 3-9 Meteorological Conditions at the Black Mesa Complex
Site 1 49.7 89.5 0.7 8.18 3.7 20.0 0.2 Site 8R 49.6 86.0 9.2 NA 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 Temperature Conditions Mean Temperature (oF) Maximum Temperature (oF) Minimum Temperature (oF) Precipitation Total Annual Rain/Precipitation (inches) Wind Speed Mean Wind Speed (meters per second) Maximum Wind Speed (meters per second) Minimum Wind Speed (meters per second) SOURCE: TRC Environmental Corporation 2005

The Black Mesa region in northeastern Arizona has a semiarid climate, characterized by wide variations in diurnal and annual temperature. The 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 49.8ºF. Summer temperatures generally range from the mid-50s to the low 80s. Temperatures in excess of 100ºF are rare. 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).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-43

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

SOURCE: TRC Environmental Corporation 2005

Figure 3-4

Monitoring Site Locations at the Black Mesa Complex

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-44

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 3-10. Table 3-10 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 Parameter Average Temperature Conditions Mean Temperature (oF) 32.3 Maximum Temperature (oF) 43.3 Minimum Temperature (oF) 21.7 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 temperature has risen by about 1°F more than the last century, and the warming process has accelerated during the past two decades (USEPA 2000; 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 pre-industrial 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 20th 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) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” 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 as a result and precipitation patterns will change.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-45

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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) The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences noted in 2001 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” (NRC 2001). 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” (NAST 2000). Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Some greenhouse gases such as CO2 occur naturally and are emitted to 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: CO2: CO2 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). CO2 also is removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane (CH4): CH4 is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. Nitrous oxide (N2O): N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. Fluorinated gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are often used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, 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 (“High GWP gases”) (USEPA 2006b). The greenhouse gas of most concern is CO2 since the naturally occurring chemical also is generated by the continuing burning of fossil fuels, can last in the atmosphere for centuries, and “forces” more climate change than any other greenhouse gas (NRC 2001). In 2004, CO2 accounted for 85 percent of the greenouse 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’ Acid Rain Program database, the Mohave Generating Station produced 10.7 million short tons of CO2 in 2004 or about 0.4 percent of that total.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-46

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.6

AIR QUALITY

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and subsequent amendments provide the authority and framework for USEPA regulation of air emission 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 3-11) Observed levels of visibility in Class I areas Assessment data were available from Federal, State, and local air quality permitting authorities, including the USEPA, and Arizona, California, and Nevada authorities. Actual project activity occurs in Arizona and Nevada, but not in California. The applicable Arizona and Nevada regulations pertain to control of fugitive dust. The Mitigation section, below, addresses 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), lead (Pb) and ozone (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 of time (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 concentrations, particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (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 3-11 summarizes the current NAAQS. Table 3-11
Pollutant

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-47

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 air pollutant 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 (325 km) 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 (PSD) 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 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’s Center and the Navajo National Monument (which are 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 the Peabody Technical Support Document (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-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:

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-48

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Air\Non-Attainment.pdf

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

Kayenta Tsegi

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignments
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

a Me s Black

Nevada

Arizona

d an
ak e
Po
Thief Rock PS
Ra ilr

L

Clark County

13

0

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

12 0

we
ll

Clark Las Vegas

Co

lor

ado

Riv

er
MP 91 PS

o a d 10

0

PS #1
10
10

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Subalternatives (preferred alternative)
Apache County

110

0

90
30

20
90

Tuba City Moenkopi
60
70
60
50

40
80

Western Route Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field PS = Pump Station Peabody Lease Area

50

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Railwa

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2
80

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

Arizona

Mohave County

Tusayan

70

New Mexico

y

Air Quality Data Locations
Air Quality Study Area Attainment Areas Unclassifiable/Attainment Nonattainment Areas Particulate Matter (PM10) Carbon Monoxide Ozone (8-Hour)

on ny

Ca

Valle
100

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110

40
40

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
23
24 0

Grand

30

Tolani Lake PS

PS #4
170
0

Tolani Lake PS Leupp Navajo County
20

Seligman

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

10

McKinley County

90

50

120

140

30

130

150

270

180

25 0

190

20

Kingman
20
260

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

General Features
River Lake Navajo Reservation Boundary Hopi Reservation Boundary
Cibola County
Holbrook

210

Catron County

Riverside County Maricopa County

da va nia Ne ifor l Ca

0

220

10

Kingman Area Reroute

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow

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

Little Colorado River
Yavapai County

ona Ariz ia forn Cali
San Bernardino County La Paz County

September 2006
0
Gila County

25 Miles

50

Prepared By:

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Air\Class1_Areas.pdf

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
a Me s Black

Colorado

Nevada

Utah

Utah

Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas
Black Mesa Project EIS

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignments
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

Kayenta Tsegi

Nevada

Arizona

d an
ak e
Po
Thief Rock PS
Ra ilr

L

Clark County

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

0 13

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

12 0

we
ll

Clark Las Vegas

Co

ad lor

iv oR

er

o a d 10

0

PS #1
10
10

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative)
Apache County

110

MP 91 PS
90
30
20

Tuba City Moenkopi
50

40
80

90

0

Subalternatives (preferred alternative) Western Route Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field PS = Pump Station Peabody Lease Area

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Railwa

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2

70
60
50

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

Arizona

LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Mohave County

Tusayan

60

70

New Mexico
McKinley County

y

on ny

Ca

Valle
100

90

50

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

80

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110

40
40

120

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
23
24 0

Grand

30

Tolani Lake PS

140

30

130

150

PS #4
170
0

Tolani Lake PS Leupp Navajo County

Seligman

General Features
PETRIFIED FOREST NATIONAL PARK

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

10

Kingman
20
260

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

River Lake Navajo Reservation Boundary Hopi Reservation Boundary

20

270

180

25 0

190

20

210

Cibola County

Catron County

Riverside County Maricopa County

da va nia Ne ifor l Ca

0

220

10

Kingman Area Reroute

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow

State Boundary County Boundary
Holbrook

SYCAMORE CANYON WILDERNESS

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

Little Colorado Rive
Yavapai County

ona Ariz ia forn Cali
San Bernardino County La Paz County

r

PINE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS

MAZATZAL WILDERNESS

September 2006
0
Gila County

25 Miles

50

Prepared By:

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, oxides of nitrogen (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 effectively control fugitive dust. In addition, pursuant to 30 CFR 780.15(a)(1), OSM requires Peabody to conduct air quality monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the fugitive dust control program. Air quality data 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 the Peabody Technical Support Document that is included in the Administrative Record for this Draft EIS.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-51

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.6.4.1

Average Annual Ambient Air Concentrations

During the three most recent calendar years (2003 to 2005), the ambient monitoring network at the Black Mesa Complex did not record any exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS of 50 µg/m3. Table 3-12 presents the annual monitoring results for each site for this 3-year period. Several monitors on the north and east 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. 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 such as roads used solely for nonmining purposes, and off-site activities. Table 3-12
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 2003-2005
Monitored Annual Average PM10 Concentration ( g/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 SW SW NW W W (co-located w/4R) NE N E S SE S SW

SOURCE: McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. 2006 NOTE: 1 Refer to Map 3-10 for location of PM10 ambient monitors at the Black Mesa Complex.

3.6.4.2

Short-Term (24-hour) Ambient Air Concentrations

Table 3-13 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 2003 to 2005. Of these highest measurements, 14 samples exceeded the PM10 24-hour standard of 150 µg/m3 during the 3-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 3-13. Additional information regarding this monitoring program is provided in the Peabody Technical Support Document, available in the Administrative Record for this EIS. Evaluation of meteorological conditions during the six days when values above the 24-hour average PM10 NAAQS suggests that mining activities are not the primary cause of these exceedances. Non-mining activities such as vehicle 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-52

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Air\Station_Type_Map.pdf

Map 3-12
Montezuma County

Nevada

Utah

Lincoln County

Saint George

Washington County

Kane County

San Juan County

Utah
4R/5R 6R

Utah

3R

7R

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Colorado

Air Monitoring Stations
Black Mesa Project EIS

Arizona

Page - Navajo Generating Station (PNGS)
San Juan County
Page

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignments
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

a Me s Black

8R

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION

Kayenta Tsegi

Nevada

Arizona

201 2R 12 1
o r ad e Riv r

d an
ak e
Po
Thief Rock PS
Ra ilr

L

Clark County

13

0

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Subalternatives (preferred alternative) Western Route Other Project Features
Apache County

12 0

we

200R

ll

o a d 10

0

PS #1
10
10

110

Clark Las Vegas

202

Co

lo

MP 91 PS
90
30
20

Coconino County

Grand Canyon National Park - Hance Camp (GCNP)

Railwa

Cameron PS #2

70
60
50

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

on ny

Ca

Valle
100

McKinley County

90

50

Arizona

Mohave County

Tusayan

60

70

70

New Mexico

Boulder City (BCNV)

Hopi Point #1 (GRCA1)

Hance Camp, Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA2)

Tuba City Moenkopi
50

40
80

90

0

C-Aquifer Well Field PS = Pump Station Black Mesa Complex Kayenta Mining Operation Area, including Coal-Loading Site, Overland Conveyor, and Power Line (permanent permit area) Black Mesa Mining Operation Area (currently unpermitted area) Proposed Coal-Haul Road

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock

80

Oraibi PS

y

80

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110

40
40

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

120

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
270

Grand

30

Tolani Lake PS

140

30

130

150

Bullhead City (BC1)
240

PS #4
23 0

Tolani Lake PS

Seligman
170

Laughlin

Kingman
260

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

Leupp
10

Navajo County

20

Bullhead City (BC2)

Bullhead City

Kingman Area Reroute

Sycamore Canyon (SYCA1)

Flagstaff

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

General Features
Petrified Forest National Park (PFNP) Petrified Forest National Park (PFNP)
Cibola County
Holbrook

180

25 0

190

20

River Lake

210

SpringervilleCoyote Hills (SPRI)
La Paz County Riverside County Maricopa County

Catron County

da va nia Ne ifor l Ca

0

220

20 20 20

10

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

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

Winslow

Little Colorado River
Yavapai County

ona Ariz ia forn Cali
San Bernardino County

September 2006
0 25 Miles 50

Gila County

Prepared By:

Table 3-13

24-hour Average Ambient PM10 Monitoring Data (in µg/m3) at Black Mesa Complex 2003 to 2005
2003 2004 Second High 141 130 27 89 99 30 39 54 77 34 56 36 First High 150 125 41 358f 335f 40 47 63 150 36 130 81 2005 Second High 138 112 28 168e 175e 39 46 60 138 36 78 37

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

NOTES: a. September 24, 2003. Causes appeared to be drought, and mining activities may have contributed. b. October 30, 2003. Causes were extreme winds and long-term dryness. c. June 2, 2004. Cause was long-term dryness throughout the area. d. August 8, 2004. Cause was long-term dryness, particulate originated off site to the west. e. August 20, 2005. Causes were high winds and long-term dryness. f. August 26, 2005. Causes were high winds and long-term dryness.

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, naturalgas-pipeline compressor stations, various manufacturers, and landfills. Table 3-14 provides a summary of these sources.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-54

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-14

Major Sources Located within and near the Air Quality Study Area
Location 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 Kayenta Clarkdale Prescott Valley Snowflake Laughlin (Nevada) Flagstaff Kingman Leupp Joseph City Dewey 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 USEPA Region 9 ADEQ ADEQ ADEQ NDEP ADEQ ADEQ USEPA Region 9 ADEQ ADEQ

Owner Facility Type American Woodmark Cabinet manufacturer Arizona Public Service Company Coal-fired power plant (Cholla Power Plant) BFI Waste Systems – La Paz Landfill County Regional Landfill Calpine-South Point Energy Center Gas-fired power plant Cerbat Landfill Landfill Chemical Lime Company Lime plant Citizen’s Utilities Company Gas-fired power plant City of Flagstaff – Cinder Lake Landfill Landfill El Paso Natural Gas Company Natural gas compressor station (Dilkon Compressor Station) El Paso Natural Gas Company Natural gas compressor station (Dutch Flats) El Paso Natural Gas Company Natural gas compressor station (Flagstaff) El Paso Natural Gas Company Natural gas compressor station (Hackberry) El Paso Natural Gas Company Natural gas compressor station (Leupp Compressor Station) El Paso Natural Gas Company Natural gas compressor station (Seligman) El Paso Natural Gas Company Natural gas compressor station (Topock) El Paso Natural Gas Company Natural gas compressor station (Williams) Griffith Energy, LLC Gas-fired power plant Mohave Pipeline Operating Natural gas compressor station Company (Topock) Mohave Valley Landfill Landfill Navajo Generating Station Coal-fired power plant Norcraft Companies, LLC Cabinet manufacturer North Star Steel Company Steel manufacturer Peabody Western Coal Company Coal mine Phoenix Cement Company Cement plant Printpack, Inc. Packaging material manufacturer Snowflake Recycled Paper Mill Paper mill (Abitibi) 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) Transwestern Pipeline Company Natural gas compressor station (Leupp) USA Waste – Pen-Rob Landfill Landfill Waste Management of Arizona – Landfill Gray Wolf Regional Landfill SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005a NOTE: All locations are in Arizona unless otherwise specified. NDEP=Nevada Department of Environmental Protection ADEQ = Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-55

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 program visibility monitoring 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 3-15. Table 3-15
Monitor (1) (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 #1 144 (240) 102 (170) 73 (121) SOURCE: Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 2005 NOTES: 1 Refer to map 3-10 for locations 2 The period used for the Petrified Forest National Park is 1999-2003, 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 #1 it is 1993 to 1997.

As shown in Table 3-15, 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 #1, are located on the north-central edge of the study area. 3.6.9 Air Quality Monitor Data

There are numerous monitors 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 3-16 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 Report (Clark County Department of Air Quality Management 2002).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-56

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

As shown in Table 3-16, 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 concentration (0.084 ppm as compared to NAAQS of 0.08 ppm) and the 24-hour average PM10 concentration (371 g/m3 as compared to NAAQS of 150 g/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.

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 occur 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 mostly in the range of 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-57

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-16

Measured Air Quality Concentrations from Monitors in and near the Air Quality Study Area (Highest Recorded Concentrations During 3-Year Look-Back Period)
SO2 (µg/m3) 3-Hour 24-Hour Annual Average Average Average O3 (µg/m3) 1-Hour 8-Hour Average Average PM10 (µg/m3) 24-Hour Annual Average Average PM2.5 (µg/m3) 24-Hour Annual Average Average

Identifier

NO2 (µg/m3) 24-Hour Annual 1-Hour Average Average Average
(1) (1)

NAAQS N-A N-A 100 1,300 (2) 365 80 235 157 150 50 65 15 a FLAG N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60 20 16.9 5.7 GCNPa N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.161 0.153 N/A N/A N/A N/A PFNPa N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.165 0.151 N/A N/A N/A N/A PNGSb 0.082 0.036 0.004 15 8 3 0.147 0.128 27 9.8 N/A N/A SPRIb 0.048 0.012 0.002 73 13 0.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A BC1a N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 121 20 N/A N/A BC2b 0.116 0.052 0.022 170 54 7 N/A N/A 114 23d N/A N/A BCNVc 0.213 0.066 0.018 N/A N/A N/A 0.177 0.165 371 21 27.0 6.0 SOURCES: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2002, 2003a, 2004; Clark County Department of Air Quality Management 2002 NOTES: 1 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 NO2 2 Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards N-A = Not applicable N/A = Not available ppm = parts per million g/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 a Data are from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2004 Air Quality Report. b Data are from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2002 Air Quality Report or 2003 Air Quality Report. c Data are from the Clark County Department of Air Quality Management 2002 Air Monitoring Network Review. d 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-58

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\Biology\plots\NatVeg.pdf

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

Black
a Me s

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignments
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

Nevada

Arizona

an
ak e
L
0 13

Clark County

Thief Rock PS
oad 10

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

0 12

Po

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Subalternatives (preferred alternative) Western Route
Apache County

we

ll Ra ilr

Co

d lora

oR

r ive

0

PS #1
10
0 10

110

MP 91 PS
90

Tuba City Moenkopi
60
70
70

40
80

90

Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field PS = Pump Station Peabody Lease Area

20
30

50

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Vegetation
Great Basin Conifer Woodland Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives Great Basin Desertscrub Mohave Desertscrub Petran Montane Conifer Forest

Railwa

Mohave County

Tusayan
y

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2

Hotevilla
60

Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi

50

80

on

Ca

Valle
100

ny

90
40

50

Petran Subalpine Conifer Forest Plains and Great Basin Grassland

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110
120

40
30

Semidesert Grassland
Tolani Lake PS

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
23 0
240

General Features
River
Navajo County

Grand

140

30

130

PS #4
170

Tolani Lake PS Leupp
20

150

Seligman

Lake Navajo Reservation Boundary Hopi Reservation Boundary State Boundary County Boundary

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

10

270

180

0 25

190

0 20

Kingman
260

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

da a va ni Ne i f o r l Ca

220

20

10

Kingman Area Reroute

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow

Little Colorad o River
Holbrook

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

Cal ifor
San Bernardino County

Ariz ona
La Paz County Yavapai County
0

nia

September 2006
20 Miles 40

Prepared By:
Gila County

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-todense understories of annual forbs and grasses. Reclaimed land areas occupy thousands of acres of mined land in the Black Mesa Complex (8,300 acres of the Kayenta mining operation and 3,425 acres of the Black Mesa operation through 2005). 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, and 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, 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 Tamarix pentandra 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 Red Peak Valley. Similar riparian habitat occurs downstream from the mine area in Moenkopi Wash and Coal Mine Wash.
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 3-59 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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.). 3.7.1.2 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 28909) established a nationwide definition of noxious weeds. The State of Arizona designates weeds or invasive species as noxious under Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) 3-201. Weeds that are not indigenous to the State, likely to be detrimental, destructive, and difficult to control or eradicate may be listed as noxious weeds by the State. Noxious weeds can outcompete 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, 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 (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. 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-61

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 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 use effects, 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-62

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 (Yucca spp.); mesquite (Prosopis velutina), oneseed juniper, crucifixion thorn (Canotia holocantha), Mormon tea, false mesquite (Calliandra erophylla), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), and other shrubs. Mesquite, one-seed juniper, creosotebush, 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 (Larrea tridentata) 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 sub-irrigated 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), Little Colorado River, and some minor washes east of Cameron (Entrix 2002). There are no wetlands or riparian habitat at the Colorado River crossing.

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. 3-63 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

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 (Elaeagnus angustifolia), Scotch thistle, and tamarisk (California Information Node 2005; 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. 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. 3.7.2.1.4 Endangered, Threatened, and Special Status Species

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. 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-64

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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). 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 above elevation 5,500 feet above MSL. 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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)

The vegetation of the pipeline realignments is generally the same as the existing pipeline route. The Moenkopi Wash realignments involve moving segments of the pipeline out of the active channel, and 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 semi-desert 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-65

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.7.3 3.7.3.1

Project Water Supply C Aquifer Water-Supply System (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) Water Withdrawal

3.7.3.1.1

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 reed (Phragmites australis), cattail (Typha latifolia), tule (Scirpus acutus), coyote willow, Gooding’s willow (Salix goodingii), velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii). About 285 acres of riparian vegetation occur along the lower 1.7 miles of Chevelon Creek 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 (Scirpus sp.) are common in some areas (Clarkson and Marsh 2005a). One Navajo Endangered Species List Group 4 species, 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 Table 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 National Wetland Inventory mapped wetlands 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 of 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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) 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
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 3-66 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 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 community 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 pipeline 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 Navajo Endangered Species List Group 4 plant species 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).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-67

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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. 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 for the remainder of the route. 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 crosses 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 of the western route that it shares with 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 2006

3-68

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Two special status plant species 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 grass-like species restricted to seeps and hanging gardens on vertical cliffs and alcoves of the Navajo Formation (Arizona Rare Plant Committee 1994), and occurs at a number of locations north of U.S. Highway 160 near Tsegi. 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, and sagebrush shrub, which occupies 30 to 35 percent of the areas. Saltbush and greasewood shrub communities and riparian communities dominated by tamarisk occupy relatively small areas along drainages. Mixed conifer woodland does not occur within the Black Mesa Complex, but does occur as close as 1 mile from the northeastern corner of the Black Mesa Complex at elevations between 6,800 and 8,200 feet above MSL. Other habitats include revegetation areas, sandstone bluffs, and aquatic and wetland habitat in some impoundments. All of the major drainages in the Black Mesa Complex are intermittent. However, about 2 miles of Moenkopi Wash downstream from the confluence of Coal Mine Wash intersects the groundwater table and has 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 2003). A 1979-1980 census for ungulates recorded two observations of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), both north of the Black Mesa

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-69

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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). The sagebrush shrubland and piñon/juniper woodland support the largest small mammal populations. 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. 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 surveys have not been conducted, but up to 16 species may occur. Bird surveys have recorded a total of 203 bird species in the Black Mesa Complex, more than half of which are known to or potentially nest in the area (Peabody 2004). The highest number of birds and the greatest diversity of species is 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 a total of 22 raptor species with nine 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. Later 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 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). 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 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). 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.
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 3-70 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 post-mining 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). Four of these species—the bald eagle (Haliateetus leucophalus), Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidenalis lucida), black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus)—are federally listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. 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). 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 and from roadkill or small mammals. California condors may occur occasionally, especially as the reintroduced population grows and expands its range. Condors are naturally curious and may be attracted to human activity. Mexican spotted owls are known to occur on Black Mesa and have been intensively studied and monitored from 1994-2001. The nearest Protected Activity Center (PAC) 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 distinctly different than the piñon/juniper woodlands present in 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. At least three subspecies of southwestern willow flycatchers may be present in the area during migration, 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-71

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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). 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) 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. Javelina 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 are 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-72

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Biology\AZGFD_Hunt_Units.pdf

Nevada

Utah

Lincoln County

Washington County

Kane County

Map 3-14
San Juan County

Utah Arizona
Page

12B
Nevada Arizona

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d
La ke

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

Black
Me s
a
an

Kayenta Tsegi

LEGEND
BLACK MESA COMPLEX
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignments
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

13A 12AW 13B
lora Co R do r ive

Clark County

0 13

0 12

we Po

Thief Rock PS

12AE

ll Ra ilr

o ad 10

0

PS #1
10
0 10

110

MP 91 PS
90

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline
Apache County

Tuba City

40

11

Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Subalternatives (preferred alternative) Western Route Other Project Features

20
90

30

15BW 14
Railwa
Mohave County Tusayan

Moenkopi
60
70
70

80
50

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Coconino County

9
PS #2

Cameron

Hotevilla
60

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

C-Aquifer Well Field PS = Pump Station Peabody Lease Area

y

15A
on ny

Moenkopi PS

Recreation
14

50

15C
Mnts. Black
270

Ca

15BE
CERBAT WILD HORSE AND BURRO HERD AREA

Peach Springs Truxton
160

10

Valle
100

90

50

PS #3
110
120

40
40

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

80

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION

Grand

7E 7W
Tolani Lake PS Leupp

30

Tolani Lake PS

General Features
Navajo County

140

30

130

Laughlin

240

t Mnt s. Cerba

150

PS #4
23 0

Lake Navajo Reservation Hopi Reservation State Boundary County Boundary

Seligman
170

20

18A
190

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

10

180

0 25

0 20

Kingman
260

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

da a va ni Ne ifor l Ca

220

20

10

BLACK MOUNTAINS ACEC

15D

Kingman Area Reroute
i Mnts. Hualapa

19B

8 6B

5BN
Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch
Winslow

18B

17A 5BS

5A

Little Colorad o River
Holbrook

Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route

2A

SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 Bureau of Land Management 2005 Arizona Game and Fish Department 2004

16B
ifor Cal
San Bernardino County

16A

17B
Yavapai County

19A

6A

4B 4A

Ariz ona

3A
September 2006
0 20 Miles 40

nia

20A
La Paz County

44A

20C 20B

21

3C 22
Gila County

3B

23

Prepared By:

25/26

43A

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 desert bighorn sheep. 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 intra-specific 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 through 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 of Nevada 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 conservation priority areas are identified in Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (AGFD 2005a) as a source to be used in place of a comprehensive statewide landscape analysis, until AGFD completes its own analysis. Golden eagles are known to nest near the existing coal-slurry pipeline route. Other potential nesting raptors include red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s 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 (Cathartes aura), northern harrier (Circus cyanus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), and rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus). 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). Razorback sucker critical habitat occurs upstream of Davis Dam, and critical habitat for bonytail chub occurs from Hoover Dam to Parker Dam including the area near Bullhead City. Possible bonytail chub individuals are present between Davis Dam and Parker Dam (AGFD 2001e). 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. Southwestern willow flycatcher is likely to 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 eagle and California condor 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-74

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Other special status species known or likely to be present include ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, 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). 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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) 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 occur along either of the Moenkopi Wash realignments or Kingman area reroute. The Moenkopi Wash realignments are 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 the existing route. The major habitats present along the Moenkopi Wash realignment 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 present 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 bat species may occur on BLM land along the Kingman reroute south and southeast of Kingman. In addition, desert tortoise and banded Gila monster have several additional miles of suitable habitat along the Kingman reroute. 3.8.3 3.8.3.1 3.8.3.1.1 Project 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; and 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
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 3-75 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 base flow 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 (SSPA 2005). 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), non-native 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. The lower 8 miles of Chevelon Creek is designated as critical habitat, and Little Colorado spinedace is 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 downstream from known occupied habitat and because this species is notorious for extreme population fluctuations in which 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 non-native 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 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.
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 3-76 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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. Southwestern willow flycatcher is likely to occur in riparian habitat along lower Clear Creek, lower Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River during migration, but breeding has not been documented. Bald eagle also may occur in riparian habitat during migration and winter. Several aquatic special status species occur within the general region surrounding the project area. They include: Bluehead sucker occurs in Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River (Young, Lopez, and Dorum 2001), but was very uncommon in Chevelon Creek during sampling in 1995 and 1996 (Lopez, Dreyer, and Gonzales 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 “unstablethreatened” because they are uncommon and have an extremely limited range within the creek (Voeltz 2002). In addition, at least 18 non-native 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 mid-elevation 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. Northern leopard frog may occur along Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River, all of which are within historic habitat.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-77

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\hydrology\Map_3-14_CCC_Watshed.pdf

Map 3-15
Li t t
e
Co
lora

do

Ri

Clear and Chevelon Creek Watershed Features
Black Mesa Project EIS

l

Williams Flagstaff

Leupp
Well Field Navajo Reservation

od

W

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow
9399000
Clear Creek Reservoir

wo

u

ek

ee

k

Ch

ev

e ar Cl

on

Cre

Cr

el

9398500
Cr ee k

ev Wes e lo t nC re e

k

W est

C an

Ea

Willow Creek

Creek ear Cl
Potato Lake

y on

r ve

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route

as

h

(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative) Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Subalternatives (preferred alternative) Western Route Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field Peabody Lease Area

Co t t

on

Littl

C olorado Rive

r

P

er

c o R iv e r

e

9398000

Holbrook
Silver Cree k

Watershed Features
Little Colorado Spinedace Critical Habitat
9399000

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

r s t C le a

9397500

General Features
Chevelon Canyon Lake

Leonard

Ch

Snowflake

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

r ee k

to C

Ton

Ve rd
eR
ve r

Blue Ridge Reservoir

9398300

i

Show Low
Woods Canyon Lake

SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005, 2006 Arizona State Land Department 2005 U.S. FWS Critical Habitat Portal 2005

September 2006
0 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 is provided 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 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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) 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. Bald eagle and southwestern willow flycatcher may occur occasionally along Oraibi and Dinnebito Washes. The most important species, in terms of known occurrence, is the golden eagle. 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 2006

3-79

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 route for the remainder of the route, but would cross the same vegetation types as the eastern route; therefore, wildlife would be similar as those described for the eastern route. The species of raptors likely to occur along the western route are the same those likely to occur along the eastern route. The potential for occurrence of threatened or endangered species is the same as that of the eastern route, except that Mexican spotted owl is known to occur within 3 miles along the northern portion of the route. Southwestern willow flycatchers 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 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 2006

3-80

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Hydrology\Map_3-16_PStreams.pdf

Utah Arizona
Page
Navajo
Creek

Map 3-16

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

at e

W

w

ibit oW

Coconino County

Po

lo

h

as

Be g

i

as h

Po la

Hard Rock Tusayan oconino INSET County
W
w
l

a cc

W a

Moenkopi

W

ep

o

as h

Pasture Canyon Wash

Colo

ra do

R i v er

Tuba City

Hopi Indian Reservation

D

O

ra i

in

bi

ne

as

h

W

W

sh

Apache County

bi t oW

ash

Black

Black Mesa Project EIS

LEGEND
Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field Peabody Lease Area Potential Riparian Areas Streams
C hi n

aa M es

Tsegi
k
Kaibito
Y el

a Co

i lM

ne

W

as

h

BLACK MESA COMPLEX INSET AREA
Reed Valley

Navajo Indian Reservation

nd
La
e

ll R we

Red Peak Valley

Aquifers
C-Aquifer N-Aquifer

le Wash

a

oa d

lr

M

iW op nk oe

h as
Yucca Fl at Was h

Confined Area of N-Aquifer

General Features

BLACK MESA Cameron COMPLEX

Hotevilla Kykotsmovi
dit
o

Lake Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route Navajo Reservation Boundary Hopi Reservation Boundary
s Wa

at

er

Ca

ny

on

Ye

llo

a Co

n Mi

e

W

as

h

State Boundary County Boundary
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005. USGS 2005 USGS Water Resources 2006 Bureau of Reclamation 2005

d Je

Re ed Val ley

Lit t le C

ea

alle kV

y

lor a

Po la

cc

W a

Valle

sh

a

R ed

P

ito

o M Ash Fork

en

k

Williams

Wa sh

i op

W

h as

u cca F

l at Wash

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch
Flagstaff

Leupp

Navajo County
0

h

o

September 2006
10 Miles 20

do

r ve Ri

Well Field Navajo Reservation

Di

nn

eb

Y

Prepared By:

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Landuse\Existing_LU.pdf

Nevada

Utah

Lincoln County

Washington County

Kane County

Map 2-1 Map 3-17
San Juan County

Existing Land Use
Black Mesa Project EIS

Utah Arizona
Page

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d
La ke

See Map 3-17d
Tsegi

Realignments
Kayenta (Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

Black
Me s

Nevada

Arizona

Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative)

a
an

Clark County

0 13

Thief Rock PS

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Subalternatives (preferred alternative) Western Route Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field PS = Pump Station Peabody Lease Area
Apache County

0 12

we Po

C

oR ra d olo

ive

r

ll Ra ilr

o ad 10

0

PS #1
10
0 10

110

MP 91 PS
90

Existing Land Use*
Residential Commercial/Mixed Use Industrial Extraction - Mining Public/Quasi-Public

20
90

30

Tuba City Moenkopi
60
70
60

40
80
50

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Railwa

Mohave County

Tusayan

70

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

School/Educational Air Facilities Agricultural (Includes livestock corral, and water tanks) Parks/Recreation/Preservation Pipeline Pipeline Pump Station (Natural gas or coal-slurry)

y

50

on ny

Ca

Valle
100

90

50

See Map 3-17c

80

Peach Springs Truxton

PS #3
110
120

40
40
30

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
270

Grand

Tolani Lake PS

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

t Mnts. Cerba

160
150

140

30

130

PS #4
23 0

Tolani Lake PS Leupp
20

Seligman
170

See Map 3-17b

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

General Features
River Lake Navajo Reservation Boundary Hopi Reservation Boundary

180

0 25

190

0 20

Kingman
260

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

da a va ni Ne ifor l Ca

220

20

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
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005

ifor Cal
San Bernardino County

Ariz ona
La Paz County Yavapai County
0

nia

September 2006
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 community mixed-use 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). 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 (Map 3-17a). 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, coal-slurry pipeline (which currently is not in operation), and the Mohave Generating Station. 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), with small fields on the Hopi Reservation. Most Hopi farmers use a cultivation method known as dry farming and have 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 grant-of-easements for approximately 361 acres (Peabody 1986). Approximately 1,860 acres in the northeast corner of the lease area are neither in the permanent 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 3-17 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 unpermitted area.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-83

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-17

Acres of Hopi and Navajo Reservation Land in the Black Mesa Complex
Unpermitted 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 Total1 44,100 NOTE: 1 Reported acres are approximate.

The permanent 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 unpermitted 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 currently unpermitted area. Peabody obtained a grant-of-easement in August 1996 for two parcels (about 284 acres) on the currently unpermitted 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, medicinal, ceremonial, and edible purposes 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 accommodates 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 2006

3-84

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

238

240

Kingman
2

8

Kingman Area Reroute

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Reroute
0 1 Miles 2

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

Parks/Recreation/Preservation Industrial Extraction - Mining Pipeline 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.

Existing Land Use: Kingman Area
Black Mesa Project EIS
September 2006

(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

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

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

Map 3-17a

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\landuse\Existing_LU_z3.pdf

0 23

236

234

232

246

244

24 2

22 8

8 24

254

252

0 25

18

28

256

4

26

24

22

20
16

6

14

10

12

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 (Peabody 1986). 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 services 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, medicinal, ceremonial, and edible purposes (OSM 1990). Unknown quantities of 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 (refer to Map 3-17). The ranch 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 Map 3-17 and 3-17a). Residential developments within 250 feet (or a 500-foot corridor) of the existing route are dispersed along the route. 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-86

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 six 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 as the pipeline approaches 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. In Coconino County, the existing pipeline passes through land zoned for residential development with associated agricultural uses (CSP Milepost 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
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 3-87 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

(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 Milepost 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 the 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 Milepost 268 to 269), as are future industrial/commercial uses (CSP Milepost 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 Milepost 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 T. 21 N., R. 17 W. 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 the Bullhead City area the pipeline parallels conceptually planned residential parcels and public/quasi-public parcels (near CSP Mileposts 267, 269, and 270). 3.9.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)

The Moenkopi Wash realignments could cross Federal land, State Trust Land, and tribal lands, 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 for future grazing open space. 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). 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 T. 20 N., R. 18 W.) 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-88

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

located north of Shinarump Road near T. 21 N., R. 18 W.). As of March 2006, land located southwest of reroute Milepost 18 is being cleared for this development. The 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 T. 20 N., R. 17 W.); land for disposal near reroute Milepost 2 and between reroute Mileposts 13 and 16 (in Section 13 of T. 21 N., R. 16 W., and in Sections 6, 8, and 9 of T. 20 N., R. 17 W.); and land for recreation and public purposes near reroute Milepost 15 (in Section 6 of T. 20 N., R. 17 W.). 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 Railroad into the Hart Ranch, which is owned 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, and 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 Railroad. This has been designated as a historical site (by the Leupp Chapter) 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 capped and 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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)

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 quasi-public facilities exist within 250-500 feet of the route. On its way through the Hopi 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 2006

3-89

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\landuse\Existing_LU_z1.pdf

22

Tolani Lake
L it

tl e

Leupp

Co

ad l or
o

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

Ri

20

ve

r

18

16

14

12

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

10

Bird Springs

8

Well Field Navajo Reservation
6

Existing Land Use*
Residential Commercial/Mixed Use Public/Quasi-Public
4

School/Educational Air Facilities Agricultural (Includes livestock corral, and water tanks) Parks/Recreation/ Preservation Utilities (Includes power substations and water tanks)

2

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

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

LEGEND
Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative)
0 1 Miles
SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005 Map created with TOPO!(tm) (c)2002 National Geographic Holdings (www.topo.com)

General Features
River Navajo Reservation Boundary
Leupp

2

Existing Land Use: Well Field and Leupp Area
Black Mesa Project EIS
September 2006

Subalternatives (preferred alternative) Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field

Prepared By:

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

Map 3-17b

Leupp schools, churches, several small commercial sites (such as convenience stores), and public/quasipublic 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 quasi-public facilities (e.g., a hospital, two schools, and government offices) exist within 250 to 500 feet of the route. High-voltage power lines traverse through 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 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 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. 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
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 3-91 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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/quasi-public 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.

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).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-92

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\landuse\Existing_LU_z2.pdf

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
Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative)
0 0.125 0.25

Existing Land Use: Kykotsmovi Area
Black Mesa Project EIS
September 2006

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

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

Map 3-17c

Ô
Black Me s a and Lake Pow ell
120

j
õ É j

õ jj # jj j É " õ j" É "j jj j j Ì k j j

126

124

122

Rail

j
õ É

roa

j

d
116

118

j j

õ j Éj j jj jj j j õ É

jj jj jjj jõ j j j É j j õ Éj" j õ jjjjj õ É jjjjj Éjj j å j jj j j jj jjj j

jõ õ Éj j Éj j

õ É j jj j j õ j Éj j É jjõj j õ j j É j j õ É

j

å õõ ÉÉ jjj j jj j õ õõ É ÉÉ õ É

j jj

j õ É j j j j

114

112

110

108

106

104

2 10

j
0 10

j j jk jjk j jj j j
4
98

j j å j j jõ j j kj" j jÉ j jj " É õ j j õ j j Éj j j

96

j j
6

94

j j

92

8

j j# j j j å 9
0

j õ É

j
12

10

j

14

24

} j õ É
28
88

16

26

22
20

j

18

0

38

j

30

¯
1 Miles 2

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

General Features
Hopi Indian Reservation Navajo Reservation Boundary County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/ State Route

Existing Land Use*

j
"

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

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Western Route Other Project Features Peabody Lease Area

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

k å õ É

Ì #

Extraction - Mining Utilities (Includes power substations and water tanks)

Existing Land Use Along Alternative Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Alternative
Black Mesa Project EIS
September 2006

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

Map 3-17d

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\landuse\Existing_LU_z4.pdf

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: Criterion B: Criterion C: Criterion D: be associated with important historical events or trends be associated with important people have important characteristics of style, type, or have artistic value have yielded or have potential to yield important information (36 CFR 60)

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). The corridor that could be disturbed by reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline, 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 be only minor changes to views from 0.5 mile or farther
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 3-95 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 between 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. 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 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 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-96

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 Between 1967 and 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 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); and 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-97

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

finds within the Kayenta mining operation area to OSM, but archaeological evaluation determined there were, in fact, 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 46 unexcavated sites identified as having potential associated human burials. The testing identified 61 burials within 19 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 Dzi íjiin 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 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 Ancestral 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 3-18). 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-98

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-18

Archaeological and Historical Sites Along the Coal-Slurry Pipeline1

Cohonina Cohonina or Prehistoric/ Ancestral or Cerbat/EuroEuroEuroSite Type Prehistoric Pueblo 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 Military related 1 1 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 Moenkopi Wash Realignments 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 National Register eligible 0 0 Transmission Line 1 1 National Register eligible 0 0 Totals 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 National Register eligible 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 NOTE: 1 Recommendations regarding eligibility are indicated; agency review is ongoing.

The inventory of eligible prehistoric resources includes 7 Ancestral Pueblo 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-99

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 54 traditional cultural resources along a 1-mile-wide corridor centered along the route of the proposed coal-slurry pipeline reconstruction (Table 3-19). Sixteen 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 3-19
Type

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

Totals Landscape features 12 Water sources 17 Petroglyphs sites 3 Trails 1 2 5 Ceremonial places, shrines 3 Eagle (and other raptor) gathering areas 4 Ancestral sites, habitations 1 7 9 Burials/cemeteries 1 1 1 Totals 16 12 26 54 NOTES: 1 The Hopi consider these resources to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion A or 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 NAGPRA and the Navajo Nation Jishchaá policy. 3 The Hualapai consider one spring to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion A. The other resource may be eligible but requires further evaluation. Agency review of eligibility is ongoing.

3.10.3 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) 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 Ancestral Pueblo 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 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, eight scatters of historical trash, remnants of the Harris Station, and the Davis-Coolidge 230kV transmission line (refer to Table 3-15). Only the railroad station is evaluated as eligible for the National Register.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-100

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 13 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 3-20). 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 six other sites were evaluated as lacking significant historical values that would make them National Register eligible. 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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) 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 3-20). Most of the sites reflect Ancestral Pueblo or earlier prehistoric occupation of the region. Five 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. 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 site 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 Ancestral Pueblo 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 is 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 3-20).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-101

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-20 Archaeological and Historical Sites within the Area of Potential Effects for Construction Impacts of the Proposed C Aquifer Water-Supply System1
Archaic/ Ancestral Pueblo Ancestral Pueblo EuroAmerican

Totals Well Field Habitation 1 1 National Register eligible 1 1 Camp 1 1 National Register eligible 0 0 Artifact scatter 6 1 1 1 9 National Register eligible 52 1 0 0 6 Livestock related 2 1 3 National Register eligible 2 1 3 Artifact scatter, petroglyphs 1 1 National Register eligible 1 1 Road 1 1 2 National Register eligible 0 0 0 Teepee ring 1 1 National Register eligible 0 0 Subtotals 6 0 2 1 5 4 18 National Register eligible 52 0 2 1 2 1 11 C-Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route Habitation 5 2 7 National Register eligible 5 0 5 Field house 3 3 National Register eligible 3 3 Artifact scatter 2 2 16 20 National Register eligible 0 1 13 14 Bridge 1 1 National Register eligible 1 1 Subtotals 2 2 0 24 2 1 31 National Register eligible 0 1 0 21 0 1 23 Substation and Power Line for Water-Supply System (outside proposed water pipeline corridor) Habitation 1 1 National Register eligible 0 0 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 National Register eligible 0 0 Subtotals 8 0 0 0 2 0 10 National Register eligible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 16 2 2 25 9 5 59 National Register eligible 5 1 2 22 2 2 34 a Testing is recommended at 4 of these sites to further evaluate their eligibility. 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-EIS preparation of final designs. 2 Recommendations regarding eligibility are indicated; agency review is ongoing.

Site type

Prehistoric

Archaic

Navajo

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-102

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Record reviews, field surveys, and interviews inventoried 83 traditional cultural resources within the well field and a 1-mile-wide corridor along the proposed water-supply pipeline and associated facilities (Table 3-21). Thirty-seven 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 3-21 Traditional Cultural Resources within Area of Potential Effects for C Aquifer Water-Supply System1
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 Subtotal 3 1 Surface Water (potentially affected by groundwater pumping from the C aquifer) Water sources 2 2 Subtotal 2 2 Surface Water (potentially affected by continued groundwater pumping from the N aquifer) Water sources 2 2 Subtotal 2 2 Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative) Ancestral sites, habitations 5 3 8 Ceremonial places, shrines 7 13 20 Eagle (and other raptor) gathering areas 7 7 Landscape features 1 6 7 Trails 3 3 Water sources 5 1 6 Hunting and gathering localities 1 8 9 Traditional fields (numerous fields near Kykotsmovi) 1 1 Abandoned trading post 1 1 Burials 13 13 Subtotal 30 45 75 Power Line for Water-Supply Pipeline (outside pipeline corridor) Ceremonial places, shrines 1 1 Burials 1 1 Subtotal 0 2 2 Totals 37 48 85 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-EIS preparation of final designs. 2 The Hopi consider these resources to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion A or 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 NAGPRA 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 Ancestral Pueblo 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-103

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 base flows 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 3-21). 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 corridor along the western route. All of the sites but one 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. Record reviews and interviews inventoried 36 traditional cultural resources along a 1-mile-wide corridor centered along the western route (Table 3-22). Twenty-two resources are significant to the Hopi Tribe and 14 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. 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-104

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-22 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 2 6 8 Trails 1 1 Water sources 1 3 4 Burials 3 3 Subtotals 16 12 28 Power Line for Water-Supply Pipeline (outside pipeline corridor) Ceremonial places, shrines 1 1 Burials 1 1 Subtotals 0 2 2 Totals 21 15 36 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-EIS preparation of final designs. 2 The Hopi consider these resources to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion A or 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 NAGPRA and the Navajo Nation Jishchaá policy.

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 fails 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 base flow in Laguna Creek, Moenkopi Wash, Dinnebito Wash, Oraibi Wash, Polacca Wash, Jaidito Wash, Begashibito Wash, and Pasture Canyon Spring. The Hopi 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 3-23). Approximately two-thirds of the resources are prehistoric sites, and most of those are Ancestral Pueblo. 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 124 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-105

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-23

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/Ancestral Pueblo National Register eligible 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 Totals 2 NOTES: 1

16 35 52 11 + 1 burial 34 + 14 burials 46 + 15 burials 26 + 1 cemetery 26 + 1 cemetery 53 + 1 burial 69+ 14 burials 124 + 15 burials + 1 cemetery + 1 cemetery All considered National Register-eligible or protected by NAGPRA and the Navajo Nation Jishchaá policy.

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 Census Bureau as Census Designated Places. Certain information, such as the unemployment rate, is shown for Census Designated Places.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-106

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 3-24 to indicate the extent to which these data sources may be duplicated. Table 3-24 Population in Arizona Counties Residing on Hopi Reservation, Navajo Reservation, or Off-Reservation
County, within Hopi County, within County Remainder Total County Reservation Navajo Nation (Off-Reservation) Apache County 69,423 N/A 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 NOTE: County totals and portions of the Hopi Reservation and off-reservation Trust Land, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah (part); Arizona and Navajo Reservation and off-reservation Trust Land, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah (part); Arizona.

3.11.1 Regional Overview of Demographics and Economics Table 3-25 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 county, tribal, and statewide levels. Table 3-25 Key Population Characteristics – Regional Level
Counties Tribal Areas Navajo Hopi Reservation1 Reservation2 State

Apache Coconino Mojave Navajo Yavapai Clark Arizona Nevada Total Population 1990 Census 61,591 96,591 93,497 77,658 107,714 741,459 7,360 148,451 3,665,228 1,201,833 2000 Census 69,423 116,320 155,032 97,470 167,517 1,375,765 6,946 180,462 5,130,632 1,998,257 Percent 12.7 20.4 65.8 25.5 55.5 85.5 -5.6 21.6 40.0 66.3 Change, 1990-2000 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 Surveys completed for the Hopi Strategic Land Use and Development Plan indicated a year 2000 population of 10,571, rather than NOTES: 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-107

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 comprise 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 3-25). Recently, unemployment rates in the study area generally have been higher than those for Arizona as a whole (Table 3-26). 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 comprises 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. Table 3-26 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
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 3-108 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 3-27. 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 involve 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. Table 3-27 Regional Employment, Percent Share by Industry Sector, 2000
Industry as Percent of Total Employment Agriculture; Forestry; Fishing and Hunting Public Administration 12.6 6.8 4.5 9.2 4.6 3.6 26.0 10.8 5.4 4.5 Retail and Wholesale Trade Transportation and Warehousing; and Utilities

Total Employment

Manufacturing

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

1.2 0.4 0.2 1.4 1.6 0.2 0.7

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

2.7 0.5 1.1

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 Project EIS November 2006

3-109

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

FIRE1 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

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 as 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 “Turquoise Trail” Hopi road project 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 3-28 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. Table 3-28 Population and Households in the Local Area of Influence
Navajo Agency Population (1990) Population (2000) Population (est. 2004) Households (2000)a 242 126 333 414 174 331 351 431 1,618 563 741 217 644 619 2,170

Hopi Reservation Area1 Moenkopi Administration Area N/A 924 901 1,1502 b,c,2 Navajo Nation Chapters Black Mesa Chinle 455 398 410 Chilchinbito Western 1,177 1,325 1,378 Dennehotso Western 1,548 1,626 1,660 Forest Lake Chinle 444 573 606 Hard Rock Chinle 1,263 1,256 1,282 Inscription House Western 1,010 1,214 1,265 Kaibito Western 1,529 1,970 2,132 Kayenta Western 4,902 6,315 6,651 Oljato Western 1,913 2,292 2,395 Piñon Chinle 2,050 3,066 3,247 Rough Rock Chinle 1,009 919 949 Shonto Western 2,330 2,419 2,515 Tonalea Western 2,073 2,537 2,692 Tuba City Western 7,305 8,736 9,216 SOURCES: 1Hopi Office of Community Planning & Economic Development 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 1990, 2000 2 Navajo Nation Division of Community Development 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 1990, 2000 a A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence. NOTES: b 1990 chapter populations are American Indian population only. c 2000 and 2004 chapter populations include all races.

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 3-28). 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.)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-110

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 the other parts of the reservation (refer to Table 3-26). Of the two areas, the Kayenta area’s 2004 unemployment rate was lowest, at 9.6 percent, less than half of 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 3-27. 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 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 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 defines as public administration, plus a small number of the jobs that the U.S. Census defines as services jobs, so the figures from the Hopi tribe and the 2000 Census 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 is $27,435, which is above that for the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation, but still 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 concerning the distribution of employees between the two mines, but if mining employment before the cessation of Black Mesa mining operation was 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 397 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 mining sector is second to the services and information sector (Table 3-29).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-111

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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-road network 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 3-25). Table 3-29 Local Area Employment: Total and Percent Share by Industry Sector (2000 Census)
Industry as Percent of Total Employment
Total Employment FIRE2 and Rental/ Leasing Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting Retail and Wholesale Trade Manufacturing Public Administration

Construction

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 Piñon 615 0.8 3.7 4.4 2.6 12.4 12.4 57.7 1.3 4.7 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 2000 Census, Peabody has supplied employee residence location figures for 2004 that indicate there are currently miners from the three communities. 2 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate.

Residents of the local area around the Black Mesa Complex generally enjoy more prosperity than residents of the Hopi and Navajo Reservations in general. 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-112

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Services and Information

Mining1

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 3-30). 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: One job supported 1.1 jobs elsewhere in the economy; One dollar paid for coal produced supported 0.4 dollars of production elsewhere in the economy; and One dollar of income earned by mine workers supported 0.4 dollars of income elsewhere in the economy. Table 3-30 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 modeling completed by URS Corporation 2005 NOTES: 1. The study area is the combined four-county area of Navajo, Mohave, Coconino, and Apache Counties in Arizona. 2. 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 of 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 legislative authority, otherwise set to expire on June 20, 2005, was extended through June 2006 as a part of the Fiscal Year 2006 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 109-54). The AML’s long-term future is under discussion by the U.S. Congress. 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
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 3-113 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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. Figure 3-5
$50,000 $45,000 Kayenta $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 Window Rock $40,000

Payroll per Employee, Private-Sector, 2001 Hopi and Navajo Areas
Tuba City / Coconino County United States

SOURCES: Arizona Department of Commerce/ASU Center for Business Research, 2004a, b, c. 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 3-31). 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 3-31). Various State services are provided to residents within the study area influence, most notably through distributions back to local school districts. Table 3-31 State of Arizona Taxes Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company

Property Tax Sales Tax Total Year ($ Million) ($ Million) ($ Million) 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).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-114

Navajo County Remainder

Chinle

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Arizona

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. The Office of Navajo Tax Commission administers the taxes that Peabody has paid for the Black Mesa mining operation (Table 3-32). 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 $0.18 per gallon. The Navajo Sales Tax became effective on April 1, 2002, with a rate of 3 percent of gross receipts. The tax is imposed on all goods or services purchased within the reservation. Table 3-32 Navajo Tribal Taxes Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company 1986-2005 (Black Mesa mining operation1)
Total ($ 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 ($ Million) ($ Million) ($ Million) ($ Million) Year 1986-1990 9.1 8.8 N/A N/A 1991-1995 10.8 14.8 N/A N/A 1996-2000 9.8 11.8 N/A N/A 2001 2.6 2.0 N/A 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). 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 adjusted for the Hopi lease in 1997. The bonuses were established and were first paid to each tribe in 1998. Table 3-33 identifies historical revenues to the tribes for royalties and bonuses related to coal extraction.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-115

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-33
Year Hopi Lease 5743 ($ Million)

Coal Royalties and Bonuses Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company: 1986-20051
Coal Bonuses2 Overall Total ($ Million) Hopi ($ Million) Navajo ($ Million) Total ($ Million) N/A N/A 5.3 37.4 4.7

Coal Royalties Navajo Navajo Lease 8580 Lease 9910 ($ Million) ($ Million)

1986 3.7 1.9 3.7 9.3 N/A N/A (least) 1987 4.3 43.13 4.3 51.7 N/A N/A (most) 2005 14.7 28.9 43.6 1.8 3.5 (most recent) Total 191.9 485.1 677.0 10.1 27.3 Average per 9.6 24.3 33.9 1.3 3.4 year 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.

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 3-34 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 3-34 Water Royalties Paid by Peabody Western Coal Company: 1986-2004

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 Average per year 1.7 1.7 3.4 SOURCES: Peabody Western Coal Company 2006; SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005 NOTE: 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-116

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The grand total of all of the payments described above to the tribes from 1986 to 2005 is shown in Table 3-35. Table 3-35 Total Annual Payments to Hopi and Navajo Tribes: 1986-2005

Hopi Reservation Navajo Nation ($ Million) ($ Million) Year 1986 3.7 9.8 1987 4.5 51.4 1988 9.8 26.3 1989 10.3 26.3 1990 9.4 26.1 1991 11.0 29.8 1992 10.5 30.0 1993 10.6 35.8 1994 12.5 28.2 1995 13.8 27.2 1996 12.1 26.7 1997 11.9 29.1 1998 14.5 33.5 1999 12.8 34.4 2000 13.7 35.5 2001 15.1 37.1 2002 13.9 38.6 2003 13.6 35.0 2004 16.2 36.5 2005 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 AML.

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 electric, 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-117

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 site 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 home 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. The Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations are a major user of power provided by NTUA. Over the time period of 1986 through 2004, the mines have been 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 level in the local area (Table 3-36) 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 3-36 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

Arizona schools’ five-year graduation rate (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).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-118

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 what was previously available. 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 health care delivery system is sponsored by the Navajo Nation itself, which operates the Navajo Division of Health in Window Rock. Facilities located within the local area of influence include the Indian Health Services Tuba City Indian Medical Center and the Indian Health Services Kayenta Service Unit. Peabody maintains a 24-hour emergency medical clinic at the mine complex, which 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 that is located at the mine complex medical clinic. 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 the BLM and the Forest Service, since the BLM and 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’ residence locations was very similar to that for the mining operations. The 34 employees at the coal-slurry preparation plant received wages averaging $28 per hour.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-119

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

BMPI pays various taxes and fees, levied upon the coal-slurry preparation plant, to a number of governmental entities in the States of Arizona and Nevada and to the Navajo Nation. The information for the plant and pipeline is presented together in Table 3-37. More complete descriptions of the taxation system for those taxes paid by industry are discussed under Fiscal Conditions, Section 3.11.2.4. BMPI has not yet been advised by any of the State and local taxing authorities as to the effect of its shutdown upon its future taxes. Table 3-37
State
Arizona Coconino Mohave Navajo Yavapai Nevada Clark SOURCE: C. Sauser, Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc., 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

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 Reservations), Coconino County (where the pipeline is partly on the Navajo Reservation), Yavapai, and Mohave Counties, Arizona, and Clark County, Nevada. The pipeline is now dormant until such time as the Black Mesa mining operation resumes. The coal-slurry pipeline 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 Moenkopi Wash realignments and the Kingman reroute are the same as those in areas along the corresponding portions of the existing pipeline (Table 3-38), 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 3-38 Local Area Population and Households (Pipelines and Well Field)a
Local Area Coal Mine Mesa Cameron Leupp Bird Springs Tolani Lake Project Component1 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 Total Population (2000) 374 1,231 1,605 829 755 Households (2000) 121 311 419 200 196

Navajo Chapters

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-120

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Total Population Households (2000) (2000) Local Area Project Component1 Hopi Land Tribal census tract Coal-slurry pipeline 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 1 NOTE: The project component column indicates which project component’s facilities would be in the area.

3.11.5 Project 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 3-38) 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 local area overall, higher than that for either reservation overall, 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 local area. More information about the racial and ethnic makeup of the area is presented in Section 3.12. As indicated in Table 3-39, 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 economic profiles that are similar to one another. 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 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 reservation-wide 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 K-8 schools: Leupp School in Leupp, Hopi Day School and Rocky Ridge Boarding School in Kykotsmovi, Hotevilla Bacavi Community School in Hotevilla, 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 2006

3-121

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-39

Local Area Employment: Percent Share by Industry Sector (Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Project Water Supply)a
Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities Public Administration 0 5.8 8.3 17.4 9.2 20.4 0 6.6 3 6.5 3.7 7 8 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting Retail and Wholesale Trade

Manufacturing

Navajo Chapters

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: 1FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. Pertinent project components are identified in Table 3-35.

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) minority and/or lowincome persons within a defined area exceed 50 percent of the population, or (2) minority and/or lowincome persons within a defined area exceed the minority and low-income persons in a larger community of which it is a part (e.g., a State, county, or other division) (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 Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation each have negotiated lease agreements for the extraction of coal from the Black Mesa Complex. Several types of revenue from mining are used throughout the two reservations at the tribal and local community levels, for natural resources, human services, education, and other functions.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-122

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

FIRE1 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

Construction

Services and Information

Mining

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 3-40). The smaller communities that comprise the portions of the reservation in the vicinity of the Black Mesa Project are also overwhelmingly minority populations, with a population that is 95.5 percent American Indian overall (Table 3-41). 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 3-40). 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 3-41). 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 3-40, 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 3-41). 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 in order to assess poverty trends regionally and locally. According to the 2000 census data, the Hopi and Navajo reservations are disproportionately low-income (39 percent and 42 percent persons below the poverty line respectively, compared to nearly 14 percent for Arizona overall) (Table 3-42). 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 3-42). 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 of 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 3-42 and Table 3-43). 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 3-44). Other data series of poverty estimates yield slightly different results. Taken together, however, they all show persistent poverty in Apache and Navajo Counties, Arizona.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-123

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-40
Counties Apache 69,423 Coconino 116,320 Mohave 155,032

Race and Ethnicity – Regional Level
Navajo 97,470 Yavapai 167,517 Clark 1,375,765 Tribal Areas Hopi Navajo Reservation Reservation 6,946 180,462 States Arizona 5,130,632 Nevada 1,998,257

Total population Race One Race White Percent of Total Population Black or African American Percent of Total Population 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 Total population: Hispanic or Latino Percent of Total Population

13,536 19.5% 173 0.2% 53,375 76.9% 93 0.1% 39 0.1% 1,217 1.8% 990 1.4%

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%

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%

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%

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%

984,796 71.6% 124,885 9.1%c 10,895 0.8% 72,547 5.3%c 6,412 0.5% 118,465 8.6%c 57,765 4.2%

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%

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%

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%

3,119 4.5%

12,727 10.9%

17,182 11.1%

8,011 8.2%

16,376 9.8%

302,143 22.0%c

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 2006

3-124

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-41
Hopi Moenkopi District

Race and Ethnicity – Local Level1
Navajo Chapters Inscription House

Chilchinbito

Rough Rock

Forest Lake

Dennehotso

Black Mesa

Hard Rock

Total Population 901 398 1,325 1,626 573 1,256 1,214 1,970 6,315 Race (alone) White 13 2 13 12 1 25 36 11 327 Percent of total population 1.4 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.1 2.0 3.0 0.6 5.2 Black or African American 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 9 Percent of total population 0.4 0 0.1 American Indian or Alaska 871 393 1,296 1,586 566 1,214 1,154 1,949 5,856 Native Percent of total population 96.7 98.7 97.8 97.4 98.8 96.7 95.1 99.0 92.7 Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Percent of total population 0.1 Native Hawaiian/Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Islander Percent of total population 0 0 Other 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent of total population 0.2 Two or more races 15 2 0 12 2 3 12 6 63 Percent of total population 1.7 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.3 1.0 Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino origin 0 1 16 16 4 14 6 3 53 Percent of total population 0.3 1.2 1.0 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.2 0.8 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 NOTE: 1Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations, places of residence of 90 percent of the employees.

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 2006

3-125

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Tuba City

Kayenta

Tonalea

Kaibito

Shonto

Oljato

Piñon

Table 3-41
Hopi Tribal Census Tract 9411, BG2 Tribal census Tract 9410, BG4

Race and Ethnicity – Local Level1 (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 Race (alone) White 33 6 8 Percent of total population 2.1 1.5 2.1 Black or African American 0 0 0 Percent of total population American Indian or Alaska Native 1,475 383 364 Percent of total population 94.8 95.8 97.3 Asian 1 0 0 Percent of total population Native Hawaiian/other Pacific 0 0 0 Islander Percent of total population Other 1 0 0 Percent of total population Two or more races 0 0 0 Percent of total population Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino origin 35 11 2 Percent of total population 2.2 2.8 0.5 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 1 NOTE: Additional areas crossed by proposed linear facilities.

1,231 20 1.6 1 1,139 92.5 1 0 0 26 2.1 44 3.6

1,605 15 0 1,548 96.4 0 0 0 15 0.9 27 1.7

829 3 0.4 1 0.1 817 98.6 0 0 0 3 0.4 5 0.6

755 3 0.4 0 740 98.0 0 0 0 1 0.1 11 1.5

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 2006

3-126

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

City of Kingman

Coal Mine Mesa

Bird Springs

Tolani Lake

Cameron

Leupp

Table 3-42
County Apache Per Capita Income $8,986 Median Family Income $26,315 Persons Below Poverty Level 25,798 Percent 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 2006

3-127

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Table 3-43

Local Income Characteristics
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 13.7

Per Capita Median Family Income Income (in $) (in $) Kayenta and Black Mesa Mines Hopi Area Moenkopi Navajo Chapters Black Mesa Chilchinbito Dennehotso Forest Lake Hard Rock Inscription House Kaibito Kayenta Oljato Piñon Rough Rock Shonto Tonalea Tuba City Hopi Area Moenkopi 11,432 4,622 5,745 5,270 3,638 4,732 7,216 8,117 8,698 7,468 5,478 5,237 8,573 6,163 10,331 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

113 187 647 730 264 746 640 548 2,459 822 1,606 491 828 1,027 2,420 113

11,432 38,266 Additional Areas Crossed by Linear Facilities 6,075 6,055 7,421 7,844 6,749 7,298 9,181 16,989 13,834 20,598 14,264 15,484 17,203 17,181 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

Navajo Chapters Coal Mine Mesa Cameron Leupp Bird Springs Tolani Lake Hopi Areas Tribal census tract 9411, BG2 Tribal census tract 9410, BG4 Kingman Area Census tract 9509 Census tract 9507.02 Census tract 9508 Census tract 9506 Census tract 9511 Census tract 9510 City of Kingman SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000

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 3-44 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 2006

3-128

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 (1970-2000). Apache and Navajo Counties, Arizona, were designated as persistent poverty counties, while none of the other counties in the region were so designated.

3.13 INDIAN TRUST ASSETS
The United States has a trust responsibility to protect and maintain rights reserved by or granted to American Indian tribes by treaty, statutes, and executive orders. This trust 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 by the United States Government for federally recognized American Indian tribes or nations. 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 of individual 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-129

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 CFR Part 396a and concerns leases of unallotted lands for mining purposes. It states the following: “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 Indian water rights is found in the 1908 Supreme Court decision of Winters v. United States (207 U.S. 564, 576 cited in McCarthy 2004), 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, Stipulations for 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-130

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

The other two leases, both approved 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. 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 that lie beneath 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 (Arizona, Superior Court of the State of 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-131

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 3-45. Table 3-45 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 (airblast). Ground motion is the principal vibration that will result from blasting, though airblast may be more noticeable because of the accompanying noise effects. Like other noises, airblast 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-132

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 3-46. Table 3-46 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 Traffic – Related Noise Roadways3 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 Ldn; all others are in Leq 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,

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-133

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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, 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; and Describe the existing noise environment. For locations of sensitive receptors, 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 must be performed at least 1,000 feet from any residence. Blasting must abide by the standards set forth in

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-134

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

30 CFR 816.67, which states that overpeak sound-pressure levels cannot exceed 133 dB. Warning and allclear 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 individuals living within 0.5 mile of the blasting 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. OSM regulations prohibit flyrock from being cast more than one-half the distance to the nearest dwelling, beyond the area of control, or beyond the permit boundary. Airblast 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 the monitoring devices (seismographs) are seismically triggered to record levels of 0.5 inches-per-second particle velocity 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; and 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 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-135

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

mining, including blasting. These OSM regulations were designed to fulfill the intent of Congress in the 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 seismograph 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, airblast 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 is rural or undeveloped in character. 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 Railroad, 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; and 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 Authority (Harris, Miller, Miller, & Hanson, Inc. 1995), roadway vibrations are normally not an issue to 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 Authority’s screening criteria, 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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) 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 and the Kingman Airport, and industrial park to the north. Noise levels are 55 to 65 dBA Ldn. Four residences occur between reroute CSP

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-136

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

Mileposts 14 and 16. Noise sources here include the BNSF Railroad, 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 3.13.2.1. 3.14.3 Project 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 Railroad 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, 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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alignment) 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 55 to 50 dBA.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-137

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 was 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; and 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 3.13.3.2.1) 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; and 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 2006

3-138

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 and Forest Service Visual Resource Management (VRM) plans 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). 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 3-47. Table 3-47
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 Beyond 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.

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 expansive, 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-139

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 Landscape Character Types of the National Forests of Arizona and New Mexico Visual Management System manual). 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, comprises 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. 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 is 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-140

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\Vis\Map_3_17_ScenicQuality.pdf

Nevada

Utah

Lincoln County

Washington County

Kane County

Map 3-18
San Juan County

Utah Arizona
Page

Scenic Quality
Black Mesa Project EIS

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d

LEGEND
Kayenta Tsegi

a Me s Black

Nevada

Arizona

Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing Route Realignments
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

an
ak e
L
0 13

Clark County

Thief Rock PS
Ra
ilr o a

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

0 12

Po

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Subalternatives (preferred alternative) Western Route
Apache County

we
ll

Co

d lora

oR

r ive

d 100

PS #1
10
0 10

110

MP 91 PS
90

Other Project Features C-Aquifer Well Field PS = Pump Station Peabody Lease Area

20
90

30

Tuba City Moenkopi
60

40
80

50

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
70

80

Oraibi PS

Railwa

Mohave County

Tusayan
y

70

Scenic Quality
Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives Class A Class B Class C Developed

Coconino County

Cameron PS #2
80

70
60

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi

on

90

50

50

Ca

Valle
100
40
30

Peach Springs Truxton
160

PS #3
110

ny

40

120

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
0 23

Grand

Tolani Lake PS

140

130

30

PS #4
170
0 24

Tolani Lake PS Leupp Navajo County
20

150

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

Seligman

Laughlin

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff

10

270

0 25

180

190

200

da a va ni Ne i f o r l Ca

210

Kingman
20

220

Bullhead City

260

10

Kingman Area Reroute

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch

Winslow

Little Colorad o Riv

State Boundary
er

County Boundary Interstate/U.S. Highway/State Route
SOURCE: URS Corporation 1996, 2004, 2005

Holbrook

Cal ifor
San Bernardino County

Ariz ona
La Paz County Yavapai County
0

nia

September 2006
20 Miles 40

Prepared By:
Gila County

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 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 swift 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 coalslurry 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 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 traverse 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. 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 through 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-142

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 begins entrance into 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 the lack of sensitive viewers. 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 3-17) (BLM 1986).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-143

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.15.2.2 Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) 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 the scattered development therein (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 for high modification); VRM Class III landscapes (which allows for 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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) 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 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-144

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 pipeline 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 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, 8029, and 41 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 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-145

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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-milewide 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 3-48. 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 3-48
Project Region

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 Ash Fork to Golden Shores 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes – only partially complete 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 2 lanes, designated a historic route and a National Back Country Byway 2 lanes

Transportation Corridor
U.S. Highway 160 Arizona Highway 264 Indian Reservation Route 2 Arizona Highway 99 BIA 4 “Turquoise Trail”

Notes

Eastern BIA 41 Indian Route 6930 Indian Route 4 Eastern to Western Central Central and Western I-40 U.S. Highway 89 Arizona Highway 64 U.S. Highway 180 Historic Route 66 U.S. Highway 93

Kingman to Hoover (Boulder) Dam Western 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-146

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 Railroad (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 (including 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-haulage and mine-vehicle roads a minimum of 50 feet wide, and coalhaulage, mine-vehicle, and dragline deadheading roads approximately 150 feet wide (OSM 1990). To gain access 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 dozer 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 proposed coal-haul road would travel on land outside the Black Mesa Complex to

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-147

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

connect the J23 coal resource area with the currently unpermitted 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 up into numerous segments; the present haul road network in the permanently permitted area of the Black Mesa Complex is 10 miles long and the present haul road network in the currently unpermitted 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 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 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 through Kaibab National Forest. It parallels an unimproved access road through the forest for 5 miles before crossing U.S. Highway 180 as the highway leaves the forest. The Kaibab National Forest portion of U.S. Highway 180 is considered scenic. 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 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-148

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

As it enters Bullhead City from the east, the pipeline route crosses two of the city’s main arterial corridors: U.S. Highway 95 and Bullhead Parkway. 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 Railroad 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 the Arizona Department of Transportation (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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) The Moenkopi Wash realignments 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 Railroad). 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. 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 Railroad passes through the southwestern corner of the Navajo portion and just north of the Hopi Hart Ranch portion of the well field.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-149

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

3.16.3.2 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline 3.16.3.2.1 C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) The eastern pipeline 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 one-half 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 pipeline route would parallel the Turquoise Trail, a transportation corridor and potential utility corridor. (This portion of the Turquoise Trail is paved.) It would then 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 semi-developed 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 1/8-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, 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 the State of Arizona (National Park Service 2005b); however, components of the project would cross several major transportation corridors that lead to visited recreation areas.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-150

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 big game 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. 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-151

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

P:\SCE\Black Mesa Project EIS\gis\plots\landuse\Recreation.pdf

Nevada

Utah

Lincoln County

Washington County

Kane County

Utah Arizona
12B

Lake Powell/ Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Page

Map 3-19
Monument Valley Navajo Tribal Park
San Juan County

Recreation/Special Designations
Black Mesa Project EIS

NAVAJO GENERATING STATION
d
La ke

Navajo National Monument
Tsegi

LEGEND
Coal-Slurry Pipeline
Kayenta

Black
Me s

Existing Route Realignments
(Existing route with realignment/reroute is the preferred alternative)

Nevada

Arizona

a

13A

Clark County

Kaibab National Forest
12AW

an
0 13

Thief Rock PS

BLACK MESA COMPLEX

Proposed Water-Supply Pipeline Eastern Route (preferred alternative) Subalternatives (preferred alternative) Western Route Other Project Features
Apache County

0 12

we Po

13B

lora Co

do

e Ri v

r

ll Ra ilr

12AE

o ad 10

0

PS #1
10
0 10

110

MP 91 PS
90

C-Aquifer Well Field PS = Pump Station Peabody Lease Area

20
90

Grand Canyon National Park
15BW 11

30

Tuba City Moenkopi
60
70
60

40
80
50

Moenkopi Wash Realignment
Hard Rock
Blue Canyon Special Management Area
70

80

Oraibi PS

Recreation
14

Lake Mead National Recreation Area

Railwa

Mohave County

Grand Canyon National Park

y

14 Coconino County 9

Tusayan

70

AGFD Game Management Unit and Number Wilderness Area BLM Area of Critical Environmental Concern BLM National Monuments Recreation Area National Forest National Park Big Boquillas Ranch Historic Route 66 Trail

15A 10

Kaibab National Forest
Valle
100

Cameron PS #2

Hotevilla Moenkopi PS

Kykotsmovi Area Subalternatives
Kykotsmovi

50

80

on ny

90

50

Peach Springs 15C Truxton
160

PS #3

Ca

15BE

40
40

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
270

Grand

Cerbat Foothill Recreation Areas and Trails System

Kaibab National Forest
7W

110

120

7E Tolani Lake PS Leupp

30

Tolani Lake PS

140

30

130

t Mnts. Cerba

150

PS #4 18A
180
190

Seligman
170

Laughlin

Kingman
260

240

Well Field Navajo Reservation
Ash Fork Williams Flagstaff 5BN 8 19B 6B

Navajo County

General Features
River Lake Navajo Reservation Boundary Hopi Reservation Boundary

20

23 0

10

0 25

0 20

Bullhead City

Little Colorado River Crossing Subalternatives

210

da a va ni Ne ifor l Ca
Bullhead Bajada ACEC (proposed)

220

20
10

MT. NUTT

Kingman Area Reroute
17A

BLACK MOUNTAINS ACEC

Well Field Hopi Hart Ranch
Coconino National Forest
6A 5BS

Winslow

Little Colorad o River

2A

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

15D

18B 16B

Prescott National Forest Prescott National Forest
17B Yavapai County 19A

5A

Holbrook 4B

SOURCES: URS Corporation 2005, 2006 Arizona State Land Department 2005 Mohave County 2005 Bureau of Land Management 2005

ifor Cal
San Bernardino County

Ariz ona
43A 44A

16A

4A

3A

nia

20A 20C La Paz County 21 22 20B

Sitgreaves National Forest
3C 3B

September 2006
0 20 Miles 40

Prepared By:
Gila County 23 25/26

pipeline segment that passes through the Kaibab National Forest is mostly classified by the Forest Service as Roaded Modified3 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 co-managed 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 amounts of undeveloped land in the community have served as defacto 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 Area, 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 area 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 the 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-mile multiple-use trail that extends from Lake Mead to the Colorado River Nature Center in Bullhead 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.

These terms are from the Forest Service Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, a planning framework that allows 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 (Semi-primitive Motorized and Nonmotorized Primitive).

3

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-153

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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, 18A, 15B, and 15D. GMUs 7, 9, and 10 are located along the existing route between Cameron and Seligman. GMUs 18A, 15B, and 15D are located along the existing route between Seligman and Bullhead City (refer to Map 3-13). 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 3-49 lists the average annual number of permits issued by AGFD since 2000 in areas crossed by the existing route. Table 3-49 Average Annual Number of Permits Issued by Arizona Game and Fish Department Between 2000 and 2005
Bighorn GMU Antelope sheep Elk Javelina 17(W) 60 1,515 19 31 996 10 201 1,675 18A 100 10 200 15B 72 13 15D 6 Total 318 19 4,196 200 SOURCE: Arizona Game and Fish Department 2005d NOTES: 1 100 permits for archery combined with GMU 18A and 18B. 2 Combined with 15A. - Data not available for the average number of permits issued. Merriam’s Turkey 175 40 215 Mule/White Tailed Deer 2,130 970 850 800 390 2 5,140

The Great Western Trail, a 2000 Millenium Trail, is a 3,000-mile-long north-south backcountry route extending from Canada to Mexico providing 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 sportsmen 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 sight seeing (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 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 the ADOT on January 12, 1990 (U.S. Department of Transportation 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 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-154

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) The Moenkopi Wash realignments 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 Railroad 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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) 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. 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).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-155

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 ensure 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, Public Law 91-173, 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 (SMCRA) (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 (CAA) as amended 1990. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 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. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended – 42 U.S.C. Sec. 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 CFR for the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 consists of 199 Parts in 30 CFR 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 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 sections of the safety CFR used extensively by the Safety Department at the Black Mesa Complex to establish safety policies and procedures are:

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-156

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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); and Criteria and Procedures for Proposed Assessment of Civil Penalties (30 CFR 100) (United States Department of Labor, 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 Federal 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 (Med Evac) 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 ensuring that all safety regulations are followed. 3.18.1.2 Hazards and Contaminants Blasting. Hazards associated with blasting include explosives handling 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 sounded when the area is clear. All blasting operations are restricted to the daytime hours between sunrise and sunset (OSM 2005a). 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, Air Quality). 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).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-157

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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). 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 highwalls, 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. 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 semi-arid climate with a dry season occurring 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 and anthropods (including insects and spiders) occur in the area. There also are various species of rattlesnakes, scorpions, spiders, and bees in the area. Common sense and care around locations where these animals may be found generally avoids unfortunate encounters between these species and humans. Solid Waste. A solid waste landfill was operated by Peabody at the J-03 area until its closure in 1997. A reclamation plan for the landfill is being implemented, and a solid-waste vendor will haul the solid waste located in the landfill off site to a regulated landfill. Upon completion, a closure plan will be prepared. 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. 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 in 30 CFR Part 1910.1200 as any substance or chemical that is a health hazard or physical hazard, including chemicals that are carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosive, sensitizers; agents that damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes; chemicals that are combustible, explosive, flammable, 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).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-158

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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, truck shop, welding shop, 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 Clean, 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 magnesium 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 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). A 5,000-gallon above-ground 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 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

3-159

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 has been 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). 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 2006

3-160

Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment

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 described in Chapter 2. The 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 considered and incorporated mitigation, where appropriate, before arriving at the impacts described here. An impact, or effect, is defined as a modification to 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 substantially would remain beyond short-term ground-disturbing activities. For the mining operations, short-term impacts are those that would occur from the time when mining begins in a unit through reclamation when vegetation has been re-established. 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 re-established, limited use of the land may be allowed. This sequence continues until all of the coal has been removed from a given coal resource 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 5 years). Long-term impacts are those that would persist beyond or occur after the 5-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 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 2006

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 project components (Black Mesa mining complex, coal-slurry pipeline, and C aquifer water-supply system) under Alternative A. Under Alternatives B and C, the coalslurry pipeline would not be reconstructed nor operate in the future, and the C aquifer water-supply system would not be built; thus, no adverse or beneficial impacts associated with these components 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 right-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 2005, the acres proposed for mining from 2006 through 2026, and the acres that could be mined after 2026. Table 4-3 is a summary of the existing and proposed rights-of-way acreages associated with the coal-slurry pipeline. Table 4-4 is a summary of the proposed rights-of-way acreages associated with the C aquifer water-supply system.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

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 lines rights-of-way and easements 362 Coal-slurry preparation plant lease 40 Existing right-of-entry area total 65,260 Proposed new coal-haul road right-of-way1 127 TOTAL Existing and Proposed Right-of-Entry Area 65,3872 NOTES: 1 Area shown on Drawing 85360, SW Sheet in the LOM 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 LOM 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
Area Disturbed Through 2005 14,940 6,965 21,905 21,905 14,940 Proposed 2006-2026 Disturbance 8,062 5,4672 13,529 8,062 8,062 Foreseeable Post-2026 Disturbance1 6,5182 5,960 7,398 12,865 07

Area Permit Area Existing OSM permit area 44,073 Additional area proposed in LOM revision3 18,984 OSM Permit Area Alternative A4 63,057 OSM Permit Area Alternative B5 63,057 OSM Permit Area Alternative C6 44,073 NOTES: 1 This is the area in which mining is reasonably foreseeable although not specifically proposed in the 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 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 no 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 reserve 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 reserve areas are included in both the (1) Additional Area Proposed in LOM Revision Proposed 2006-2026 Disturbance 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 conditionally 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 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 currently unpermitted 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 2006

4-3

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-3

Black Mesa Coal-Slurry Pipeline Existing and Proposed Rights-of-way Acreages
New Total New Existing Permanent Permanent Temporary Permanent 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 Agencies’ Preferred Route 0 1,485 445 1,930 1,4853 Existing route (245 miles) 6 6 2 8 Moenkopi Wash realignments (1 170 170 51 221 mile) Kingman reroute (28 mile) 160 0 160 0 160 Pump stations4 1,815 0 1,815 496 2,311 TOTAL Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing 1,645 176 1,821 498 2,319 TOTAL Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Realigned 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 Additional Temporary Right-of-way 11 36 47 2 2 19 48 67 2 2 397 Total Right-ofway 12 96 47 3 3 20 128 67 3 3 661

Affected Area Well Field: 6,000 af/yr 12 wells1 1 60 Access roads, collector pipelines, power lines for 12 wells2 Additional distribution power lines for 12 wells2 0 Water-storage tank3 1 Electrical substation4 1 Well Field; 11,600 af/y 21 wells1 1 80 Access roads, collector pipelines, power lines for 21 wells2 Additional distribution power lines for 21 wells2 0 Water-storage tank3 1 Electrical substation4 1 Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route ( Agencies’ Preferred Route) 264 Pipeline, power line, access road corridor (108 miles)5

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-4

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Affected Area Pump stations (2)6 5 69KV transmission line7 370 Additional right-of-way for access roads8 4 Water-Supply Pipeline: Western Route 337 505 842 Pipeline, power line, access road corridor (137 miles)5 Pump stations (4)9 2 8 10 7 69KV transmission line 655 0 655 Additional right-of-way for access roads10 38 0 38 702 499 1,201 TOTAL 6,000 af/yr Eastern Route 722 539 1,261 TOTAL 11,600 af/yr Eastern Route 1,095 611 1,706 TOTAL 6,000 af/yr Western Route 1,115 651 1,766 TOTAL 11,600 af/yr Western Route 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 NTUA 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 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 at wash crossings (where the pipeline is not next to a road) to accommodate the access road.

Permanent Right-of-way 1 370 4

Additional Temporary Right-of-way 4 0 0

Total Right-ofway

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-5

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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, and (6) cumulative effects. 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.1.1 LANDFORMS AND TOPOGRAPHY Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project Black Mesa Complex

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 restoration is an important part of the mining process. Restoration to 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 otothe approximate original contour would re-establish 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., not steeper that 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 failures. 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 restoration. The restored 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-6

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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. During construction, alterations to 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 is 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 to 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 impact on landforms and topography along the alternative pipeline route right-of-way because there is more topographic relief that 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 steel pipe, 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. 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 minor impact by localized erosion and the possibility of damage of a cliff face or slope. 4.1.2 4.1.2.1 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System 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, 8,062 acres disturbed by mining between 2006 and 2026 rather than the 13,529 acres under Alternative A. Also, 127 acres would 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. By using approved

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-7

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

construction methods the reconstructed slopes and drainage patterns would have no significant impact on landforms and topography. 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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project Black Mesa Complex Surface Mining

Geology Resources. Under Alternative A, mining would remove about 250 feet of overburden (noncoalbearing rocks above the coal seams) and interburden (noncoal-bearing rocks between the coal seams) on approximately 13,529 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. Groundwater modeling assumed that the Wepo aquifers and unconsolidated fill alluvial aquifers were continuous and groundwater flow would be directed to the face of the pit. 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-8

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

foreseeable future because the Navajo Nation Tribal Council passed legislation to prohibit uranium mining activities on the Navajo Reservation. 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 methane 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. Paleontological Resources. There are abundant plant and animal fossils in the Cretaceous-age coalbearing 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 narrow pipeline 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 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, 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 volcanic ash 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 2006

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 contruction 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 4.2.2.1 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System Black Mesa Complex

Under Alternative B, the overall impacts on geologic and mineral resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A, but coal resources at the Black Mesa mining operation area (approximately 72 million tons) would remain unmined (but available for potential future mining, if pursued). 4.2.3 4.2.3.1 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) Black Mesa Complex

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 potential future mining, if pursued) and the coal-haul road would not be constructed.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-10

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

4.3 4.3.1

SOILS Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project Black Mesa Complex Surface Mining

4.3.1.1 4.3.1.1.1

Surface mining activities drastically disturb soil resources. The topsoil and suitable subsoil would be removed and stockpiled for reclamation following backfilling and regrading of the mined areas. Approximately 13,529 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 re-establish a more stable and controlled drainage pattern. Restoration of the drainage pattern would be followed by restoration of soil, topsoil, and vegetation. Soil Loss. Soil restoration 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 (RUSLE) 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 mulching and/or cover cropping. 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 (LOM Plan 2002). 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. Soil Suitability. The LOM revision identifies that 13,529 acres would be disturbed. By salvaging topsoil and suitable spoil from disturbed areas prior to mining, Peabody estimates that is salvageable soil within the upper that approximately 1.9 feet of this acreage that is available for reclamation purposes (LOM Plan 2003). 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 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-11

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

As summarized in Section 3.3, during the past 15 years Peabody has collected and evaluated soil resources 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, nonacid-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 (LOM Plan 2004). 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, nonacid-forming root zone capable of restoring or exceeding the predisturbance productivity of the disturbed areas. Soil Productivity. 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 (LOM Plan 2000). 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 (LOM Plan 2000). 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 would occur following mine closure that would restore the road corridor to productive use and, in the long term, soil productivity should exceed premining use (LOM Plan 2000). 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 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-12

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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 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 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 may outweigh the benefit of removing the coal. This would have to be determined by the appropriate agency and/or landowner and BMPI on a site-specific 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 above-ground facilities would occupy their locations long term while the pipeline rights-of-way can be returned for appropriate land uses. Along the water-supply pipeline routes, susceptibility for 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 impact by localized erosion and the possibility of damage of a cliff face or slope. Damage would be repaired by maintenance and/or response crew.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-13

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

4.3.2 4.3.2.1

Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System Black Mesa Complex

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., 8,062 acres between 2006 and 2026 instead of 13,529 acres under Alternative A). Construction of the coal-haul road would disturb 127 acres. 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 period 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 (LOM Plan 2000). 4.3.3 4.3.3.1 Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) Black Mesa Complex

Under Alternative C, the overall impacts on soil resources would be similar to those described under Alternative B. Approximately 8,062 acres would be disturbed by mining between 2006 and 2026 instead of 13,529 acres under Alternative A; however, the coal-haul road would not be constructed. Construction of the coal-haul road would disturb 127 acres. 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 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 soil reconstruction and revegetation activities would restore the land to productive use, and 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 regulatory authorities and responsibilities of the appropriate Federal, tribal, and State

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-14

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 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 is provided to the USACE. These permits would cover activities associated with construction of the water-supply system and coal-slurry 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 USC 1341) requires that discharge of dredged or fill materials does not cause or contribute to a violation of State Water Quality Standards (AAC R18-11-1). Authority for waterquality certification under Section 401 in Arizona is delegated to the USEPA 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 USC 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 (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project 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 post-mining reclaimed landscape, which would be transferred with other mine facilities to the tribes

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-15

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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: Degradation of surface-water quality by adding suspended sediment, dissolved pollutants, or otherwise poor-quality water to existing stream flows. 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. 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 stream flow outside the permit area to the extent possible using the best technology currently available, 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 while maintaining compliance with NPDES permit AZ0022179. Discharge of the impounded surface water may be necessary to maintain the appropriate designed 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 post-mining 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 relatively short periods of 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 post-mining 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 post-mining landscape. As discussed in Section 3.3, 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,

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-16

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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 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. First, 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. Second, some of the constituents of concern are already as high or higher in the natural groundwater and surface water systems. Last, 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, 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 one particular 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. Peabody recently applied to USEPA to renew its NPDES permit, and USEPA is currently reviewing the renewal application. As part of the renewal process, USEPA and Peabody plan to jointly develop and evaluate 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 remove temporary sediment ponds with seeps exhibiting poor water quality when reclamation of their upstream watersheds is completed, 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 pond inspections and reporting of the monitoring results. Peabody also would use design and construction methods for new sediment ponds to minimize seeps by identifying geo-chemically 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-17

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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 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 stream flow 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 any impacts of the mine 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, and 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 in order 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 2005). 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 point of maximum temporary impoundment construction, approximately 0.7 percent of the Dennebito drainage area and 2.8 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-18

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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 2005). 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 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 2005). Using a 644 acre-foot volume (equal to the total impounded volume for 1998 to1999), 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 gaged at the permit boundary of Moenkopi Wash, and 14 acre-feet were measured at the USGS gage near the Town of Moenkopi from July 27 to 29, 1998. Given these observations, it appears that the small amount of surface-water flow lost by the mining operations would be small compared to the amount naturally lost through infiltration in the wash. The change of stream flow 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; and Impairment of water quality by leaching spoils and migration to adjacent groundwater aquifers. As of 2005, there were 25 Wepo and 32 active alluvial aquifer monitor 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 Wepo 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 9 years in the modeling period. In 2004, measured drawdown had exceeded historic fluctuations by more than 5 feet in 5 of the alluvial wells and 2 of the Wepo wells (Peabody 1986, amended 2004).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-19

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Some local wells or springs would be mined out. However, under these circumstances, Peabody would be required to provide alternative water supplies in as close a proximity 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 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-day basis. Overall the impact on the use of the shallow groundwater system due to mine dewatering is considered negligible. Surface-water flow events supply recharge to alluvial aquifers associated with the stream channels. Reducing 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 of immeasurable scale 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 for creating groundwater of a lower quality than would happen 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 western spoil aquifers (Peabody 1986, amended 2005). 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 not high concentrations of metals in the overburden. As acid water comes in contact with the alkaline overburden the pH drops 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 over- and inter-burden is sufficient to achieve neutrality, some local pockets of acidic water could be formed. This could result in the release of sulfate and sulfideassociated trace elements 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-20

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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 spring itself. 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 intermittent and generally flow only after precipitation events, any poor-quality spring water discharges tend to be diluted by the much larger stream flows. Stream flow 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 HCO3) and TDS would occur. The potential for formation of acid and trace metal migration is minimal due to the high carbonate content of the soil materials. The magnitude of the impact to the 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 SPCC plan. This plan specifies measures for handling and controlling these materials as well as clean-up 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 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 NPDESpermitted 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 may be drained periodically from plant tanks during repairs. The SPCC 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 is no more likely to interact with groundwater or produce poor quality 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 the coal-wash refuse disposal, as proposed. The study relied on surrogate core samples and leachate tests to provide chemical data to assess impacts, because actual wash plant refuse material 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-21

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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 results from coal wash refuse samples exceed concentrations from the initial core 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 re-seeding, a down gradient 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 (BMPs) 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 BMPs along the new coalhaul 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 to 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 negligble. 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 would cover approximately 0.7 acre with 6 inches of

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-22

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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 may outweigh the benefit of removing the coal. This would have to be determined by the appropriate agency and/or landowner and BMPI on a site-specific basis. 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 may be difficult to detect underwater, but the potential for a rupture would be minimized through proper geothechnical 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 reinforced conceptual design of the 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 a short-term and negligible. There would be no impacts on the deep groundwater aquifers during construction or operation. 4.4.1.3 Project 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:

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-23

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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 base flow 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, due to the fact that the primary water-bearing units of the N and C aquifers are not comprised of unconsolidated material or limestone (refer to Appendix H for more discussion). 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 the Reclamation. Given the Black Mesa EIS schedule constraints, 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 two-dimensional (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 historic flow in Clear and Chevelon Creeks (Leake et al. 2005). S.S. Papadopulos and Associates (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 measure flow 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 for more details).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-24

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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 Peabody coal mine, 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 Indian communities on the aquifers and on surface-water flows. The GeoTrans model covers a slightly larger area than the USGS model. 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 Draft 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) 6,000 11,600

Pumping Rate Subalternatives
Comment Project only (including coal-slurry and coal-washing) Project (6,000) plus 5,600 for tribal domestic, municipal, industrial, and commercial use (2010-2060)

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

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 + 58 feet) after

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-25

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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 and not 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 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 716 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 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, five 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 five out of a total of 71 known wells for each subalternative. There may be some additional wells that have not been identified or for which saturated thickness data are not 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. Diminution of Stream and Spring Flow. Stream base flow 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 2006

4-26

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Map 4-1
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

Drawdown vs. Saturated Thickness, C Aquifer 6,000 af/yr Subalternative
4-27 Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Map 4-2 Drawdown vs. Saturated Thickness, C Aquifer 11,600 af/yr (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative)
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006 4-28 Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-6

Projected Base Flow Diminution in Upper East Clear Creek, Lower Clear Creek, and Lower Chevelon Creek

Lower Clear Lower Chevelon Upper East Clear Creek (cfs)2 Creek (cfs)2 Subalternative Creek (cfs)1 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. Papadopulos and Associates 2005

Model-predicted diminution of stream baseflow in upper East Clear Creek is essentially zero. Maximum predicted base flow reduction in lower Clear Creek is 0.06 cfs for the 11,600 af/yr subalternative or 1.1 percent of the average base flow 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 base flow (2.7 cfs), also a negligible impact for both scenarios (refer to Appendix H). As discussed in Chapter 3, while base flow constitutes essentially all of the streamflow in some days during the summer months, the base flow is a relatively small percentage of the average annual stream flow 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). 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 at the confluence of the creeks with the Little Colorado River would occur, which is shown in Table 4-7. Table 4-7 Projected Streamflow Diminution in Upper East Clear Creek, Lower Clear Creek, and Lower Chevelon Creek in 2060
Upper East Clear Creek (cfs) less than 0.001 less than 0.001 Lower Clear Creek (cfs) 0.07 0.10 Lower Chevelon Creek (cfs) 0.03 0.08

Subalternative 6,000 af/yr 11,600 af/yr

Model-predicted changes in flow at Blue Springs due to project pumping are essentially zero (SSPA 2005). The only other known C aquifer springs within the project area are those that support base flow in Clear and Chevelon Creeks. Effects on these springs are identified in the discussion of impact on streamflow and Table 4-6 above. 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-29

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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 is 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 a period of years and would not likely be noticeable (such as a change in taste) by domestic users. 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 may occur at the point of the 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 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, there are two potential subalternatives for using the existing N-aquifer water supply. Under the agencies’ preferred alternative, the 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 also would be used as a temporary back-up supply in case the primary C-aquifer water supply fails for any reason. Under a second subalternative, the N aquifer water-supply system would continue to be used as the sole water supply. 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-30

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

4.4.1.5.1

Alternative A, Supplemental Use of N-Aquifer Water (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative)

Under the preferred alternative, 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; up to 500 af/yr for mine reclamation and domestic use from 2026 through 2028; and up to 444 af/yr for post-reclamation, domestic, and maintenance uses from 2029 through 2038. These pumping rates assume that no N-aquifer water is needed as a backup supply and the C-aquifer water supply does not fail for any reason. Since water supply systems have historically been highly reliable, it is expected that the actual pumping that would occur during the LOM permit period would be similar to the projected amounts. Cost of Pumping. Peabody modeled what the effects on nearby N-aquifer community wells would be under various mine-pumping scenarios (GeoTrans 2006). Predicted water-level change is given in Table 4-8. Table 4-8 N-Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative A, Supplemental Use of N-Aquifer Water (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative), 2005-2025
Water Level, 2005 (ft msl) All but Project All 5533.4 5465.2 5667.6 5469.1 5488.5 5454.7 5799.2 5790.6 5461.6 5438.6 5712.9 5640.7 5609.2 5516.0 5719.4 5717.8 Water Level, 2025 (ft msl) All but Project All 5516.0 5481.2 5653.2 5563.9 5438.3 5418.6 5781.8 5770.3 5413.3 5383.8 5680.1 5620.4 5594.1 5523.2 5717.8 5715.8 Drawdown (ft)1 All but Project All Project 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 Pinon PM6 Rocky Ridge PM2 Rough Rock 10R-111 SOURCE: GeoTrans 2006 NOTE: 1 Negative sign (-) indicates rise in water level.

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 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 ft 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 and use windmill driven pumps. While these wells are not subject to increased pumping cost, 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-31

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

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 4T-402 is projected to rise over the 2005-2025 period, resulting in no adverse impact (OSM 2006). Reduction in Aquifer Saturated Thickness. All of 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 of the aquifer. In other words, no reduction in saturated thickness is predicted for N- and D-aquifer wells. 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 in proximity to 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/Cow Springs combined. Model-predicted groundwater discharge diminution due to Peabody pumping is given in Table 4-9. Under the minimum pumpage scenario, 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. 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 poorer quality 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 2006

4-32

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-9 Projected Groundwater Discharge Diminution to Black Mesa (N Aquifer) Streams, in af/yr, Alternative A, Supplemental N Aquifer Use (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative), 2005-2025
Streams/Springs Pumping All Streams/Springs 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 2005 NonProject 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 NonProject 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 Project Project 0.1 52.8 58.9 7.8 0.8 3.1 8.8 15.8 15.6 0.1 52.8 58.9 3.2 0.4 2.3 7.9 10.3 2.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 4.6 0.5 0.8 0.9 5.5 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 chloride and sulfate 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 pumping wells in order to validate Peabody’s N aquifer water-quality monitoring program, which began in 1980. To date, USGS and Peabody N aquifer water-quality data indicate that no increasing or decreasing trends are apparent in TDS, chloride, or sulfate concentrations are apparent, 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 comprising 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 the Peabody production wells being turned off for some extended periods of time (weeks) with the potential for D-aquifer water to mix with N-aquifer water in the immediate vicinity of those wells. However, Peabody’s first quarter 2006 water-quality monitoring data indicate that degradation to the N aquifer in the vicinity of the Peabody 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 show no increases in electrical conductivity, TDS, chloride, or sulfate 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 preferred alternative with the exception that some additional pumpage was simulated for well field maintenance (Scenario K). Results of this analysis indicated a maximum increase in N aquifer sulfate concentration of 1 percent in 2039 (Peabody 1986, revised 2003, Table 23). The 1 percent increase in 2039, if it occurred, would be localized to the immediate areas of the individual

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-33

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

pumping wells, and would not change the drinking water use designation of the N aquifer. The impact, if any, is judged to be negligible. 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 that could affect existing water use occurs, Peabody would be required to take corrective action. Although the applicants prefer that no additional N-aquifer water be used for mining or slurry operations, in order 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, backup 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 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 this worst-case failure scenario, recent average annual use (2000 through 2004) of the N aquifer (4,400 af/yr) would be reduced to an average rate of 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, 500 af/yr would be pumped from 2026 through 2028 for Black Mesa Complex reclamation and up to 444 af/yr for post-reclamation domestic and maintenance uses from 2029 through 2038. Cost of Pumping. Drawdowns due to project pumping under this scenario are given in Table 4-10. Table 4-10 N-Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative A, Use of N-Aquifer Water During Outages of C-Aquifer Well Field (2,000 af/yr), 2005-2025
Water Level, 2005 (feet msl) All but Project All 5533.4 5465.2 5667.6 5469.1 5488.5 5454.7 5799.2 5790.6 5461.6 5438.6 5712.9 5640.7 5609.2 5516.0 5719.4 5717.8 Water Level, 2025 (feet msl) All but Project All 5516.0 5459.3 5653.2 5494.0 5438.3 5411.7 5781.8 5769.3 5413.3 5380.5 5680.1 5603.3 5594.1 5499.0 5717.8 5715.5 Drawdown (feet)1 All but Project All Project 17.4 5.9 -11.5 14.4 -24.9 -39.4 50.2 43.0 -7.2 17.4 21.3 3.9 48.2 58.1 9.5 32.8 37.7 4.6 15.1 17.1 2.3 1.6 2.0 0.7

Community Well Chilchinbeto PM3 Forest Lake NTUA 1 4T-523 Kayenta West 8T-541 Keams Canyon PM2 Kykotsmovi PM1 Pinon PM6 Rocky Ridge PM2 Rough Rock 10R-111 SOURCE: GeoTrans 2006 NOTE: 1 Negative sign (-) indicates rise in water level.

As under the agencies’ preferred alternative, this scenario results in rises in post-2025 water levels attributable to project pumping in wells closest to the Peabody well field (due to the fact that the proposed average annual pumpage is less than 2000-2004 average annual pumpage). The maximum increase in drawdown due to project pumping (9.5 feet) occurs at Kykotsmovi. The 2004 depth to water at

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-34

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Kykotsmovi is approximately 229 feet bgs (Truini et al. 2005). The increase in lift and power cost would be about 4 percent, resulting in negligible impact on pumping cost (refer to Appendix H). Local D-aquifer windmill wells are within the area of influence of well-field pumping (see Section 4.4.1.5.2). Estimated 2025 water level under this pumping scenario (2,000 af/yr) at the closest well (4T-402) shows a rise of about 11 feet, resulting in no adverse impact (GeoTrans 2006). Reduction in Aquifer Saturated Thickness. As discussed under the agencies’ preferred alternative, the N and D aquifers remain confined (fully saturated) under all potential alternatives and thus would experience no reductions in saturated thickness (GeoTrans 2006). Diminution of Stream and Spring Flow. Modeled changes in groundwater discharge to streams and springs are given in Table 4-11. Table 4-11 Projected Groundwater Discharge Diminution to Black Mesa (N Aquifer) Streams, in af/yr, Alternative A, 2,000 af/yr N-Aquifer Use, 2005-2025
2005 NonProject 2025 NonProject Percent Project Pumping1 All All Streams/Springs Chinle Wash 498.8 498.8 498.8 498.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.00 Laguna Creek 2,434.5 2,443.2 2,380.4 2,390.4 54.1 52.8 1.2 0.05 Pasture Canyon 389.4 389.4 330.5 330.5 58.9 58.9 0.0 0.000 Moenkopi Wash 4,283.3 4,302.7 4,272.2 4,299.5 11.1 3.2 7.9 0.18 Dinnebito Wash 515.0 515.3 514.1 514.9 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.09 Oraibi Wash 455.5 455.9 452.3 453.6 3.1 2.3 0.8 0.18 Polacca Wash 431.1 432.1 422.2 424.2 8.9 7.9 1.0 0.23 Jaidito Wash 2,015.1 2,018.2 1,999.2 2,007.8 15.9 10.3 5.6 0.28 Begashibito Wash/ Cow Springs 2,169.1 2,177.3 2,153.0 2,175.3 16.1 2.0 14.1 0.65 SOURCE: GeoTrans 2006 NOTE: 1 Modeled pumpage for mine operations is 2,500 af/yr, slightly higher than proposed. Streamflow change is therefore slightly conservative. Change due to Pumping NonAll Project Project

Predicted diminution in groundwater discharge is greatest at Begashibito Wash/Cow Springs where the decrease due to project pumpage is 14.1 af/yr. This would result in a decrease of 0.65 percent, or a negligible impact. Migration of Poor Quality Groundwater. Like the preferred alternative pumping scenario, this option results in less pumpage in the future. Therefore, a negligible impact is anticipated. 4.4.1.5.2 Alternative A, N Aquifer as the Sole Water Supply

This alternative assumes that the C-aquifer well field would not be constructed. Average annual N-aquifer pumping under this option is estimated to be 6,000 af/yr from mid 2009 through 2025, an increase of about 33 percent over the recent past annual pumpage. The increase would result from the additional 0.6 million tons per year of coal that would be transported to the Mohave Generating Station. In addition, 500 af/yr would be pumped for Black Mesa reclamation (from 2026 through 2028) and up to 444 af/yr for post-reclamation domestic and maintenance uses from 2029 through 2038.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-35

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Cost of Pumping. Increasing project pumpage would increase the drawdown in nearby wells (Table 4-12). Table 4-12 N-Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative A, Maximum Use of N-Aquifer Well Field (6,000 af/yr), 2005-2025
Water Level, 2005 (ft msl) All but Project All 5533.4 5465.2 5667.6 5469.1 5488.5 5454.7 5799.2 5790.6 5461.6 5438.6 5712.9 5640.7 5609.2 5516.0 5719.4 5717.8 Water Level, 2025 (ft msl) All but Project All 5516.0 5421.2 5653.2 5379.2 5438.3 5399.9 5781.8 5768.0 5413.3 5375.9 5680.1 5575.1 5594.1 5458.6 5717.8 5715.2 Drawdown (ft) All but Project All Project 17.4 44.0 26.6 14.4 90.2 75.8 50.2 54.8 4.6 17.4 22.6 5.6 48.2 62.7 14.4 32.8 65.6 32.8 15.1 57.4 42.3 1.6 2.6 1.0

Community Well Chilchinbeto PM3 Forest Lake NTUA 1 4T-523 Kayenta West 8T-541 Keams Canyon PM2 Kykotsmovi PM1 Pinon PM6 Rocky Ridge PM2 Rough Rock 10R-111 SOURCE: GeoTrans 2006

Drawdown due to project pumping at the Forest Lake NTUA #1 well of 75.8 feet is predicted at the end of 2025 (GeoTrans 2006). This would result in a 6.5 percent increase in pumping lift and cost, a negligible impact (refer to Appendix H). As discussed in Section 4.4.1.5.1, some of the Peabody production wells pump from both the D and N aquifers. 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. Two D-aquifer windmill wells are within the area of influence of well-field pumping. Estimated 2025 drawdown for the Peabody N aquifer well-field pumping scenario of 6,000 af/yr at the closest well (4T-402) is approximately 2.2 feet (GeoTrans 2006). The water column (height of the water level above the bottom of the well) is approximately 340 feet. The estimated drawdown is 0.6 percent of the water column, which would have a negligible impact on the yield of the well. Reduction in Aquifer Saturated Thickness. The N and D aquifers remain confined (fully saturated) under this maximum pumping alternative and thus would experience no reduction in saturated thickness. Diminution of Stream and Spring Flow. Model-predicted streamflow reduction under 6,000 af/yr pumpage is given in Table 4-13. Model-predicted diminution in groundwater discharge is greatest at Begashibito Wash/Cow Springs, where flow reduction in 2025 due to project pumping is 14.9 af/yr, or 0.69 percent of the total 2005 discharge. Even at the maximum potential project pumpage, the reduction in groundwater discharge is considered to be negligible (refer to Appendix H).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-36

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-13

Projected Groundwater Discharge Diminution to Black Mesa (N Aquifer) Streams, in af/yr, Alternative A, 6,000 af/yr N-Aquifer Use, 2005-2025
2005 NonProject 498.8 2,443.2 389.4 4,302.7 515.3 455.9 432.1 2,018.2 2,177.3 2025 NonAll Project 498.8 2,378.1 330.5 4,266.8 514.1 452.3 422.2 1,999.0 2,152.2 498.8 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 Project Project 0.1 56.4 58.9 16.5 0.9 3.2 8.9 16.1 16.9 0.1 52.8 58.9 3.2 0.4 2.3 7.9 10.3 2.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 13.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 5.7 14.9 Percent Project 0.00 0.15 0.000 0.31 0.10 0.18 0.24 0.28 0.69

Pumping All Streams/Springs 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

Migration of Poor Quality Groundwater. Over the more than 20 years that N-aquifer water quality has been monitored there has been no appreciable long-term trend or change in quality (Peabody 2005; USGS 2005a). The maximum pumping scenario would result in 33 percent increase over recent past (20042005) pumping for the life of the mining operations. While there is no known reason to suspect that water quality would deteriorate over the life of the mining operations, there is a level of uncertainty not associated with the other options. Nevertheless, any impact likely would not be sufficient to cause a loss of the resource for industrial or domestic use. Due to the level of uncertainty, a minor impact is conservatively assigned. 4.4.2 4.4.2.1 Alternative B – Approval of the LOM Revision Without Approval of the Black Mesa Mining Operation, Coal-Slurry Preparation Plant, and C Aquifer Water-Supply System Black Mesa Complex

Surface-water and groundwater impacts due to mining under this alternative would be similar, but reduced in area, from those described in Alternative A. Effects on the hydrologic regime are controlled by the regulatory requirements of SMCRA and oversight by OSM. Hydrologic impacts are limited in scope and are largely confined to the Black Mesa Complex. 4.4.2.2 4.4.2.2.1 Project Water Supply C Aquifer Water-Supply System

The C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed under this alternative. Thus no impacts would occur. 4.4.2.2.2 N Aquifer Water-Supply System

Under Alternative B, 1,236 af/yr would be pumped from the N aquifer for the Kayenta mining operation from 2006 through 2026, along with 500 af/yr for Black Mesa mining operation reclamation (from 2026 through 2028) and 444 af/yr from 2029 through 2038.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-37

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Cost of Pumping. Drawdown at selected wells due to Alternative B pumping is given in Table 4-14. Table 4-14 N-Aquifer Well Drawdown, Alternative B, Use of N-Aquifer Water for Kayenta Mine and Reclamation of Black Mesa Mine, 2005-2025
Water Level, 2005 (ft msl) All but Project All 5533.4 5465.2 5667.6 5469.1 5488.5 5454.7 5799.2 5790.6 5461.6 5438.6 5712.9 5640.7 5609.2 5516.0 5719.4 5717.8 Water Level, 2025 (ft msl) All but Project All 5516.0 5473.0 5653.2 5546.2 5438.3 5415.3 5781.8 5770.0 5413.3 5382.8 5680.1 5616.4 5594.1 5517.3 5717.8 5715.8 Drawdown (ft)1 All but Project All Project 17.4 -7.9 -25.6 14.4 -77.1 -91.5 50.2 39.4 -10.8 17.4 20.3 3.3 48.2 55.8 7.2 32.8 24.6 -8.5 15.1 -1.3 -16.4 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 Piñon PM6 Rocky Ridge PM2 Rough Rock 10R-111 SOURCE: GeoTrans 2006 NOTE: 1 Negative sign (-) indicates rise in water level.

N-aquifer pumpage under this alternative is somewhat greater than the preferred alternative but significantly less than past pumpage, resulting in a water level rise in wells closest to the Peabody well field. Greatest increased drawdown due to project pumpage occurs at Kykotsmovi and is 7.2 feet. Depth to water at Kykotsmovi in 2004 was approximately 229 feet (Truini et al. 2005). Increased cost of pumping in 2025 due to project drawdown is approximately 3 percent. The impact is considered negligible (refer to Appendix H). As with the other N-aquifer pumping alternatives, impacts on D-aquifer wells would be negligible. Reduction Saturated Thickness. As discussed under the preferred alternative, the N and D aquifers remain confined (fully saturated) under all potential alternatives and thus will experience no reduction in saturated thickness. Diminution of Stream and Spring Flow. Projected groundwater discharge diminution is given in Table 4-15. Under proposed Alternative B project pumpage, the greatest change in discharge, 13.7 af/yr, occurs at Begashibito Wash/Cow Springs. This change is 0.63 percent of the 2005 discharge and is considered negligible. Migration of Poor Quality Groundwater. Over the more than 20 years that N-aquifer water quality has been monitored there has been no appreciable long-term trend or change in quality (Peabody 2005c; USGS 2005a). Since the Alternative B pumping scenario would result in less N-aquifer pumpage in the future, there is no reason to suspect that water quality would change for the worse.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-38

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-15 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, 2005-2025
2005 Pumping All Streams/Springs 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 NonProject 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 2,381.1 330.5 4,274.7 514.1 452.3 422.3 1,999.2 2,153.4 2025 NonProject 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 Project Project 0.1 53.4 58.9 8.6 0.9 3.1 8.8 15.8 15.7 0.1 52.8 58.9 3.2 0.4 2.3 7.9 10.3 2.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 5.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 5.5 13.7 % Project 0.00 0.02 0.000 0.13 0.09 0.17 0.22 0.27 0.63

4.4.3 4.4.3.1

Alternative C – Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) Black Mesa Complex

Surface-water and groundwater impacts due to mining under this alternative would be the same as under Alternative B. Effects on the hydrologic regime are controlled by the regulatory requirements of SMCRA and oversight by OSM. Hydrologic impacts are limited in scope and are largely confined to the Black Mesa Complex. 4.4.3.2 4.4.3.2.1 Project Water Supply C Aquifer Water-Supply System

The C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed under this alternative. 4.4.3.2.2 N Aquifer Water-Supply System

N-aquifer water use under this alternative is the same as under Alternative B and would have identical impacts. 4.5 CLIMATE

The following statements, from the 1990 Final EIS for the Black Mesa – Kayenta Mine Project, would apply to the construction of the coal-slurry and water-supply pipelines and to continued operation of the mines: “Proposed mining activities at the Black Mesa – Kayenta mine would affect the life zone near the ground (microclimate), which would be modified on a local basis until revegetation is successful. The climate of the Western United States (macroclimate) would not be affected by the proposed operations at the Black Mesa – Kayenta mine, inasmuch as the particles needed to generate cloud condensation nuclei would be restricted to areas generally within a few hundred feet of their source and would probably be emitted at ground level. The particles would have very little buoyancy and would settle quickly near their source. Furthermore, no constant source of moisture is available to transform any cloud condensation nuclei into potential precipitation-producing clouds.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-39

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Soil temperatures and near ground [air] temperatures would be higher in areas of bare soil than in areas of vegetated land, and moisture availability in the soil would be reduced. Wind speed directly adjacent to the surface would be slightly higher, causing an increase in erosion and mechanical abrasion of exposed soil be moving particles. Local mine site wind patterns may be changed by post-mining topography. OSM concludes that that the impacts of Alternative 1 on the microclimate and macroclimate would be negligible over the short and long term.” Similarly, the geographic scope and predicted air pollutant emissions of the proposed actions are too small to allow calculation of any measurable impacts of the project on global climate. The assessment of the impacts of global climate change is in its formative phase, and it is not yet possible to know with confidence the net impact of such change. The potential effects of global climate change could alter water supplies, agriculture, sea levels, ultraviolet radiation levels, and natural variances in the ecosystem. Because climate change must be viewed from a global perspective, the magnitude of the emissions potentially contributed by the Black Mesa Project needs to be viewed in that context. Activities associated with mining of coal resources, reconstruction and operation of the coal slurry pipeline, and construction and operation of the C aquifer water-supply system would produce some of the listed greenhouse gases, primarily as a result of power requirements and fuel consumption, activities that produce greenhouse gases. The incremental contribution of greenhouse gases from the proposed Black Mesa Project and alternatives would be negligible when compared to total greenhouse gases produced in the United States. The indirect effects associated with resuming operation of the Mohave Generating Station are discussed in Section 4.24. 4.6 AIR QUALITY

The assessment of air quality impacts is based on compilation of regulated pollutant emissions for the Black Mesa Complex and background sources, and calculation of predicted emissions and gaseous pollutant emissions associated with the proposed replacement of the existing coal-slurry pipeline and construction of the proposed new water-supply system. 4.6.1 LOM Revision Air Pollutant Emissions

Particulate Matter Emissions from Mining Activity. Fugitive PM10 emissions data for the Black Mesa Complex operations for the life of mine were obtained from Peabody (Peabody 2005a). These data include annual PM10 emission rates for overburden and coal removal; operation of vehicles, heavy equipment, the draglines, and overland conveyor systems; the coal preparation facilities; and wind erosion of disturbed surfaces resulting from mining activity. Vehicle exhaust emissions are excluded from these data; see the following paragraph for vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions. This information was developed by Peabody, using USEPA-approved emissions estimation models, based on a variety of input information pertaining to current and planned mining operations. Annual PM10 emissions for most of the background sources within the study area (and within Arizona) were obtained from ADEQ (2005). Annual PM10 emissions information for the Navajo Generating Station was obtained from SRP (2005). Annual PM10 emissions information for the Mohave Generating Station was obtained from SCE (2005). Particulate Matter and Gaseous Air Pollutant Emissions from Vehicle and Equipment Exhaust. Predicted emissions of PM10, carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) resulting from the combustion of fuels (predominantly diesel) in various vehicles and equipment at the Black Mesa Complex were estimated based on a vehicle and equipment inventory supplied by Peabody. For purposes of this EIS, HC are assumed to be VOC. Emission factors for dieselfueled heavy-duty vehicles and off-highway equipment were calculated following the method outlined in

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-40

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

the USEPA report “Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine ModelingCompression-Ignition,” (USEPA 420-P-04-009, April 2004). Emission factors for gasoline-fueled lightduty trucks were obtained from a MOBILE5 model run based on national averaged fleet conditions, at a speed of 10 miles per hour and an ambient temperature of 60oF. Vehicle and equipment exhaust will contain PM2.5. As a very conservative estimate, it can be assumed that all of the PM10 emissions from internal-combustion engines are composed of PM2.5 material. 4.6.2 Pipeline Construction Emissions

Particulate Emissions from Earth-Moving Activity. Predicted PM10 emissions associated with construction of the coal-slurry and water-supply pipelines were calculated using published USEPA emissions factors for heavy construction operations. Specifically, Section 13.2.3, “Heavy Construction Operations,” of the USEPA document, “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors” (AP-42), provides a total uncontrolled PM emission factor of 1.2 tons/acre/month for heavy earth-moving operations similar to the anticipated pipeline construction activities (e.g., clearing, grading, digging trenches, temporary storage piles, backfilling trenches, compaction, etc.) (USEPA, AP-42, January 1995). This emission factor includes generation of fugitive dust due to vehicular traffic associated with the construction activity. Therefore, estimation of vehicle-caused fugitive dust during construction of the pipelines was not determined separately. According to the USEPA document Particulate Emissions From Controlled Construction Activities (EPA-600/R-01-031), uncontrolled PM10 emissions from major cut and fill operations in desert soils are 33 percent of total PM. According to the Midwest Research Institute document Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction Operations, the application of water or dust suppressants on exposed areas would reduce emissions by another 61 percent (Midwest Research Institute 1999). Therefore, a controlled PM10 emission factor of 0.154 tons/acre/month was used to calculate PM10 emissions from earth-moving activity. Table 4-3 provides a breakdown of total acreage affected by reconstruction of the coal slurry pipeline. The total right-of-way area corresponding to the realignment alternatives is 2,319 acres, which provides the highest number of affected acres, and which is used here to estimate worst-case particulate emissions. Table 4-4 provides a breakdown of total acreage affected by construction of the well field, water-supply pipeline and associated facilities (electric transmission and distribution lines, substation and access roads). The total right-of-way area for the western route of the 11,600 af/yr alternative is 1,766 acres, which represents the highest number of acres affected, and which is used here to estimate worst-case particulate emissions. According to the pipeline construction plan in Appendix A-2, it is unlikely that a particular location along the pipeline route would undergo active earth-moving activity for more than a week. For purposes of this impact analysis, it was conservatively assumed that, on average, the entire area affected by pipeline construction would be affected by heavy construction operations for approximately 0.5 month. In actuality, since the total duration of the coal-slurry pipeline construction is anticipated to be 18 months, and the total area that may be disturbed is 2,319 acres, the average amount of time a single acre would be impacted would likely be substantially less than 0.5 month. This same assumption applies to the watersupply pipeline alternatives, as well. An emission factor of 1.2 tons per acre was multiplied against the total project acreage, and then the result was halved, to derive total project uncontrolled PM emissions for each proposed segment of the coal-slurry and water-supply pipeline projects. Particulate and Gaseous Pollutant Emissions from Construction Equipment. Construction vehicles and equipment usually are powered by gasoline or diesel-fired internal combustion engines. Operation of such

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-41

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

equipment results in emissions of PM10, NOx, SO2, CO, and VOC. Vehicle and equipment exhaust would contain PM2.5. As a very conservative estimate, it can be assumed that all of the PM10 emissions from internal-combustion engines are composed of PM2.5 material. The type and number of on-road and off-road vehicles and equipment to be used during construction of the coal-slurry pipeline have not been specified by the project applicants. Therefore, gaseous air pollutant emissions from the pipeline construction were estimated based on a typical array of equipment and vehicles for similar projects. A roster of on-road and off-road vehicles and equipment to be used during construction of the well field and water-supply pipeline were provided by SCE. Table 4-16 shows the roster of equipment and vehicles anticipated for construction of the coal-slurry pipeline, well field, pump stations, and water-supply pipeline. Table 4-16 Equipment List for Typical Construction of Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Water-Supply Pipeline

Water-Supply Pipeline Water CoalPipeline Slurry and Pump Pipeline Well Field Stations Average Engine Equipment Horsepower (hp) Quantity Pickup and crew cab trucks 30 30 30 200 Truck (2-5 tons) 1 12 21 250 Truck (5-15 tons) 17 1 2 250 Bulldozer (rubber tire) 15 5 7 300 Backhoe/Loader/Trencher 17 5 13 150 Crane (10-20 tons) 3 10 300 Crane (75 ton) 1 400 Drill rig 1 5 300 Generator/Welder 10 1 2 200 Grader 1 2 2 125 Roller/Compactor 1 150 Semi-tractor/Trailer 5 9 350 Portable rock crushing plant 4 13 Rock crushing generator 1 200 Portable concrete batch plant 1 Concrete batch plant generator 1 200 Office Trailer 1 1 SOURCE: Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. 2005; Appendix A-2 Typical Well Field and Pipeline Construction, Operation, and Maintenance 2005; Southern California Edison Company Roster of Equipment and Vehicles for the Water-Supply System 2006

Emissions from Pipeline Operations. Air pollutant emissions from operation of the coal-slurry and watersupply pipelines, if any, would be negligible. All pumping equipment on both pipelines would be electric. Therefore, air pollutant emission estimates were not calculated.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-42

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

4.6.3 4.6.3.1

Alternative A (Agencies’ Preferred Alternative) – Approval of the LOM Revision and All Associated Components of the Black Mesa Project Black Mesa Complex

Table 4-17 is a summary of the PM10 emissions associated with the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. This information represents projected worst case emission levels for the life of mine. For both mines, the emissions shown are from projected mining activities for the three worst case years for the life of mine (2006, 2022, and 2023). The basis for selecting the worst case years were high mine production levels and proximity to property boundaries. At Black Mesa, projected production for 2006 according to life of mine plans was 4.6 million tons. During the previous three years (baseline years), prior to temporary suspension of activities at the mine at the end of 2005, Black Mesa produced an average of 4.49 million tons of coal. Emission calculations for 2006 are, therefore, considered a “worst case” representation of baseline emissions. Table 4-17 Annual Fugitive PM10 Emissions from Black Mesa Complex Operations

PM10 Emissions (tons per year) Operation Baseline1 2022 2023 Kayenta mining operation (fugitives) Overburden removal 56.47 67.33 59.34 Coal removal 6.43 6.43 6.43 Draglines/heavy equipment 411.58 423.25 429.48 Coal truck travel 13.68 19.55 19.94 Coal preparation facilities 157.81 158.26 158.26 Wind erosion 379.26 379.26 379.26 Black Mesa mining operation (fugitives) Overburden removal 12.92 13.78 14.56 Coal removal 3.01 4.15 4.15 Draglines/heavy equipment 252.82 311.91 323.78 Coal truck travel 18.65 20.89 22.10 Coal preparation facilities 68.04 42.43 42.43 Wind erosion 171.63 236.88 236.88 0.01 0.01 0.01 Overland conveyor system 147.00 147.00 147.00 Vehicle and equipment exhaust2 1,699.31 1,831.13 1,843.62 Total SOURCE: Peabody Western Coal Company 2005a, 2005b NOTES: 1 Baseline emissions are the life-of-mine projections for 2006 for the Black Mesa Complex including the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations 2 Usage levels of vehicles and equipment are assumed to remain the same through 2026.

Table 4-18 is a summary of the estimated annual PM10 and gaseous air pollutant emissions associated with the exhausts from vehicles and equipment used within the Black Mesa Complex. The PM10 emissions from vehicles are included in the total PM10 emissions for the Black Mesa Complex in Table 4-17. The gaseous air 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-43

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-18

Air Pollutant Emissions from Vehicle and Equipment Exhaust at Black Mesa Complex 1
Average Engine Power (hp) Unit of Emission Factors Emission Factors 1, 2 VOC CO NOx PM10 SO2 VOC Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/year) 3, 4 CO NOx PM10 SO2 1 0 2 50 28 0 2 4 0 3 7 4 0.3 103

Vehicle/Equipment

Quantity

Fuel

Diesel mining equipment
Tractor/backhoe/trencher 36 Diesel 100 g/hp-hr 0.5572 3.8020 5.3827 0.6371 0.1822 3 18 26 3 Crane/large forklift 23 Diesel 400 g/hp-hr 0.2165 2.0991 5.7831 0.2313 0.1641 1 6 18 1 Welder/compressor 24 Diesel 300 g/hp-hr 0.2165 2.0991 5.7831 0.2313 0.1641 3 30 83 3 Dozer /loader 54 Diesel 850 g/hp-hr 0.3058 1.2283 5.9150 0.2201 0.1641 93 373 1,796 67 Large coal haul trucks 25 Diesel 1500 g/hp-hr 0.3058 1.2283 5.9150 0.2201 0.1641 53 213 1,027 38 (150-250 tons) Semi-tractor/trailer 22 Diesel 350 g/hp-hr 0.2165 2.0991 5.7831 0.2313 0.1641 1 5 15 1 Drill 11 Diesel 300 g/hp-hr 0.3298 1.2014 5.3619 0.3094 0.1640 4 16 70 4 Grader /scraper 19 Diesel 600 g/hp-hr 0.2165 2.0991 5.7831 0.2313 0.1641 5 47 131 5 Vehicles Pickup truck 2 Diesel 200 g/hp-hr 0.3298 1.2014 5.3619 0.3094 0.1640 1 2 9 0 2-ton trucks 32 Diesel 250 g/hp-hr 0.3298 1.2014 5.3619 0.3094 0.1640 5 19 85 5 2-5 ton trucks 22 Diesel 300 g/hp-hr 0.3298 1.2014 5.3619 0.3094 0.1640 14 52 234 14 5-15 ton trucks 27 Diesel 400 g/hp-hr 0.2165 2.0991 5.7831 0.2313 0.1641 5 52 145 6 Pickup/crewcab/suburban 70 Gasoline 200 gpm 4.72 46.06 2.41 0.093 0.113 13 128 7 0.3 Total Emissions 201 963 3,643 147 SOURCE: Peabody Western Coal Company 2005a, 2005b; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2004 NOTES: VOC = volatile organic compounds CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers SO2 = sulfur dioxide 1 Emission rates are estimated for both Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations for all years. 2 Emission factors for off-highway diesel fueled vehicle/equipment were calculated following the method outlined in the USEPA report "Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling-Compression-Ignition," USEPA 420-P-04-009, April 2004. For all vehicles and equipment, Tier 1 emission factors were used. 3 Emission factors for gasoline-driven pickup trucks and crew cab were obtained from a MOBILE5 run based on national averaged fleet conditions, at a speed of 10 miles per hour and an ambient temperature of 60oF. 4 Annual emissions for all diesel-fueled vehicle/equipment were calculated based on average engine horsepower for each type of vehicle/equipment and their operating schedule. 5 Annul emissions for pickup trucks and crew cab were calculated based on a traveling distance of 120 miles/day and an operating schedule of 300 days/year. g/hp-hr = grams per horse-power hour gpm = gallons per mile

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-44

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

4.6.3.2

Coal-Slurry and Water-Supply Pipelines

Table 4-19 is a summary of the PM10 emissions associated with earth-moving operations during construction of the coal-slurry and water-supply pipelines. Included are the maximum annual and total project PM10 emissions (controlled and uncontrolled). Table 4-19 Particulate Matter Emissions Associated with Earth-moving Activity During Construction of Coal-Slurry and Water-Supply Pipelines (Alternative A only)
Maximum Maximum Annual 1 Project 2 Total Project 2 Total Annual 1 Uncontrolled Controlled Uncontrolled Controlled PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions (tons) 3 (tons) 4 (tons) 3 (tons) 4

Pipeline Coal-slurry pipeline, existing route 335 131 503 196 2,319 5 with realignments Water-supply pipeline: western 192 75 352 138 1,766 6 alternative, 11,600 af/yr Total work area/emissions 4,085 527 206 855 334 SOURCE: Calculations using Alternative A description and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emissions factors (USEPA Document AP-42) NOTES: 1 Maximum emissions in a 12-month period. 2 Total duration of coal-slurry pipeline construction is 18 months; total duration of water-supply pipeline construction is 22 months. 3 Total PM (1.2 tons/acre/month) * 33 percent PM10 factor. 4 Reduction of uncontrolled PM10 by 61 percent due to watering. 5 From Table 4-4; alternative with highest amount of affected acreage. 6 From Table 4-3; alternative with highest amount of affected acreage.

Work Area (acre)

Table 4-20 is a summary of the PM10 and gaseous pollutant emissions associated with the use of construction vehicles and equipment during construction of the coal-slurry pipeline. Included are both total project (24 months) emissions and maximum annual emissions. Table 4-21 is a summary of the PM10 and gaseous pollutant emissions associated with the use of construction vehicles and equipment during construction of the C aquifer water-supply pipeline. Included are both total project (22 months) emissions and maximum annual emissions. The equipment and vehicles used during construction are substantially fewer in number than levels typically associated with measurable air pollutant impacts, such as congested urban areas. In addition, vehicles would be mobile, rarely in one location for more than a few minutes, and the equipment would be transient, moving to new locations along the pipeline routes every few days. Therefore, the gaseous air pollutants associated with vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions would have minor, localized impacts within the immediate vicinity of ongoing construction activity, but negligible impacts on air quality in the region.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-45

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-22 summarizes how PM10 emissions were calculated for the rock crushing plant used to make the gravel that would underlie the pipeline. Table 4-23 summarizes how PM10 emissions were calculated for the portable concrete batch plant used to produce concrete for a variety of uses at the well field, pipeline crossings under roads and streams, and pump stations. Table 4-24 summarizes the maximum particulate and gaseous pollutant emissions, from earth-moving activity and operation of equipment and vehicles, resulting from the construction of the well field and water supply pipeline. Table 4-22 PM10 Emissions from Portable Rock Crushing Plant 1
Amount Processed 3 (TPH) 20 20 Hours Operated (hr/yr) 3,000 3,000 Emission Factor (lb/ton/unit) 0.00017 0.00017 Maximum Annual Emissions (TPY) 0.005 0.005 Total Construction Emissions (tons) 0.009 0.009

Source 2 Quantity Batch drop operations 1 Loading feed hopper 1 Pneumatic loading of 0 20 3,000 0.0049 0.0 0.0 lime silo Lime transfer onto 0 20 3,000 0.000046 0.0 0.0 conveyor belts Primary crushing 1 20 3,000 0.00054 0.016 0.030 Secondary crushing 1 20 3,000 0.00054 0.016 0.030 Tertiary crushing 0 20 3,000 0.00054 0.0 0.0 Fine crushing 0 20 3,000 0.0022 0.0 0.0 Screening 1 20 3,000 0.00074 0.022 0.041 Fine screening 0 20 3,000 0.0022 0.0 0.0 Stackers 1 20 3,000 0.00017 0.005 0.009 Conveyor transfer 1 20 3,000 0.000046 0.001 0.003 points TOTAL 0.07 0.13 SOURCE: Appendix A-2 Typical Well Field and Pipeline Construction, Operation, and Maintenance; URS Corporation 2006 NOTES: PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers. hr/yr = hours per year lb/ton/unit = pound per ton per unit TPH = ton per hour TPY = ton per year 1 PM10 Emissions from Portable Rock Crushing Plant are based on ADEQ Annual Air Emissions Inventory Questionnaire For Facilities Permitted to Operate a Crushing and Screening Plant 2 Fugitive Emissions from Haul Roads and Storage Piles as well as Truck Unloading Emissions have already been accounted for in Table 4-10: Particulate Matter Emissions Associated with Construction of Coal-Slurry and Water-Supply Pipelines (Alternative A only). 3 Amount Processed was estimated based on a calculated volume of 2,136,673 ft3 of crushed rock (density 100 lb/ft3) needed to complete the project over the span of 22 months.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-46

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-20
Average Engine Power (hp) 250 250 500 300 125 150 200 200 200

Air Pollutant Emissions from Construction Vehicles and Equipment - Coal-Slurry Pipeline (Alternative A)
Load Factor 1 Unit of Emission Factors g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/mile Emission Factors 2, 3 Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/year) 4, 5 Total Construction Emissions (tons/year) 6 SO2 0.48 8.16 6.93 8.64 0.24 2.03 1.39 0.80 0.26 29

PM10 SO2 VOC CO NOx PM10 SO2 VOC CO NOx PM10 VOC CO NOx Vehicle/Equipment Quantity Fuel Trucks (2-ton) 1 Diesel 0.59 0.33 1.20 5.36 0.35 0.66 0.16 0.59 2.61 0.17 0.32 0.24 0.88 3.92 0.26 Trucks (5-15 tons) 17 Diesel 0.59 0.33 1.20 5.36 0.35 0.66 2.73 9.96 44.45 2.89 5.44 4.10 14.94 66.67 4.34 Sideboom 10 Diesel 0.43 0.21 1.37 6.09 0.21 0.65 1.47 9.75 43.27 1.52 4.62 2.20 14.63 64.90 2.28 Dozer 15 Diesel 0.59 0.22 2.10 5.78 0.27 0.66 1.90 18.42 50.76 2.38 5.76 2.85 27.64 76.14 3.57 Grader 1 Diesel 0.59 0.36 1.39 5.43 0.39 0.66 0.09 0.34 1.32 0.10 0.16 0.13 0.51 1.99 0.14 Tractor/backhoe/loader 17 Diesel 0.21 0.79 2.34 6.29 0.64 0.76 1.40 4.14 11.14 1.14 1.35 2.09 6.21 16.71 1.70 Air compressor/generator 5 Diesel 0.43 0.28 0.79 5.64 0.28 0.65 0.40 1.12 8.02 0.39 0.92 0.61 1.67 12.04 0.59 Welder 5 Diesel 0.21 0.65 2.02 6.21 0.57 0.77 0.45 1.40 4.31 0.40 0.53 0.68 2.10 6.47 0.60 Pickup trucks and crew cab 30 Gasoline 3.150 30.210 2.200 0.098 0.113 4.88 46.75 3.40 0.15 0.17 7.31 70.13 5.11 0.23 Total Emissions 13 92 169 9 19 20 139 254 14 SOURCE: URS 2006 NOTES: VOC = volatile organic compounds CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers SO2 = sulfur dioxide g/hp-hr = grain per horsepower-hour 1 Load Factor values were obtained from USEPA’s Newest Draft Nonroad Emission Inventory Model, which can be found at www.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/nr-eiip4.wpd 2 Emission factors for off-highway diesel fueled vehicle/equipment were calculated following the method outlined in the USEPA report “Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling-Compression-Ignition,” USEPA 420-P-04-009, April 2004. For all vehicles and equipment, Tier 1 emission factors were used. 3 Emission factors for pickup trucks and crew cab were obtained from MOBILE5 run based on national averaged fleet conditions, at a speed of 15 miles per hour and an ambient temperature of 60 oF. 4 Annual emissions for all diesel-fueled vehicle/equipment were calculated based on average engine horsepower for each type of vehicle/equipment, and an operating schedule of 3,000 hours/year. 5 Annul emissions for pickup trucks and crew cab were calculated based on a traveling distance of 150 miles/day and an operating schedule of 6 days/week and 52 weeks/year. 6 Total emissions from pipeline construction are based on 18-months of construction.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-47

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-21

Air Pollutant Emissions from Construction Vehicles and Equipment – Water-Supply Pipeline (Eastern and Western Routes)
Main Transmission Pipeline and Pump Station Construction Phases and Duration in Months Electrical Supply Line Electrical Substation Road Improvements Main Transmission Pipeline Directional Boring

Well Field Construction Phases and Duration in Months

Electrical Supply

Collector Pipe

Vehicle / Equipment

Fuel

Pump Station

Construction Phase Duration in Months Truck (2-5 ton) Truck (5 – 15 tons) Bulldozer (Rubber Tire) Backhoe/Loader/Trenc her Crane (10-20 tone) Crane (75 ton) Drill Rig Generator Grader Roller/Compactor Semi-tractor/Trailer Welding Machine Portable Rock Crushing Plant Generator Portable Concrete Batch Plant Generator Vehicle / Equipment Pickup/Crewcab Truck Total Emissions Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Fuel Gasoline
0.59 0.59 0.59 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.59 0.43 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.21 0.43 0.43 -

1

22

22

Storage Tank

Access Roads

AvgerageEngi Load Factor 1 ne Power (hp)

Well Sites

Equivalent Vehicle Usage (Machinehours)

Emission Factors 2, 3 Unit of Emission Factors

Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/year) 4, 5

Total Construction Emissions (tons/year) 6

3

22

22

2

14

12

14

1 VOC 3 1 3 1 1 123,000 9,250 30,000 79,500 50,750 3,500 20,000 7,250 11,500 250 56,500 50,000 5,500 3,500 g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr 0.33 0.33 0.22 0.79 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.28 0.36 0.36 0.22 0.65 0.28 0.28 VOC 3.15 CO 1.20 1.20 2.10 2.34 1.37 1.37 1.37 0.79 1.39 1.39 2.10 2.02 0.79 0.79 CO 30.21 NOx 5.36 5.36 5.78 6.29 6.09 6.09 6.09 5.64 5.43 5.43 5.78 6.21 5.64 5.64 NOx 2.2 PM10 0.35 0.35 0.27 0.64 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.28 0.39 0.39 0.27 0.57 0.28 0.28 PM10 0.098 SO2 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.76 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.77 0.65 0.65 SO2 0.113 VOC 3.60 0.27 0.69 1.19 0.40 0.04 0.44 0.11 0.18 0.00 1.52 0.82 0.94 0.06 VOC 4.87 15 CO 13.10 0.99 6.70 3.52 2.64 0.24 2.92 0.29 0.71 0.02 14.72 2.55 2.51 0.18 CO 46.74 98 NOx 58 4.40 18.46 9.47 11.70 1.08 12.95 2.12 2.77 0.07 40.56 7.84 11.63 1.28 NOx 3.40 186 PM10 3.81 0.29 0.87 0.97 0.41 0.04 0.46 0.10 0.20 0.01 1.90 0.72 0.83 0.06 PM10 0.15 11 SO2 7.16 0.54 2.10 1.15 1.25 0.11 1.38 0.24 0.33 0.01 4.60 0.97 0.79 0.15 SO2 0.17 21 VOC 6.59 0.50 1.27 2.18 0.73 0.07 0.80 0.20 0.34 0.01 2.78 1.50 0.18 0.12 VOC 8.94 26 CO 24.02 1.81 12.28 6.46 4.83 0.44 5.35 0.54 1.30 0.03 26.99 4.67 0.51 0.33 CO 85.69 175 NOx 107.20 8.06 33.84 17.36 21.45 1.97 23.75 3.88 5.08 0.13 74.36 14.37 3.68 2.34 NOx 6.24 324

Quantity of Diesel Powered Construction Vehicles/Equipment
250 250 300 150 300 400 300 200 125 150 350 200 200 200 Avg. Engine Power (hp) 200 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 4 2 1 2 1 1 2 4 3 1 1 6 2 8 4 1 4 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 4 1 2 6 1 6 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 -

PM10
6.98 0.52 1.59 1.77 0.75 0.07 0.84 0.19 0.37 0.01 3.48 1.33 0.18 0.12 PM10 0.28 18

SO2
13.12 0.99 3.84 2.11 2.29 0.21 2.54 0.45 0.61 0.02 8.44 1.77 0.42 0.27 SO2 0.32 37

Quantity of Gasoline Powered Vehicles
30

Miles/yr (5)
46,800

Unit of Emission Factors
g/mile

SOURCE: Appendix A-2 Typical Well Field and Pipeline Construction, Operation, and Maintenance; URS Corporation 2006 NOTES: VOC = volatile organic compounds CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers. SO2 = sulfur dioxide g/hp-hr = grain per horsepower-hour 1 Load Factor values were obtained from USEPA’s Newest Draft Nonroad Emission Inventory Model, which can be found at www.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/nr-eiip4.wpd 2 Emission factors for off-highway diesel fueled vehicle/equipment were calculated following the method outlined in the USEPA report “Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling-Compression-Ignition,” USEPA 420-P-04-009, April 2004. For all vehicles and equipment, Tier 1 emission factors were used. 3 Emission factors for pickup trucks and crew cab were obtained from MOBILE5 run based on national averaged fleet conditions, at a speed of 15 miles per hour and an ambient temperature of 60oF. 4 Annual emissions for all diesel-fueled vehicle/equipment were calculated based on average engine horsepower for each type of vehicle/equipment, and an operating schedule of 3,000 hours/year. 5 Annul emissions for pickup trucks and crew cab were calculated based on a traveling distance of 150 miles/day and an operating schedule of 6 days/week and 52 weeks/year. 6 Total emissions from pipeline construction are based on worst-case scenario of the 11,600 af/yr alternative.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-48

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-23

PM10 Emissions from Portable Concrete Batch Plant 1
Hours Operated (hr/yr) 3,000 Emission Factor (lb/ton/unit) 0.00016 Maximum Annual Emissions (TPY) 0.360 Total Construction Emissions (tons) 0.660

Throughput Rate 3 (TPH) Source 2 Batch drop operations – 1,499 aggregate Batch drop operations – sand 1,499 3,000 0.00004 0.090 0.165 Aggregate transfer to feed 1,499 3,000 0.00016 0.360 0.660 hopper Sand transfer to feed hopper 1,499 3,000 0.00004 0.090 0.165 Aggregate transfer to elevated 1,499 3,000 0.00016 0.0360 0.660 bins Sand transfer to elevated bins 1,499 3,000 0.00004 0.090 0.165 Aggregate transfer to weigh 1,499 3,000 0.00016 0.360 0.660 hoppers Sand transfer to weigh 1,499 3,000 0.00004 0.090 0.165 hoppers Cement transfer to silo 1,499 3,000 0.00005 0.112 0.206 Cement transfer to weigh 1,499 3,000 0.001 2.248 4.122 hopper Mixer loading – truck mix 1,499 3,000 0.0073 16.413 30.091 Mixer loading – central mix 1,499 3,000 0.00061 1.372 2.514 Conveyor transfer points 1,499 3,000 0.000022 0.049 0.091 (aggregate) Conveyor transfer points 1,499 3,000 0.000017 0.038 0.070 (sand) Screening 1,499 3,000 0.00035 0.787 1.443 Fine screening 1,499 3,000 0.001 2.248 4.122 TOTAL 25.07 45.96 SOURCE: Appendix A-2 Typical Well Field and Pipeline Construction, Operation, and Maintenance 2006; URS Corporation 2006 NOTES: PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers. hr/yr = hours per year lb/ton/unit = pound per ton per unit TPH = ton per hour TPY = ton per year 1 PM10 Emissions from Portable Concrete Batch Plant are based on ADEQ Annual Air Emissions Inventory Questionnaire For Facilities Permitted to Operate a Concrete Batch Plant 2 Fugitive Emissions from Haul Roads and Storage Piles as well as Truck Unloading Emissions have already been accounted for in Table 4-19: Particulate Matter Emissions Associated with Construction of Coal-Slurry and Water-Supply Pipelines (Alternative A only). 3 Concrete throughput rate was estimated based on 1,278 yds3 of concrete (density 150 lb/ft3) of needed to complete the project over the span of 14 months.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-49

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-24

Annual Emissions From Construction of Water-Supply Pipeline (Alternative A)

Emissions PM10 (tons) VOC (tons) CO (tons) NOX (tons) SO2 (tons) Equipment/Vehicle 11 15 98 186 21 combustion 1 Portable rock crushing 0.07 plant 2 Portable concrete 25 batch plant 3 4 Earth-moving 75 TOTAL 111 15 98 186 21 SOURCE: URS Corporation 2006 NOTES: VOC = volatile organic compounds CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers SO2 = sulfur dioxide 1 Equipment/Vehicle combustion emissions includes water-supply pipeline total construction emissions from Tables 4-12. 2 Portable rock crushing plant emissions are from Table 4-22. 3 Portable concrete batch plant emissions are from Table 4-23. 4 Earth-moving emissions are project total controlled PM10 emissions from Table 4-19.

4.6.3.3

Total Air Quality Impacts of Alternative A

Table 4-25 provides a summary for Alternative A of the maximum annual PM10 emissions for the mining operations and construction of the coal-slurry and water-supply system. Estimates for several years that reflect annual project emissions before, during, and after construction of the pipelines are included in this table. The timelines in Table 4-25 show that the Kayenta mining operation would continue through 2026; water-supply pipeline construction would occur from January 2008 through late 2009 (22 months); coalslurry pipeline construction would occur from January 2008 through July 2009 (19 months); and Black Mesa with the coal-washing plant would operate 2010 through 2026. Table 4-25
Source

Maximum Annual Controlled PM10 Emissions During and After Pipeline Construction (Alternative A)
20061 Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/year) 20071 20081 20091 2010-20262

Black Mesa and Kayenta 1,699 1,699 1,699 1,699 1,843 mining operations3 Coal-slurry pipeline 0 0 140 70 0 C aquifer water-supply 0 0 111 63 0 system4 Increase over existing 0 0 251 133 144 conditions SOURCE: Calculated from Tables 4-17 and 4-18 data, and Peabody Western Coal Company 2005 NOTES: PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters less than or equal to 10 micrometers. 1 Assumes baseline emissions for Black Mesa Mine. 2 Assumes Black Mesa mining operation production is 6.35 million tons per year with wash plant after 2009. 3 The projected worst case emissions for 2006 were used for years 2006 through 2009; the 2010 to 2026 emissions are the worst case year during that period, which was 2023. 4 The water-supply pipeline western route alternative has the highest predicted emissions.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2006

4-50

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences

The worst-case increase in PM10 emission rates from the project is 251 tons per year and occurs during 2008, when both the water-supply and coal-slurry pipelines are under construction. This increase represents approximately 4.4 percent of total regional point source PM10 emissions (projected Black Mesa Complex baseline emissions and other background sources). As described in Chapter 3, the highest annual average ambient concentration of PM10 recorded between 2003 and 2005 by the monitors at the Black Mesa Complex was 37.7 µg/m3 (refer to Table 3-11), which is 75.4 percent of the NAAQS value of 50 µg/m3. Therefore, a temporary 4.4 percent increase in regional emissions would not be anticipated to cause an exceedance of the NAAQS. Consequently, the air quality impacts associated with Alternative A are considered minor. New Source Review of new and modified facilities in areas with acceptable air quality evaluates the facilities’ ability to comply with the NAAQS and the PSD increments. As described in Section 3.6, an “attainment” area is a geographic area in which existing levels of air quality have been designated by USEPA as meeting the NAAQS. An area is designated as “unclassified” if the Agency lacks sufficient air monitoring data to assign either an ‘attainment’ or ‘non-attainment’ designation to that area. The areas surrounding the Black Mesa Complex and the pipeline routes are designated as either attainment or unclassified. 4.6.3.3.1 Assessment of NAAQS Conformance Excavation activities during pipeline construction have the potential to create transient concentrations that may exceed the NAAQS in a limited area. However, the ambient impacts of such transient emissions are difficult to model with accuracy. Mitigation measures for Alternative A would include application of water to vehicle traffic routes and excavation zones, avoidance of excavation during adverse wind conditions, use of gravel on heavier-use roadways, and limitations on vehicle speed on unpaved areas. Combinations of these measures would be used to fit local conditions. Even with such measures, it is possible that the PM10 standard for 24-hour averaging periods may be exceeded close to excavation areas during periods of construction activity. These localized exceedances would not continue once the activity in a specific area is completed for that day. The estimated emissions of PM10 and other pollutants for the entire scope of pipeline construction activities are tabulated in Section 4.6.3.2. Only a small fraction of these emissions would affect any given location along the pipeline route during a single day. It is the daily emissions that more realistically reflect the PM10 emission level that could affect NAAQS compliance on a localized basis. A refined dispersion modeling analysis was performed to characterize the effects of operation of the Black Mesa Complex with the proposed coal-wash