United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

and

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

Environmental Assessment 

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA 

October 12, 2017

Federal Coal Lease (COC-62920) Modification and

Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

Location: King II Mine, La Plata County, Colorado

Applicant/Address: GCC Energy, LLC

6473 County Road 120

Hesperus, Colorado 81326 

BLM Tres Rios Field Office

29211 Highway 184

Dolores, Colorado 81323

Phone: (970) 882-7296

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,

Western Region

1999 Broadway, Suite 3320

Denver, Colorado 80202

Phone: (303) 293-5000

Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Purpose and Need for Action ..............................................................................................................12

1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................12

1.2 Background...................................................................................................................................13

1.3 Lead and Cooperating Agencies...................................................................................................16

1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action....................................................................................................19

1.5 Need for the Proposed Action.......................................................................................................19

1.6 Decisions to be Made....................................................................................................................20

1.7 Conformance with Applicable Land Use Plan(s) .........................................................................20

1.8 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans ..................................................................21

1.8.1 Federal Agencies ...............................................................................................................21

1.8.2 State Agencies, Laws and Regulations..............................................................................23

1.8.3 Local Agencies, Laws and Regulations.............................................................................24

1.9 Scoping, Public Involvement, and Issues .....................................................................................25

1.9.1 Internal Scoping BLM and OSMRE (2017)......................................................................25

1.9.2 External BLM Scoping (2012) ..........................................................................................25

1.9.3 Annual External Scoping by OSMRE (2015)....................................................................27

1.9.4 External Scoping La Plata County (2012-2016)................................................................29

1.9.5 2017 Supplemental Scoping Comment Summary .............................................................31

1.9.6 Draft EA Public Comment and Agency Response ............................................................33

1.10 Resources Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis...................................................33

2. Proposed Action and Alternatives(s)..................................................................................................35

2.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................................35

2.1.1 Legal Description of Lease Modification ..........................................................................35

2.1.2 Coal Removal ....................................................................................................................36

2.1.3 Coal Production and Transport..........................................................................................37
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

October 2017

- ii -

2.1.4 Road Improvements to CR 120 .........................................................................................41

2.1.5 Water Supply .....................................................................................................................43

2.1.6 Reclamation.......................................................................................................................43

2.1.7 Design Features .................................................................................................................44

2.2 No Action......................................................................................................................................50

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study......................................................50

2.3.1 Leasing and Mining Alternatives.......................................................................................51

2.3.2 Coal Transportation Alternatives.......................................................................................51

2.3.3 Alternatives Eliminated Following Initial Screening ........................................................53

2.3.4 Coal Transportation Alternatives Evaluated in Detail.......................................................56

2.3.5 Comparison of Coal Transportation Alternatives Evaluated in Detail ..............................63

3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences...............................................................66

3.1 Air Quality and Climate................................................................................................................67

3.1.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................67

3.1.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ....................................................................................76

3.1.3 Impacts from the No Action Alternative ...........................................................................86

3.2 Health and Safety..........................................................................................................................86

3.2.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................86

3.2.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ....................................................................................89

3.2.3 Impacts from the No Action ..............................................................................................90

3.3 Geology and Minerals...................................................................................................................90

3.3.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................90

3.3.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ....................................................................................92

3.3.3 Impacts from the No Action ..............................................................................................94

3.4 Paleontological Resources............................................................................................................94

3.4.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................94
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

- iii -

3.4.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ....................................................................................95

3.4.3 Impacts from the No Action ..............................................................................................96

3.5 Soils..............................................................................................................................................96

3.5.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................96

3.5.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ....................................................................................98

3.5.3 Impacts from the No Action ..............................................................................................99

3.6 Water Resources...........................................................................................................................99

3.6.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................99

3.6.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ..................................................................................106

3.6.3 Impacts from the No Action ............................................................................................110

3.7 Vegetation...................................................................................................................................110

3.7.1 Affected Environment .....................................................................................................110

3.7.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ..................................................................................114

3.7.3 Impacts from the No Action ............................................................................................116

3.8 Wildlife (Aquatic and Terrestrial) ..............................................................................................116

3.8.1 Affected Environment .....................................................................................................116

3.8.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ..................................................................................121

3.8.3 Impacts from the No Action ............................................................................................123

3.9 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species..........................................................................124

3.9.1 Affected Environment .....................................................................................................124

3.9.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ..................................................................................130

3.9.3 Impacts from the No Action ............................................................................................132

3.10 Access and Transportation........................................................................................................133

3.10.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................133

3.10.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ................................................................................134

3.10.3 Impacts from the No Action ..........................................................................................135
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

- iv -

3.11 Noise and Vibration..................................................................................................................136

3.11.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................136

3.11.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ................................................................................138

3.11.3 Impacts from the No Action ..........................................................................................140

3.12 Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................140

3.12.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................140

3.12.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ................................................................................140

3.12.3 Impacts from the No Action ..........................................................................................141

3.13 Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................141

3.13.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................141

3.13.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ................................................................................144

3.13.3 Impacts from the No Action ..........................................................................................145

3.14 Land Use...................................................................................................................................145

3.14.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................145

3.14.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ................................................................................146

3.14.3 Impacts from the No Action ..........................................................................................147

3.15 Socioeconomics........................................................................................................................147

3.15.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................147

3.15.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ................................................................................150

3.15.3 Impacts from the No Action ..........................................................................................154

3.16 Environmental Justice...............................................................................................................154

3.16.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................154

3.16.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action ................................................................................155

3.16.3 Impacts from the No Action ..........................................................................................156

4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................................157

4.1 Past and Present Actions.............................................................................................................157
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

- v -

4.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions.....................................................................................159

4.3 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................................160

4.3.1 Cumulative Air Quality and Climate...............................................................................160

4.3.2 Cumulative Geology and Minerals..................................................................................174

4.3.3 Cumulative Soils..............................................................................................................175

4.3.4 Cumulative Water Resources ..........................................................................................175

4.3.5 Cumulative Vegetation ....................................................................................................176

4.3.6 Cumulative Wildlife (Aquatic and Terrestrial)................................................................176

4.3.7 Cumulative Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species...........................................177

4.3.8 Cumulative Access and Transportation ...........................................................................178

4.3.9 Cumulative Noise and Vibration .....................................................................................178

4.3.10 Cumulative Cultural Resources.....................................................................................179

4.3.11 Cumulative Socioeconomics .........................................................................................179

5. Supporting Information ....................................................................................................................180

5.1 Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted........................................................180

5.2 List of Preparers..........................................................................................................................180

5.2.1 BLM and OSMRE Preparers...........................................................................................181

5.2.2 Cooperating Agencies......................................................................................................182

6. References...........................................................................................................................................183

6.1 References Cited.........................................................................................................................183

Appendix A – Maps ................................................................................................................................A-1

Appendix B – Public Comment/ Comment Response Matrix.............................................................B-1

Appendix C – Water Quality .................................................................................................................C-1

Appendix D – Biological Assessment.....................................................................................................D-1
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

- vi -

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. King II Mine coal production and truck trips............................................................................15

Table 1-2. Bureau of Land Management external scoping summary .........................................................26

Table 1-3. OSMRE public comments and response to oversight outreach.................................................27

Table 1-4. Hay Gulch Citizen Advisory Panel Recommendations to La Plata County..............................30

Table 1-5. Issues identified through scoping ..............................................................................................32

Table 2-1. Parcels proposed for addition to the existing coal lease ............................................................36

Table 2-2. Allowable loaded coal truck traffic along CR 120 through each phase of the RIA ..................38

Table 2-3. Estimated coal production through life of lease modification...................................................38

Table 2-4. Coal transport delivery ..............................................................................................................39

Table 2-5. Anticipated new ground disturbance from CR 120 improvements ...........................................41

Table 2-6. Reclamation Timetable..............................................................................................................44

Table 2-7. Transportation coal hauling alternatives....................................................................................52

Table 2-8. Comparison of transportation alternatives evaluated in detail...................................................64

Table 3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards.................................................................................................68

Table 3-2. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Trends..........................................................................70

Table 3-3. 2014 NEI Data (tons/year).........................................................................................................71

Table 3-4. CDPHE Permit 09LP0202F Emissions.....................................................................................77

Table 3-5. Unpermitted Source Emissions (max tons per year) .................................................................78

Table 3-6. Indirect Mobile Source Emissions (max tons/year)...................................................................79

Table 3-7. Pueblo Facility King II Emissions (max tons/year)...................................................................80

Table 3-8. Tijeras Facility King II Emissions (max tons/year)...................................................................80

Table 3-9. King II Remaining Coal Combustion Emissions (max tons/year) ............................................82

Table 3-10. Particulate matter concentrations estimated for CR 120 .........................................................85

Table 3-11. Stratigraphy of Coal Lease Modification Area........................................................................91

Table 3-12. Mapped soil types within the existing and proposed lease boundary......................................97
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

- vii -

Table 3-13. Land Cover Types in the Vegetation Study Area..................................................................111

Table 3-14. Cowardin classifications of mapped wetlands in the project area and vicinity .....................114

Table 3-15. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern – Region 16 (Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau) 

and Colorado Partners in Flight Priority Species – Physiographic Area 87 (Colorado Plateau)..............118

Table 3-16. Bureau of Land Management Listed Sensitive Species ........................................................124

Table 3-17. Summary of effects analysis for Federally Listed Species considered in the analysis of the 

Proposed Action........................................................................................................................................128

Table 3-18. Average Annual Daily Trip Data for the Affected Area .......................................................134

Table 3-19. Population for Affected Area ................................................................................................148

Table 3-20. Employment and Income for the Affected Area....................................................................149

Table 3-21. IMPLAN Results for Proposed Action..................................................................................151

Table 4-1. Maximum Source Group Contributions ..................................................................................165

Table 4-2. Maximum Source Group Contributions ..................................................................................167

Table 5-1. List of all persons, agencies and organizations consulted for purposes of this EA.................180

Table 5-2. List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................181

Table 5-3. List of Cooperating Non-BLM Preparers................................................................................182

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1. CARMMS Mining Results.....................................................................................................162

Figure 4-2. CARMMS 2021 TRFO High Oil and Gas Scenario Emissions.............................................163

Figure 4-3. CARMMS TRFO Oil and Gas Results..................................................................................164

Figure 4-4. CARMMS BLM CO Cumulative Oil and Gas Tracking (federal) ........................................165

Figure 4-5. CARMMS BLM CO Results (federal)...................................................................................166

Figure 4-6. CARMMS Cumulative “one atmosphere” Results................................................................168

Figure 4-7. CARMMS Cumulative Changes (future minus base)............................................................169

Figure 4-8. Global GHG Emissions Projections.......................................................................................171

Figure 4-9. CO2e Atmospheric Concentration Projections.......................................................................171
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

- viii -

LIST OF MAPS

Map A-1. Vicinity Map.............................................................................................................................A-2

Map A-2. Project Area Map......................................................................................................................A-3

Map A-3. Surface Water Map...................................................................................................................A-4

Map A-4. Proposed Coal Haul Routes......................................................................................................A-5

Map A-5. Direct and Indirect Air Analysis Areas....................................................................................A-6

Map A-6. Soils Map..................................................................................................................................A-7

Map A-7. CR 120 Roadway Current Conditions and Proposed Improvements .......................................A-8

Map A-8. “A” Coal Seam Outcrop and Upper Surface Contour Map......................................................A-9

Map A-9. Vegetation Map ......................................................................................................................A-10

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

 ̊F degrees Fahrenheit

°C degrees Celsius

AADT annual average daily traffic

ADT average daily trips

AHMP All Hazard Mitigation Plan

APCD Air Pollution Control Division

AQRV Air Quality Related Values

ASLM Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management

BA biological assessment

BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practice

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe

BO biological opinion

Btu British thermal units

CAA Clean Air Act of 1970

CCR Code of Colorado Regulations

CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

CDRMS Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety

CDS CDS Environmental Services, LLC

CDNR Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

- ix -

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CDWR Colorado Division of Water Resources

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane

CHIA Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment

CIAA cumulative impacts analysis area

CMM coal mine methane

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

Coal Act Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act of 1979

COGCC Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

Colorado Coal Rules Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining

COPIF Colorado Partners in Flight

County La Plata County, Colorado

CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife

CR County Road

CRS Colorado Revised Statute(s)

dB decibels

dBA A-weighted decibel

USDOI United States Department of the Interior

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

ESA Endangered Species Act

FLIGHT Facility Level GHG Tool

FLMFPD Fort Lewis Mesa Fire Protection District

FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

GCC GCC Energy, LLC

GHG greenhouse gas 

GWP global warming potential

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

Hg mercury

HGCAP Hay Gulch Citizen Advisory Panel

Hz Hertz

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

km kilometer

lbs. pounds
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

- x -

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

LPC La Plata County, Colorado

LPCLUC La Plata County Land Use Code

LSC LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

LUP Land Use Permit

m meters

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MLA Mineral Leasing Act of 1920

MMBtu one million British thermal units

MP mile post

MPDD mining plan decision document

mph miles per hour

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NH3 ammonia

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMPM New Mexico Principal Meridian

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx oxides of nitrogen

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O3 ozone

OEM Office of Emergency Management

OPC opinion of probable cost

OSMRE Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement

PaleoWest PaleoWest Archaeology

PAP Permit Application Package

Pb lead

PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification

PHC Probable Hydrologic Consequences

PL Public Law

PM10 particulate matter emissions that are less than 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter emissions that are less than of 2.5 microns in diameter

ppm parts per million

PRPA Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

R2P2 Resource Recovery and Protection Plan

RCP Representative Concentration Pathways

RF radiative forcing
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

- xi -

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

RHS Resource Hydrogeologic Services, Inc.

RIA Road Improvements Agreement

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROW right-of-way

SCC source classification code

SH State Highway

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIP State Implementation Plan

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants

T&E threatened and endangered

TDF tire derived fuel

TDS total dissolved solids

Tg teragrams

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

TIA Traffic Impact Assessment

tons/yr. tons per year

TR Technical Revision

TRFO Tres Rios Field Office

U.S. United States

UMU Ute Mountain Ute

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VOCs volatile organic compounds
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-12-

1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Introduction

On December 28, 2010, GCC Energy, LLC (GCC), a subsidiary of Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, 

submitted an application to the Colorado State Director of the United States Department of the Interior 

(USDOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to modify Federal Coal Lease COC-62920 pursuant to 

regulations in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3432. The application was amended on October 17, 

2014 to adjust the parcels submitted in the modification and to clarify legal land descriptions for a total 

modification request of 950.55 acres. As the agency charged with administering the affected federal 

mineral estate, the BLM must analyze the potential environmental impacts to determine whether to 

approve the proposed lease modification.

On March 20, 2017, GCC submitted a permit application package (consisting of a Permit Revision 

application and a Permit Renewal Application) to the USDOI Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement (OSMRE) to revise Federal Permit CO-0106A to mine the additional lease acreage proposed 

for the King II Mine. As the regulatory authority with jurisdiction by law to approve, disapprove, or 

conditionally approve the federal mine permit (including permit renewals and revisions), and to provide 

oversight authority of the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (CDRMS) mine permit, 

OSMRE must analyze the potential environmental impacts to determine whether or not to approve the

permit revision and renew the federal permit.

Both agencies recognized that it is of mutual benefit for the BLM and OSMRE to join as Co-Lead 

Agencies in preparing a single Environmental Assessment (EA) to disclose and analyze the potential 

environmental effects of GCC’s proposed lease modification and mining plan revision (hereafter referred 

to as the “proposed project”). This EA is prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for 

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508); USDOI regulations for implementation of NEPA (43 CFR 

Part 46); USDOI Departmental Manual Part 516; and OSMRE guidance, including the OSMRE 

Handbook on Procedures for Implementing NEPA (OSMRE 1989), and the BLM NEPA Handbook (H1790-1) (BLM 2008). Information gathered from federal, state, and local agencies, GCC, publicly 

available literature, and in-house OSMRE and BLM sources were used in the preparation of this EA.

An EA is a site-specific analysis of potential environmental effects that could result in the implementation 

of the Proposed Action or an alternative. The EA will assist the BLM and OSMRE in project planning, 

ensuring compliance with the NEPA, and in making a determination as to whether any “significant” 

effects could result from the Proposed Action and Alternatives. Significance is defined by the NEPA and 

found in 40 CFR 1508.27.

An EA provides analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or 

a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI). If following the EA analysis, the BLM and OSMRE 

determine that a project could have “significant” effects that cannot be mitigated to “less than 

significant,” then an EIS will be prepared for the project. If not, then a Decision Record may be signed for 

the EA that describes the decision. The decision can consist of a single alternative or a combination of 

alternatives. The Decision Record and FONSI describe why the implementation of the selected alternative 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-13-

would not result in significant environmental effects beyond those already addressed in the BLM Tres 

Rios Field Office (TRFO)/San Juan National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Final 

San Juan National Forest and Proposed TRFO Land and Resource Management Plan (USDI/USDA 

September 2013). Following issuance of a Decision Record and FONSI by BLM, OSMRE would prepare 

a separate FONSI and either approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the permit renewal and 

revision applications for the King II Federal Permit CO-0106A under the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and then prepare a recommendation for the Assistant Secretary of the 

Interior, Land and Minerals Management (ASLM) to either approve, disapprove, or approve with 

conditions the mining plan modification as provided for in the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA). See 30 

United States Code (USC) 207.

This chapter presents the purpose and need of the proposed project, as well as relevant issues such as 

human, natural, cultural, and environmental elements that could be affected by the implementation of the 

proposed project. In order to meet the purpose and need, the BLM and OSMRE have analyzed two 

alternatives: the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative, both of which are presented 

in Chapter 2 (other alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis are also included in 

Chapter 2). Chapter 3 describes the existing environment of the project area and describes the potential 

environmental effects from each alternative. Chapter 4 describes cumulative impacts.

1.2 Background

The King Coal Mine began operation in 1938 at the current location in Hesperus, Colorado, with the first 

federal coal lease for the mine obtained in 1941. Coal production has occurred and is currently occurring 

on land obtained through federal leases, fee owners, split estate, the Ute Mountain Ute (UMU) Tribe, and 

beginning in 2007, a State of Colorado lease. The King I Mine operated continuously from 1938 until 

2009 from a single mine portal location south of La Plata County Road (CR) 120. The reserve that makes 

up the King II Mine was discovered in 1998 and lies north of CR 120. The King II Mine surface operation 

and portal were constructed in 2007, approximately 2 miles southwest of the King I Mine on the north 

side of CR 120. The operation is located in Section 36, Township 35, Range 12, New Mexico Principal 

Meridian on CR 120 approximately 6.5 miles west of Colorado State Highway (SH) 140. See the Vicinity 

Map in Appendix A, Map A-1. 

GCC acquired ownership of the King Coal Mine in 2005 and obtained all applicable mining permits, 

including, but not limited to, permits from La Plata County (LPC), CDRMS, OSMRE, and the Mine 

Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Both the King I and King II Mines were operated by GCC 

until 2009, when mining operations ceased at the King I site due to exhaustion of the coal resource. The 

current mine permit authorizes some mine refuse disposal from the King II operations at the King I site.

The existing King II Mine operations are currently within a 1,311.69-acre federal coal lease (COC-62920) 

and a 640-acre State lease (CO-3388), as shown on the Project Area Map (Appendix A, Map A-2). All 

surface facilities and disturbance for the King II Mine extension are located on the State land, and have 

been permitted under CDRMS permit number #C-1981-035 (refer to Permit Revision number #08, 

approved June 19, 2006; Technical Revision [TR] Number 15 [TR-15], approved March 15, 2010; TR-22 

approved July 16, 2014; TR-24, approved August 29, 2016; TR-25, approved December 17, 2015; and 

TR-26, approved October 20, 2016). Surface facilities at the King II site cover approximately 25.5 acres, 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-14-

with an underground mining operation of approximately 565 acres (as of July 2015). GCC has applied for 

modification to the existing federal coal lease to expand the leased area for underground operations at the 

King II Mine site by 950.55 acres, also shown on the Project Area Map in Appendix A. No new surface 

facilities are required at the King II Mine for the proposed lease modification.

As described in Section 1.1 Introduction, GCC submitted their original proposed lease modification to 

federal coal lease COC-62920 in 2010. The proposed modification was revised in 2014 because coal 

reserves within the original application had been bypassed during delays in the processing of the 

application. On January 15, 2016, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior announced Secretarial 

Order No. 3338, which placed a pause on the issuance of coal leases with limited, enumerated exemptions 

and exclusions while the BLM prepared a discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

to analyze potential leasing and management reforms to the current federal coal program. Because of the 

Secretarial Order, GCC filed a request for an exemption under the Pause using the emergency leasing 

criteria on February 26, 2016. At the time of their request there was approximately 2,890,000 total 

recoverable tons of coal remaining in lease COC-62920. However, of that reserve, only 2,050,000 tons 

could be recovered without permanently blocking access to adjoining reserves. Because federal coal 

reserves would be bypassed beginning in approximately May 2018, GCC requested that its lease 

modification be considered for exemption from the leasing Pause under the emergency leasing criteria 

found at § 3425.1(a)(1)(i)(ii) and (2)(b)(c). On July 12, 2016, the BLM Assistant Director for Energy, 

Minerals, and Realty Management informed the BLM Colorado State Director that GCC’s lease 

modification action for COC-62920 should be continued to be processed during the pause as provided in 

Secretarial Order 3338 Section 6(a) and the Interim Processing Policy. On August 26, 2016, the BLM 

Colorado State Office informed GCC of their intent to continue processing the subject lease modification 

as an exemption under the emergency leasing provisions. On March 29, 2017, the Secretary of the Interior 

issued Secretarial Order 3348, which revoked Secretarial Order 3338 and lifted the moratorium on coal 

leasing on federal lands.

The coal from the King II Mine is favored for its high heating value (12,300 British thermal units [Btu] 

per pound) and its low sulfur, ash, and alkali content. It is sold off-site in the southwest U.S. and Mexico 

and used in the manufacture of cement. There are small volume sales to regional steam-powered railroads 

and to a local concessionaire for home heating. As shown in Table 1-1, coal production at the King II 

Mine increased annually until 2015. Reductions in coal production in 2015 were primarily due to 

depressed regional coal markets. In 2016, LPC issued GCC a Class II Land Use Permit (LUP) (Project 

#2012-0089) that included a Road Improvements Agreement (RIA) that limited coal truck traffic along 

CR 120 to trip volumes for various phases of road improvements that GCC agreed to make as part of their 

LUP. The LUP, RIA and the LPC Planning Department staff report are publicly available on the LPC 

Planning Department GCC Energy Project web page at: http://lpccds.org/planning/gcc_energy_project.

These LPC planning documents as well as more than 80 exhibits that support the LUP planning process 

are incorporated by reference throughout this EA. Prior to the RIA and LUP, actual annual production 

was driven by coal and alternative fuel markets. 

Coal production at the King II Mine is currently limited by the number of allowable loaded coal trucks on 

CR 120 per the LPC RIA. The RIA allows an average of 80 loaded trucks per day through road 

improvement Phases 1, 2, and 3; 100 trucks per day after Phase 4 and 120 trucks per day after Phase 5 

improvements are completed. Based on each loaded truck carrying approximately 28.5 tons, the 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-15-

maximum anticipated annual production after Phase 5 RIA improvements is approximately 1,067,040

tons per year (tons/yr.). The loading facilities for the mine are located off CR 120. The average daily 

number of truck trips on CR 120 for loaded and unloaded coal trucks as well as suppliers is also included 

in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. King II Mine coal production and truck trips

Year Coal Production

(Tons)

Average Daily 

Truck Trips

Mine

Employees1

2007 470,170 45 Loaded/90 Total 31

2008 392,348 38 Loaded/76 Total 81

2009 504,231 48 Loaded/96 Total 63

2010 523,413 50 Loaded/100 Total 88

2011 618,132 59 Loaded/118 Total 85

2012 639,003 61 Loaded/122 Total 106

2013 737,131 71 Loaded/142 Total 133

2014 970,790 93 Loaded/186 Total 139

2015 813,677 78 Loaded/156 Total 121

2016 628,953 70 Loaded/140 Total2 89

Average 629,785 142 83

1 Number includes employees working at both King I and King II.

2 Truck trips limited to 6 days per week by LPC RIA.

Source: GCC Energy.

As is shown in Table 1-1, 629,785 tons/yr. represents an average production level annually, a volume of 

which 67 percent (421,000 tons/yr.) is delivered to GCC-owned cement plants in the U.S. and Mexico 

where the coal is used as a fuel source in the cement manufacturing process. These plants are in Pueblo, 

Colorado (105,000 tons/yr.), Tijeras, New Mexico (76,000 tons/yr.), and in Chihuahua and Samalyuca, 

Mexico (240,000 tons/yr.). Deliveries to the cement plants in the U.S. are directly trucked from the King 

II mine. Coal delivered to GCC’s Mexico cement plants are delivered via rail from the Gallup, New 

Mexico rail hub. An additional approximately 12,100 tons/yr. are delivered to the Durango & Silverton 

Narrow Gauge Railroad (3,600 tons/yr.), the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad in Chama, New Mexico 

(1,500 tons/yr.), and locally (7,000 tons/yr.) for home heating. On average, approximately 448,785 

tons/yr. (including the GCC Mexico cement plant volumes) is transported by truck to the rail terminal in 

Gallup, New Mexico for delivery to GCC plants in Mexico and to variable cement plant buyers in the 

Southwest (depending on markets, alternative fuels, and coal supply). From year to year, actual coal 

production is based on several assumptions, foremost, that coal markets are favorable and that GCC has 

buyers to sell to. Another factor potentially affecting production levels has to do with the consistency of 

coal present within the existing mine lease areas. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-16-

1.3 Lead and Cooperating Agencies

The BLM and OSMRE are co-lead agencies in this NEPA process and are both recognized as having 

jurisdiction by law of the King II Mine. The CDRMS and the La Plata County Planning Commission are 

cooperating agencies for this project because of their special expertise and jurisdiction.

The King II Mine is an underground, “room-and-pillar” type coal mine with surface facilities that cover 

approximately 25 acres regulated by CDRMS, and underground mining operation regulated by the Indian 

Programs Branch of OSMRE that cover approximately 565 acres, as of July 2015. Collectively, the BLM, 

OSMRE, and CDRMS are responsible for managing the coal mine permitting and mining plan approval 

processes, which occur after leasing. Thus, if the King II lease modification is approved by the BLM, the 

lessee or operator is required to submit permit application package (PAP) revisions to CDRMS and 

OSMRE for required approvals before any mining could occur in the lease modification area.

Bureau of Land Management

Federal coal regulations 43 CFR § 3432 and 3400 require the BLM to consider leasing federally owned 

minerals for economic recovery. The BLM decision to lease lands is the necessary first step in the process 

before a mining plan can be authorized and mining commences. Ongoing management of the existing 

leases require the BLM to follow coal regulations at 43 CFR § 3400.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Most of the land encompassed by both the existing lease COC-62920 and the proposed lease modification 

area are “split-estate” lands where the federal government has retained ownership of the subsurface coal 

(and other minerals), but has disposed of the surface estate. The Ute Mountain Ute (UMU) Tribe owns 

much of the split-estate surface in this area. While the split-estate surface owned by the UMU Tribe is not 

within a designated Indian Reservation, it does meet the definition of “Indian Lands” as defined by the 

SMCRA, and thus the primary regulator of coal mining operations pursuant to SMCRA for those lands is 

the OSMRE. Therefore, the OSMRE and CDRMS are jointly responsible for issuing permits for mining 

at the King II Mine.

OSMRE Indian Programs Branch

This branch of OSMRE, Western Region is responsible for reviewing plans to conduct coal mining and 

reclamation operations on lands classified by SMCRA as Indian Lands. The OSMRE is the regulatory 

authority for coal mining that occurs on Indian lands and is recognized as having jurisdiction by law to 

approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve federal permit renewal and revision applications under 

SMCRA for the Federal Mine Permit CO-0106A. OSMRE reviews the PAP for Federal Mine Permit CO0106A for the surface overlying King II Mine on Ute Mountain Ute (UMU) surface lands to ensure 

compliance with SMCRA permitting standards. GCC submitted a significant revision to Federal Mine 

Permit CO-0106A in March 2017 to include the proposed lease modification area. OSMRE will issue a 

decision on the permit renewal and revision after the NEPA process is complete.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-17-

OSMRE Field Operations Branch

This branch of OSMRE, Western Region is responsible for the Federal Lands Program and the creation of 

Mining Plan Decision Documents for the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management 

(ASLM) review. Once the Regulatory Authority informs OSMRE of a permit revision occurring for 

leased federal coal and/or federal surface, OSMRE reviews the PAP to ensure it contains the necessary 

information to comply with the coal lease, the MLA, the NEPA and other applicable federal laws and 

their attendant regulations (refer to Section 1.8). Then, in consultation with the BLM, OSMRE must 

determine if the action requires a mining plan decision document. While OSMRE is prohibited from 

implementing any function of the MLA, 30 CFR § 740.4(b) and 746.13 require the OSMRE to provide a 

MLA mining plan decision document recommendation for Secretarial approval. If a mining plan decision 

document is deemed necessary, pursuant to 30 CFR 746, OSMRE must:

▪ For new mining plans, or

▪ For existing approved mining plans that are proposed to be modified

prepare and submit to the ASLM a mining plan decision document recommending approval, disapproval, 

or approval with condition(s) of the proposed mining plan modification. OSMRE’s recommendation is 

based, at a minimum, upon:

1. The Permit Application Package (PAP) (GCC 2017)

2. Information prepared in compliance with the NEPA—including this EA

3. Documentation assuring compliance with the applicable requirements of federal laws, 

regulations, and executive orders other than the NEPA

4. Comments and recommendations or concurrence of other federal agencies and the public

5. Findings and recommendations of the BLM with respect to the Resource Recovery and 

Protection Plan (R2P2), federal lease requirements, and the MLA

6. Findings and recommendations of the CDRMS with respect to the mine permit 

application and the Colorado State program

7. The findings and recommendations of the OSMRE with respect to the additional 

requirements of 30 CFR Chapter VII, Subchapter D

To assist with assuring compliance with other federal laws, regulations, and executive orders, the 

OSMRE also reviews, at a minimum, the following documents to make its recommendation to the 

ASLM: 

▪ Information/correspondence concerning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 

consultation for threatened and endangered (T&E) species potentially affected by the proposed 

mining plan under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) 

▪ National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) Section 106 consultations for the affected 

area
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-18-

The ASLM must review the MPDD and decide whether to approve the mining plan modification, and if 

approved, what, if any, conditions may be needed.

OSMRE Denver Field Division

The Western Region of OSMRE is responsible for the oversight of State Regulatory Coal Programs.

State of Colorado 

Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 

CDRMS is the regulatory authority for coal mines in Colorado that occur on state and private lands. As 

provided for under SMCRA, the State of Colorado developed its own regulatory program to permit coal 

mining with OSMRE acting in an oversight role. CDRMS manages its own coal regulatory program 

under SMCRA and the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Control Act of 1976. CDRMS has the authority 

and responsibility to:

▪ Make decisions to approve SMCRA mining permits

▪ Consult with federal land management agencies to determine if permit revisions will adversely 

affect Federal resources and are consistent with that agency’s land use plans, federal laws, 

regulations and executive orders for which it is responsible, and 

▪ Regulate coal mining under regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal 

Mining. 

Coal leaseholders in Colorado must submit a PAP, or permit revision application, to the regulatory 

authority for proposed mining and reclamation operations. If the regulatory authority is the state, the state 

must notify OSMRE that the PAP is administratively complete and ready for OSMRE’s review. The 

existing GCC CDRMS permit, C-1981-035, for the King II surface facilities is located entirely on state 

lands. In addition, the State Board of Land Commissioners Coal Mining Lease number is CO-3388 for the 

state land in Township 36 where GCC has located its surface facilities (refer to Map A-2). CDRMS 

reviews the PAP for the surface facilities to ensure that the application complies with the permitting 

requirements and that the coal mining operation would meet Colorado’s performance standards. CDRMS 

is required to work with the coal company until the permit or permit revision can be approved.

Department of Natural Resources

CDNR’s role is as a reviewing agency for the EA and to ensure conformance of the EA with the Colorado 

Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act (34-33-101 et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 1973 as 

amended) (the Coal Act), the Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal 

Mining (2 CR 407-2, 9/14/2005) (Colorado Coal Rules), and the policies and guidelines of the CDRMS’ 

Coal Program.

La Plata County

La Plata County’s role is as a reviewing agency for the EA and to ensure conformance of the EA with 

GCC’s Conditional Class II Land Use Permit (Project #2012-0089). 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-19-

1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action

In their respective agency roles in providing for the recovery of federal coal reserves in an efficient and 

environmentally sound manner, the BLM must respond to an application submitted by GCC for the

modification of Federal Coal Lease COC-62920, and OSMRE must respond to related applications 

submitted by GCC for the continuation of mining operations at the King II Mine. BLM’s responsibility to 

consider and analyze potential significant impacts resulting from, and identify alternatives to, the 

proposed action is established under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as amended (MLA), the Federal 

Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as 

amended (NEPA). OSMRE’s responsibility to analyze potential significant impacts resulting from, and 

make a recommendation to the ASLM regarding, modification of the mining plan and to administer 

Federal Mine Permit CO-0106A for permitted lands owned by the UMU Tribe is established under the 

MLA, SMCRA, and NEPA.

As established by the MLA of 1920 and the SMCRA, the OSMRE—a co-lead in the preparation of this 

EA—is the agency responsible for evaluating the environmental effects resulting from the mining and 

surface disturbance associated with the proposed lease modification to COC-62920, pursuant to the 

requirements of the NEPA, in order to make a recommendation to the ASLM on a decision to approve, 

disapprove, or approve with conditions the mining plan for the lease modification area. The ASLM will 

decide whether the mining plan modification is approved, disapproved, or approved with conditions.

Additionally, OSMRE is the regulatory authority that administers Federal Mine Permit CO-0106A, which 

covers the permitted land owned by the UMU Tribe. As the regulatory authority, OSMRE must evaluate 

the environmental effects resulting from two Proposed Actions for the King II Federal Permit CO-106A.

▪ The OSMRE must decide whether or not to approve a Permit Revision Application Package 

consisting of a water monitoring program, Probable Hydrologic Consequences analysis, Right of 

Entry information, Subsidence Control Plan, and a Reclamation Plan. 

▪ The OSMRE must decide whether or not to approve an application to renew Federal Mine Permit 

CO-106A. The permit would reauthorize operations associated with the mining of federal coal 

from the areas within Federal Coal Lease COC-62920 where the surface of the land is under the 

ownership of the UMU Tribe, but outside of the UMU Indian Reservation. The OSMRE has 

administratively delayed its decision on the permit renewal application.

1.5 Need for the Proposed Action

The need for the action is to respond to the request from GCC to modify the King II Federal Coal Lease 

Tract COC-62920 to extract coal under the MLA of 1920, as amended.

The BLM is the agency responsible for fulfilling requirements, under the MLA, as amended by the 

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA) to respond to a request to modify Federal Coal Lease COC-62920. Part of the outlined 

responsibility of the BLM includes encouraging development of domestic coal reserves to meet future 

energy needs, reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy and providing for dependable and 

affordable domestic energy while giving due consideration to the protection of other resource values. For 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-20-

the applicant’s proposal, a lease modification would ensure that federal coal resources that cannot be 

mined by any other operation are not bypassed and that maximum economic recovery is achieved.

The OSMRE will (1) provide a recommendation to the ASLM to approve, approve with conditions, or 

disapprove the COC-62920 mining plan modification; (2) approve or disapprove the GCC SMCRA 

permit application to allow coal mining activities and reclamation activities in the proposed lease 

modification area; (3) approve or disapprove the permit application to renew the existing SMCRA permit 

(CO-0106A) for the King II Mine, which was administratively delayed on April 4, 2017.

1.6 Decisions to be Made

Based on the information in this EA, the BLM will decide whether to modify lease COC-62920 as 

described in the lease modification application submitted by GCC. In compliance with the MLA, the 

decision to be made is in what manner resource development should occur. The BLM Field or District 

Manager recommends the lease modification decision, and the Deputy State Director or higher signs the

Decision Record. The recommendation may be to:

▪ Issue a Decision Record for the lease modification based on the analysis conducted within this 

EA;

▪ Issue a Decision Record for the lease modification, with additional mitigation measures;

▪ Analyze the potential effects of the proposed project in an EIS; or

▪ Deny the lease modification.

Based on the information in this EA, the OSMRE must:

▪ Decide whether or not to approve a Permit Revision Application Package consisting of a water 

monitoring program, Probable Hydrologic Consequences analysis, Right of Entry information, 

Subsidence Control Plan, and a Reclamation Plan. 

▪ Decide whether or not to approve an application to renew Federal Mine Permit CO-106A. The 

permit would reauthorize operations associated with the mining of federal coal from the areas 

within Federal Coal Lease COC-62920 where the surface of the land is under the ownership of 

the UMU Tribe, but outside of the UMU Indian Reservation. The OSMRE has administratively 

delayed its decision on the permit renewal application. 

▪ Make a recommendation to the ASLM regarding a decision on proposed mining plan 

modifications. The ASLM must decide whether to: (1) approve; (2) approve with conditions; or 

(3) deny a mining plan modification to incorporate the lease expansion into SMCRA Permit C1981-035.

1.7 Conformance with Applicable Land Use Plan(s)

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.21, 1508.28, and 1502.20, this site-specific EA tiers to and incorporates by 

reference the information and analysis contained in the BLM Colorado Southwest District TRFO 

Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Record of Decision (USDOI/BLM 2015a). Overall, coal leasing 

is in conformance with this RMP. As stated in the RMP, “all TRFO lands made available for lease are 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-21-

subject to standard lease terms, which require operators of leases, as well as leasable mineral permits and 

licenses, to minimize adverse impacts to air, water, land, visual, cultural, and biological resources. Special 

lease stipulations are applied to a lease if additional restrictions on the rights of lessees are required to 

protect environmental resources.” This EA addresses site-specific resource conditions and impacts that 

are not covered within the RMP and would be used to justify special stipulations for the lease 

modification. 

1.8 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans

Detailed in this section are other federal, state, and local statutes, regulations, and plans relevant to King 

II Mine operations, permitting requirements, and agency oversight.

1.8.1 Federal Agencies

This EA incorporates by reference the 1997 USDOI BLM and OSMRE Environmental Assessment CO038-97-53 National King Coal, LLC Coal Lease Application East Alkali Tract, COC 62920 and the 2001 

USDOI BLM and OSMRE Environmental Assessment CO-SJFO-00-102EA National King Coal, LLC 

Coal Lease Application East Alkali Tract, COC 62920.

Federal law mandates protection of some surface resources that are potentially affected by the 

development of the Proposed Action. 

▪ Cultural resources affected by development are protected by the following legislative acts:

• Antiquities Act of 1906 (Public Law [PL] 52-209)

• NHPA of 1966 (PL 89-665), as amended (PL 52-209), and its regulations (36 CFR 800)

• 1971 Executive Order 11593

• Archaeological and Historical Act of 1974 (PL 93-291)

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (PL 96-95) and its regulations (36 CFR 

296)

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act (48 USC 1996)

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 Compliance with Section 

106 responsibilities of the NHPA are adhered to by following the BLM–Colorado State 

Historic Preservation Office protocol agreement that is authorized by the National 

Programmatic Agreement among the BLM, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

the National Conference of Council of State Historic Preservation Officers, and other 

applicable BLM handbooks.

▪ Surface water resources are protected by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (40 CFR 112). 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and 

other federal regulations are designed to control the releases of hazardous materials into the 

environment and to direct the responses to accidental spills. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-22-

▪ Threatened and endangered flora and fauna species are protected under the ESA of 1973, as 

amended (PL 94-325). Additionally, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703-712) 

and the Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668-668d) protect other sensitive wildlife species 

potentially occurring in the proposed project area. 

▪ Executive Order 11312 of 1999, “Invasive Species,” establishes measures to prevent the 

introduction of invasive species and to provide for their control as well as minimize the 

economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. This Executive 

Order provides guidelines to federal agencies on how to cope with invasive species, create an 

Invasive Species Council, and implement an Invasive Species Management Plan.

▪ The Federal Plant Protection Act of June 2000 and the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, 

Section 2814, provide for the control and management of non-indigenous weeds that injure or 

have the potential to injure the interests of agriculture and commerce, wildlife resources, or public 

health. 

▪ Executive Order (EO) 12898 of 1994, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” states each federal agency shall make 

achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The purpose of EO 

12898 is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on low-income populations, minority populations, or Indian tribes 

that may experience common conditions of environmental exposure or effects associated with a 

plan or project. EO 12898 requires federal agencies to ensure opportunities for effective public 

participation by potentially affected low-income populations, minority populations, or Indian 

tribes. As such, this document includes an assessment of the impacts from the project on minority 

and low-income populations.

▪ The BLM manages paleontological resources under various federal regulations. Principally, 

paleontological resources on BLM lands are protected under the Paleontological Resources 

Preservation Act of 2009 (PRPA) and Title 43, Subpart 8365.1-5 of the CFR, which prohibits the 

willful disturbance, removal, and destruction of scientific resources or natural objects. Subpart 

8360.0-7 identifies the penalties for such violations. In addition, FLPMA (PL 94-579) requires 

that the public lands be managed in a manner that protects the "scientific qualities” and other 

values of resources under BLM management.

▪ Other applicable regulatory programs include: the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA); Clean Water 

Act of 1972, EO 11988, Floodplain Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA), Clean Power Plan, Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, CEQ 1997: 

Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act, Noise Control Act 

of 1972 (42 USC § 4910), Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Occupational Noise 

Exposure Hearing Conservation Amendment (29 CFR Part 1910.95), the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 USC § 6901), and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 

USC § 2601).
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-23-

The purpose of SMCRA is to establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from 

adverse effects of surface coal mining operations and to provide for the cooperation between the 

Secretary of the Interior and the states with respect to the regulation of surface coal mining operations, the 

acquisition and reclamation of abandoned mines, and for other purposes. SMCRA balances the need to 

protect the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining with the nation's need for coal as 

an essential energy source. It established coal mining and reclamation standards to ensure that coal 

mining operations are conducted in an environmentally responsible manner and that the land is adequately 

reclaimed during and following the mining process. Requirements of SMCRA are codified at 30 CFR 

Parts 700 to 999. 

For this action, the BLM is the federal land managing agency that will participate with CDRMS and/or 

the OSMRE at all stages to determine the post-mining land use, protect non-mineral resources, and 

require appropriate terms and conditions for surface mining and reclamation within its jurisdiction. The 

BLM is responsible for monitoring, inspection, and enforcing terms and conditions of the lease and the 

R2P2 operations. The BLM is also responsible for reviewing and recommending the approval of the 

R2P2 and ensuring that maximum economic recovery requirements are met. The R2P2 approval is 

required by OSMRE in its preparation of the MLA mining plan decision document (see 30 CFR Part 

746).

1.8.2 State Agencies, Laws and Regulations

Colorado’s permanent regulatory program that implements the provisions of the SMCRA were codified in 

the Act and the Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining (Colorado 

Coal Rules). The SMCRA and its implementing regulations, along with the Coal Act and the Colorado 

Coal Rules, provide the framework under which actual coal mining activities, including surface uses, and 

their potential effects on the environment are managed. These requirements include protecting water 

resources, wildlife habitat, air quality, vegetation, and cultural and historic resources, among others. 

These requirements also include monitoring and mitigation, as well as meeting set standards for returning 

the land to acceptable uses after mining (termed post-mining land use). CDRMS and the OSMRE, 

through its oversight of the State program and direct permitting on UMU surface lands, are responsible 

for compliance and enforcement actions during the life of a mine.

CDRMS enforces the performance standards and permit requirements during the mine's operation for sitespecific surface coal mining activities and has primacy in environmental emergencies. The OSMRE 

retains oversight responsibility of this enforcement. CDRMS conducts frequent inspections of operations 

for compliance with permits for individual mines and the Coal Act and Colorado Coal Rules. BLM is 

responsible for underground inspections of the federal coal reserve.

Generally, mine permits in Colorado have a term of 5 years, but the permit is not necessarily static during 

this term. Mine operators work closely with the OSMRE and CDRMS regulatory agencies to adjust the 

permit to best meet the performance standards and permit requirements according to the mine’s current 

operating conditions. The mine permit is adjusted through a permit revision and review process, as well as

mid-term review of the PAP. For example, the King II Mine has submitted over 20 revisions to the permit 

since its current permit went into effect in 2009. Another mining permit requirement ensuring reclamation 

compliance for the King II Mine is a surety bond of more than $900,000 held by CDRMS.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-24-

In addition to permit reviews, King II Mine is subject to regular and unannounced on-site inspections by 

CDRMS, MSHA, OSMRE, BLM, and other agencies. CDRMS conducts monthly inspections to ensure 

that performance standards and permit conditions are being met. MSHA conducts unannounced 

inspections totaling 2 to 3 weeks each quarter. The OSMRE conducts an annual oversight review of all 

CDRMS inspections and permit conditions to ensure that performance standards are being met.

In addition to CDRMS permit requirements, other State regulations applied to the King II Mine include 

air quality standards, water quality standards, and water rights. Air quality standards in Colorado are 

under the jurisdiction of the USEPA and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

(CDPHE). Stationary sources at the King II Mine are regulated by CDPHE with Air Pollution Control 

Division (APCD) Permit Number 09LP0202F.

Water quality standards in Colorado are also under the jurisdiction of the USEPA and CDPHE. 

Discharges from the sediment pond at the King II Mine are regulated by CDPHE with Water Quality 

Control Division Permit Number COG850001.

The Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR) is empowered to administer all water rights per the 

Appropriation Doctrine (in short, first in time, first in right). Most of this work is done by Division 

Offices located in the seven major river basins of the State. These offices employ water commissioners to 

ensure the priority system is followed, enforcing the decrees and water laws of the State of Colorado. The 

Colorado Ground Water Law of 1957 established the permitting requirement of ground water wells, and, 

by 1969, surface and groundwater rights were administered together. The King II Mine holds rights to 

several water sources including ownership and lease of senior Class A ditch shares within the La Plata 

River watershed. These water rights are administered through the CDWR.

1.8.3 Local Agencies, Laws and Regulations

The King II Mine is in La Plata County, Colorado. The surface facilities and mine operations, including 

use of county roads for coal transport, are regulated by LPC (La Plata County Land Use Code [LPCLUC] 

Sec. 82-76, 82-161). Colorado statutes such as the County Planning Code (CRS § 30-28-101 et seq.) and 

the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act (CRS § 29-20-101 et seq.) independently 

authorize LPC to permit the land use, including truck hauling operations on CR 120 for the King II Mine. 

The LPCLUC includes standards for compatible development that are applied to the facilities and 

operations for the mine. In addition, LPC maintains county road standards based on road characteristics 

and traffic levels that determine the requirements for road maintenance and traffic levels on county roads 

used by GCC. 

In July 2012, GCC submitted a Class II Land Use Permit application to LPC for the King II Coal 

Mine. Since then, LPC has held six neighborhood meetings to solicit citizen feedback (Permit Application 

Number Class II 2012-0089. La Plata County 2015a). In spring 2015, GCC formed a Citizen Advisory 

Panel to determine how to better mitigate the mine’s neighborhood impacts and inform GCC's revised 

land use permit application to LPC, submitted July 31, 2015. Through a series of public hearings, LPC

and GCC negotiated interim mitigation measures to improve public safety until the Board of County 

Commissioners takes formal action on the Class II Land Use Permit.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-25-

The LPC Planning Commission heard the GCC Class II Land Use Permit application on March 2-3, 2016, 

but continued the project to April 14, 2016 to allow time for County staff and GCC to prepare a Road 

Improvements Agreement to address traffic, dust and safety issues on County Road 120. Because of

having achieved agreement between LPC and GCC on the RIA, LPC can consider the applicant 

compliant, compatible, and consistent with adopted Code and long-range plans. On April 14, 2016, the 

Planning Commission voted to recommend approval for the project to the Board of County 

Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners heard the application on May 31, 2016 and 

continued the project to June 1, 2016 where they voted to approve the project with changes to the RIA 

and the findings and conditions. A Class II LUP was issued to GCC by LPC on July 8, 2016. The LUP

and RIA are publicly available for review from LPC and have been made a part of the Administrative 

Record for this EA.

1.9 Scoping, Public Involvement, and Issues

The CEQ defines scoping as “an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be 

addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a Proposed Action alternative” (40 CFR 

1501.7). Scoping is the process by which the BLM and the OSMRE solicits internal and external input on 

the issues, impacts, and potential alternatives that will be addressed in the NEPA document. For the 

BLM’s and OSMRE’s NEPA analysis, an “issue” is a point of concern, identified through scoping, of a 

real or perceived anticipated environmental effect associated with the Proposed Action.

Scoping for this EA was conducted on several levels:

1. Internal scoping with resource specialists from the BLM/TRFO and the OSMRE in 2017.

2. External scoping completed by BLM specifically for this EA in 2012.

3. External scoping completed by OSMRE as part of their annual oversight program in 2015.

4. External scoping completed by LPC as part of their Land Use compatibility review and 

formation of a Citizen’s Advisory Panel for the GCC Class II Land Use Permit Application from 

2012-2016.

5. External supplemental scoping completed in February 2017 by the OSMRE and the BLM.

1.9.1 Internal Scoping BLM and OSMRE (2017)

Issues identified by the resource specialists with the BLM and the OSMRE during internal scoping 

included air quality impacts, climate change, hydrologic connectivity of the mine to nearby water wells 

and ephemeral drainages, as well as how to coordinate traffic and transportation issues related to coal 

transport with LPC. 

1.9.2 External BLM Scoping (2012)

As outlined in the BLM NEPA Handbook, it is optional for the BLM to conduct external scoping on 

actions analyzed by an EA (BLM 2008, Section 6.3.2). While optional for an EA, the BLM conducted 

external scoping on November 23, 2012, by sending scoping letters to adjacent landowners and to other 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-26-

expressly interested parties including federal, state, and local agencies. In total, 21 scoping letters were 

sent, and eight scoping response letters/emails were received by the BLM. The TRFO sent 31 letters to 

regional tribes with recognized affiliation to the project area in November 2012. One response from the 

Hopi was received that provided recommendations on TRFO actions if cultural resources were 

encountered during implementation of the Proposed Action. Issues identified through public scoping 

completed by the BLM are summarized in Table 1-2. 

Table 1-2. Bureau of Land Management external scoping summary

Commenter Issues Identified

Connolly, Marjorie "Additional mining is incompatible with surrounding land use."

Montezuma County Board 

of County Commissioners

Noted the importance of mineral resources in the regional economy 

including federal minerals managed by the BLM. The mine has a positive 

economic benefit on the region through jobs and tax revenue. Stated the 

importance of reasonable enforcement of best management practices and 

reclamation process to mitigate impacts on other resources.

San Juan Basin Health 

Department

Responded but did not have any comments at that time.

Vista de Oro Property 

Owners Association –

contains comments of 35 

landowners

A formal letter of protest of the lease modification because of off-site 

impacts of mine operations that included the following statements:

Mine operations affect quality of life, habitability, and property values as 

well as potential contamination of water wells. 

Existing vibration and noise from the mine’s coal trucks and coal 

conveyors is causing disturbance to adjacent landowners. 

Adjacent landowners are reporting coal dust and methane smell in well 

water. 

Expect that mine expansion will increase these detrimental effects and 

increase truck traffic along CR 120 to unacceptable levels.

La Plata County Planning 

Department

Conveyed negative comments from Landowner meeting 9/11/2012 

including: noise, water pollution, expansion concerns. LPC also articulated 

their role in local land use permitting.

Schmitz, Paul Stated that:

That there have been violations of Public Due Process. 

Accurate water consumption figures and environmental chemicals impacts 

seem overlooked. 

That previous EAs or EISs don’t cumulatively account for the draw of 

waters from depleted subsurface flows. 

The mine is in an over-committed water decree system.

Cumulative impacts have been overlooked by the agencies.

San Juan Citizens Alliance Issues identified included segmenting lease decisions from mining impacts; 

conformance with the TRFO RMP; cumulative impact analyses; and 

resource concerns related to climate change, public health, air quality, 

water quality and quantity, surface cracks (subsidence), erosion, wildlife, 

traffic/roads. 

Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; CR = County Road; EA = Environmental Assessment; EIS = Environmental Impact 

Statement; GCC = GCC Energy, LLC; TRFO = Tres Rios Field Office; RMP =Resource Management Plan.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-27-

1.9.3 Annual External Scoping by OSMRE (2015)

As part of its oversight process, the OSMRE annually sends an outreach letter to interested parties to gain 

feedback from the public on the effectiveness of the CDRMS coal regulatory program regarding land 

reclamation on coal mines, preventing off-site impacts to lands and waters adjacent to coal mine permit 

areas, and providing service to customers. The OSMRE received four letter responses to its February 

2015 outreach letter regarding the King II Mine. Senior staff at OSMRE sent detailed responses to each 

commenter addressing each of their concerns. The commenters’ names have been withheld to protect the 

identity of private citizens but the issues raised by them and the responses by OSMRE to substantive 

comments relevant to the King II Mine lease modification are summarized in Table 1-3. 

Table 1-3. OSMRE public comments and response to oversight outreach

Comments Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

Response

The commenter stated that the area 

would benefit greatly by a more 

robust application process with an 

EIS completed by the OSMRE as 

well as higher reclamation bonds. 

Commenter requested the OSMRE 

conduct its own onsite subsidence 

reviews as there has been a 

subsidence that disrupted the 

irrigation ditch that went unreported.

The responder notes that NEPA requires federal agencies to 

consider potential environmental impacts of their Proposed 

Actions by preparing EAs or Environmental Impact Statements. 

The federal actions associated with the King Coal Mine included 

federal coal leases and amendments to existing leases that were 

evaluated with EAs led by the BLM and finalized on June 15, 

1981; February 1, 1990; November 3 1997; November 10, 1999; 

and June 21, 2001. OSMRE is a cooperating agency on these past 

and current NEPA analyses for Proposed Actions at the King 

Coal Mine. Therefore, it is already involved in the environmental 

impact analysis process as specified by NEPA and the Council 

on Environmental Quality.

Reclamation bond amounts are generally set higher than the 

estimated costs to reclaim all permitted disturbances associated 

with the King Coal Mine as required by Colorado’s coal mine 

regulations. In addition to the reclamation bond held by CDRMS 

of more than $850,000; OSMRE holds a bond in the amount of 

$10,200 for the UMU permit which has no anticipated surface 

disturbance and $0 reclamation cost.

Coal mine permittees are required to adopt measures to prevent 

subsidence from causing material damage to the extent 

technologically and economically feasible, to maximize mine 

stability, and to maintain the value and reasonably foreseeable 

future use of surface lands except where planned subsidence may 

occur in a predictable and controlled manner. Mine subsidence 

can be monitored by placing fixed monuments on the land 

surface above underground mine workings and surveying those 

monuments at regular intervals to detect any changes in relative 

location or by visual evaluation to determine if surface lands 

have developed cracks. The OSMRE contacted the affected land 

owner where the irrigation ditch damage was said to occur. No 

damage was confirmed by the land owner. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-28-

Comments Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

Response

The commenter noted that since the 

last EA was conducted in 2001, coal 

production at the King mine has 

increased from 300,000 tons per year 

to 1.3 million tons per year. 

Commenter stated that CDRMS has 

been remiss in its responsibilities to 

require updated environmental 

assessment prior to issuing a permit. 

Commenter requested OSMRE take 

a stronger lead and make CDRMS 

more accountable.

The responder confirms that the last NEPA document prepared 

for the King Coal Mine was completed in 2001. Two proposed 

federal actions by BLM (this lease modification and proposed 

exploration wells) trigger NEPA, and OSMRE is a cooperating 

agency on the EA for the lease modification because it relates to 

the mine permit. 

As required under SMCRA, when a state develops a regulatory 

program that meets SMCRA requirements, it becomes the 

primary regulatory and OSMRE assumes an oversight role. In 

Colorado, CDRMS has “primacy” with regard to coal mine 

permitting, inspection, and enforcement activities, and OSMRE 

conducts oversight. However, OSMRE remains the primary 

regulator of coal mining operations on tribal lands and holds 

primary regulatory responsibility for that part of the King Coal 

Mine.

The commenter states that GCC is 

not a seasoned coal mine operator 

and doesn’t have experience in 

reclamation and hydrology to 

monitor for damage to adjacent land.

Commenter raises concern about 

exposed waste and tailings piles from 

King II that are not capped and could 

be a source of acid or toxic drainage. 

Previous experience mining is not a prerequisite for obtaining a 

permit under Colorado’s coal regulatory program. GCC must 

comply with all requirements of the regulatory program or risk 

receiving enforcement actions from CDRMS. Although GCC 

may not have experience implementing hydrologic monitoring 

programs, water quality testing procedures for the King Coal 

Mine were developed long before GCC acquired the operation 

and have continued under their tenure. Water samples are 

analyzed by a qualified laboratory.

The permittee has approval for temporary coal mine waste 

storage where waste rock is brought up from the active 

underground mining area to the vicinity of the permanent waste 

disposal location. Prior to obtaining approval for this waste 

disposal area the permittee had to make a demonstration, to the 

satisfaction of CDRMS, that the material would not adversely 

affect water quality or flow, vegetation, public health, or stability 

of the disposal area based on hydrologic, geotechnical, physical, 

and chemical analysis. Because test results indicated that the 

materials in the waste piles could not generate acid or toxic 

leachate, CDRMS does not require special handling or storage 

practices under Rule 4.05.8. Water may percolate through the 

waste rock without causing harm to groundwater resources. 

Surface and groundwater is monitored immediately 

downgradient from the waste disposal site and any potential 

negative impacts would be detected. OSMRE is currently 

reviewing the material sampling analysis to determine if further 

analysis and monitoring is required. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-29-

Comments Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

Response

The commenter’s concern is that 

CDRMS appears to have done very 

little to prevent offsite impacts to 

surface and underground water. 

Commenter stated that runoff from 

disturbed areas washed down into 

Hay Gulch (a primary agricultural 

part of La Plata County) without 

being tested for specific constituents 

of coal waste. 

Sediment control, hydrologic monitoring, and protection of the 

hydrologic balance are major precepts of Colorado’s approved 

regulatory program. Surface runoff from all areas other than 

ponds, ditches, water treatment facilities, small area exemptions, 

and roads approved for mining-related disturbance must pass 

through an approved sedimentation structure such as a 

sedimentation pond. CDRMS conducted a focused inspection on 

March 31, 2015, to ensure runoff is being routed as required and 

designed. CDRMS found surface runoff from the King I area 

being routed to that site’s sedimentation ponds as required. 

OSMRE is currently evaluating the water quality monitoring 

program in place at the King Coal Mine to ensure all 

requirements of the regulatory are being implemented 

appropriately. OSMRE is reviewing the permitted plan and 

collected water quality data as well as inspecting sample 

locations in the field. CDRMS is aware that OSMRE is 

conducting this evaluation. Commenters and the public will be 

informed of the results when the evaluation is completed. 

Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; CDRMS = Colorado Division of Mining and Safety; EA = Environmental 

Assessment; EIS = Environmental Impact Statement; GCC = GCC Energy, LLC; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act; 

OSMRE = Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement; RMP =Resource Management Plan; SMCRA =Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

1.9.4 External Scoping La Plata County (2012-2016)

As part of its Class II Land Use Permit application, LPC held three Neighborhood Compatibility 

Meetings with the residents and adjacent landowners surrounding the King II Mine between September 

2012 and April 2014. Public notices were sent for these meetings. Two additional neighborhood meetings 

hosted by GCC were held in conjunction with the land use permit application on December 14, 2014, and 

January 27, 2015. In March 2015, GCC working with La Plata County assisted in the formation of the 

Hay Gulch Citizen Advisory Panel (HGCAP) to inform their land use application. The HGCAP compiled 

the recommendations of adjacent landowners and other residents designed to minimize negative impacts 

to the health, safety, quality of life, and the natural environment from the King II Coal Mine. The HGCAP 

provided 21 recommendations for addressing their concerns related to traffic, water, health, noise, 

vibration, subsidence, regulatory compliance, and quality of life to LPC. These recommendations are 

summarized in Table 1-4.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-30-

Table 1-4. Hay Gulch Citizen Advisory Panel Recommendations to La Plata County 

Number Hay Gulch Citizen Advisory Panel Recommendations

1 Reduce impacts to CR 120 by decreasing the number of coal haul trucks using CR 120 to 

2010 levels until improvements to this road have been completed.

2 Coal haul trucks will cease operations on CR 120 from 10 PM to 6 AM Monday through 

Saturday and from 10 PM Saturday through 6 AM Monday.

3 If the number of coal haul trucks exceeds 144 per day, a separate coal haul road shall be 

installed and maintained by GCC. 

4 As a contingency to approval of the Class II Land Use Permit, upgrades and improvements to 

CR 120 including replacing culverts, widening and paving the road surface from the mine 

entrance to State Highway 140 shall being immediately and be completed no later than 

January 1, 2017, at GCC’s expense.

5 Additional measures shall be undertaken to reduce truck noise levels to 80 decibels or less. 

Continuous noise level monitoring shall be installed to ensure compliance.

6 On the gravel surface portions of CR 120, a speed limit of 25 mph will be established for 

trucks having a GVW of greater than 20,000 pounds. The speed limit of 35 mph will be 

established for all other traffic on CR 120. Additional GPS monitoring and speed enforcement 

should be required.

7 GCC should establish a dedicated phone number to report safety concerns or violations.

8 La Plata County should impose a road fee on GCC for the costs of maintaining CR 120 to 

levels safe for residents.

9 BLM should conduct a full EIS including a hydrological study to establish a baseline for 

quantity and quality of the aquifers surrounding the King II Mine and the Hay Gulch area. 

10 GCC shall establish a minimum of six monitoring wells for the purpose of identifying 

contamination and depletion of aquifers below the mine and in the surrounding area.

11 Baseline establishment and continuous monitoring of water quality shall use guidelines 

established by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division Table 1 (Groundwater) 

Section A (Suggested Water Quality Parameters). Additionally, the results of the chemical 

analysis shall be posted on a public access website at least monthly.

12 All regulatory agencies including La Plata County, CDRMS, OSMRE, and the BLM should 

strongly consider the impacts of the King II Mine plan on draw down of nearby non-tributary 

water zones.

13 GCC shall install a minimum of four continuous air monitors at various locations along CR 

120 that will identify unhealthy air quality including particulates, dusts, fumes, vapors, and 

gases. Action levels consistent with National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

recommendations shall be established and specific action shall be taken to reduce thresholds 

to below accepted levels. Results shall be recorded and posted on a public access website.

14 Reduce noise levels of mine operations and truck traffic acceptable limits of no more than 80 

decibels during the of 6 AM to 10 PM. Residential noise level limits of no greater than 50 

decibels should be enforced between the hours of 10 PM and 6 AM. The use of “jake brakes” 

by truck drivers on CR 120 shall be restricted.

15 GCC shall establish an operations policy to ensure that vibration caused by the continuous 

miner and drilling is minimized to not impact nearby residents.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-31-

Number Hay Gulch Citizen Advisory Panel Recommendations

16 To reduce risk of impacts from subsidence to adjacent property, the boundaries of Tract E in 

the proposed lease modification should be reduced to no less than 1000 feet from the nearest 

residential structure. 

17 As a condition for approval of the Class II Land Use Permit, GCC shall ensure that all local, 

state, and federal laws and regulations are in compliance and full transparency and availability 

of filings are made public. Any expansion of the mine operations shall require a new Class II 

Land Use permit.

18 La Plata County should adopt the Colorado Department of Local Affairs 1041 policies to

allow LPC greater control over development projects.

19 GCC shall be required to pay appropriate road impact fees and these fees shall be allocated 

directly to CR 120. LPC shall implement appropriate financial penalties for non-performance 

of any conditions to the Land Use permit or interim conditions.

20 GCC should do everything reasonably possible to mitigate those negative impacts to the 

surrounding community with focus on these recommendations. 

21 GCC should begin discussion and negotiations with residents living on CR 120 regarding 

compensation for causing a decrease in property values and quality of life.

Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; CDRMS = Colorado Division of Mining and Safety; CR = County Road; EIS = 

Environmental Impact Statement; GCC = GCC Energy, LLC; GVW = Gross Vehicle Weight; MPH = miles per hour; OSMRE = 

Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement

In summary, the LPC LUP permit review process was extensive and inclusive, which included:

▪ Three neighborhood compatibility meetings held by GCC with LPC facilitating (respectively on 

September 11, 2012; December 19, 2013; and April 2, 2014);

▪ Two public meetings held by GCC (December 18, 2014 and January 27, 2015);

▪ One general public meeting held by HGCAP;

▪ Frequent, direct meetings with individuals and groups of neighbors by County Staff;

▪ Frequent, direct meetings with individuals and groups of neighbors by GCC;

▪ Frequent meetings between GCC and HGCAP;

▪ A significantly expanded public notification area; and

▪ The Fort Lewis Mesa Planning District group as a commenting agency.

1.9.5 2017 Supplemental Scoping Comment Summary

On January 6, 2017, the BLM and the OSMRE sent a notice of supplemental scoping to a mailing list of 

133 interested parties comprised of local, state, and federal governmental agencies and representatives, 

adjacent landowners and/or attorneys representing the landowners, several departments within the UMU

Tribe, and several environmental/conservation non-profit organizations. In accordance with the 2011 

USDOI Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

OSMRE sent a notice of supplemental scoping to 47 tribes from the Colorado Office of Archaeology and 

Historic Preservation directory of tribes with historic ties to Colorado. The Durango Herald also 

published an article about the proposed project including information on how to submit supplemental 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-32-

scoping comments; the article was available online on January 19 and on the front page of the newspaper 

on January 20, 2017. Supplemental scoping comments were accepted from January 6 until February 6, 

2017.

During the supplemental scoping period, the BLM and the OSMRE received a total of 14 comment 

submittals all via the project email address, some comments were emailed in a letter format as an 

attachment. These submittals contained 80 individual comments. Of the 14 comment submittals, four of 

the submittals were almost identical. These four submittals were counted separately in the quantification 

noted in the discussion below.

Following the close of the supplemental scoping period, comments were compiled and analyzed to 

identify issues and concerns. Within each comment submittal, individual issues were identified, reviewed, 

and entered into an electronic database. A summary of the individual comments is presented below.

Table 1-5 is a list of the resource/issue categories mentioned in the scoping comments for consideration in 

the EA. The table is organized by resource/issue category and the number of times the issue was 

identified:

Table 1-5. Issues identified through scoping

Issue Identified Number of Times 

Issue was Identified

Traffic and transportation 11

Air quality 10

Water quality 10

Climate change 8

Water quantity 7

Socioeconomic considerations 5

Public health and safety 4

Hazardous waste management 3

Noise 3

Surface Effects 2

Visual and Aesthetic Considerations 2

Wildlife 2

Energy and Mineral Development 1

Fish and Wildlife 1

Seismic 1

Threatened and Endangered Species 1

Vegetation 1

With few exceptions, the scoping comments received during the original scoping period in 2012 and the 

more recent 2017 scoping comments reflect the same themes (e.g., air quality and transportation).

Preliminary resource issues identified during scoping will be used to inform resource baselines and 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-33-

impact analyses in the EA and to define alternatives and appropriate mitigation measures to minimize 

environmental impacts.

1.9.6 Draft EA Public Comment and Agency Response

This EA was made publically available for review as a draft document on June 9, 2017 on both BLM and 

OSMRE webpages. Interested party letters were sent to 115 people/agencies in advance of posting the EA 

for public review and comment for 30 days, ending July 10, 2017. Twenty-seven public comment letters 

or emails were received by OSMRE and BLM in response to the public draft posting of the EA. During 

the 30-day public comment period, on June 20, 2017, OSMRE, BLM and LPC held a public Open House 

at the Breen Community Building in La Plata County near the King II Mine. Fifty-seven members of the 

public attended the Open House to review informational posters that detailed the Proposed Action; 

described the regulatory process associated with the Proposed Action; and presented a variety of affected 

resource issues and data. Agency management representatives and resource specialists attended the Open 

House poster session to engage with the interested public and to answer questions. In addition to the 

public comment received in response to the posted Draft EA, an additional 32 comment cards were 

submitted by the public at the Open House. All public comments received from the web posting of the 

Draft EA and from the Open House are provided in the Public Comment/Agency Response Matrix 

included as Appendix B to this EA.

1.10 Resources Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis

Because the mining operation is conducted underground, surface resources above the coal lease and 

permit areas are only minimally impacted by surface activities such as exploration drilling. Over the 

course of normal mining operations, there are commonly permit revisions required by the OSMRE or 

CDRMS or proposed by the permittee. Should any potential future permit revisions create a need to 

disturb any surface areas within the lease or permit areas, the OSMRE and CDRMS would require 

environmental review (i.e., cultural resources, sensitive species clearances) prior to approval of permit 

revisions that include ground-disturbing activities. This EA also analyzes the surface impacts associated 

with phased road improvements of CR 120 as outlined in the RIA (refer to Appendix B). The resources 

and issues that are evaluated in detail in Chapters 3 and 4 are:

▪ Air quality

▪ Climate Change

▪ Geology and minerals (including subsidence)

▪ Paleontology

▪ Water resources

▪ Transportation

▪ Vegetation

▪ Wildlife

▪ Endangered, threatened and sensitive species
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-34-

▪ Health and safety

▪ Land use

▪ Soils

▪ Noise

▪ Vibration

▪ Cultural resources

▪ Socioeconomics

▪ Environmental justice

Based on the internal and external scoping processes completed by BLM and OSMRE and the 

cooperating agencies, the following resource areas have been eliminated from detailed analysis in this 

EA; lands with wilderness characteristics, Wild and Scenic Rivers, social cost of carbon, fire 

management, floodplains and Rangeland Health/Standards for Public Lands Health. The reasoning for 

their exclusion are summarized below; and in most cases, were eliminated because they were not present 

in the project or analysis areas, or because the resource was not, or was only minimally impacted

Lands with wilderness characteristics – There are no proposed or designated wilderness areas in or near 

the proposed project area.

Wild and Scenic Rivers – There are no designated or proposed wild and scenic rivers within the 

proposed project area. Refer to Map A-3. Surface Water Resources in Appendix A and the TRFO RMP 

(USDA/USDI 2013).

Fire Management – While there is no BLM surface jurisdiction or direct surface disturbance associated 

with the Proposed Action, the BLM is responsible for wildfire management in the region. MSHA requires 

fire suppression systems, firefighting plans, etc. for both underground and surface operations. 

Underground mines such as the King II Mine are regulated under the fire management regulations at 30 

CFR 75.1100. There have been no fires associated with the King II Mine since operations began. There is 

no expectation of increased fire risk associated with the Proposed Action; therefore, no changes to the 

BLM’s current fire management plans or programs are warranted. 

Floodplains – There are no mapped floodplains or perennial surface water resources in the proposed

project area. Per Federal Emergency Management Agency flood hazard boundary data, there are no flood 

hazard boundaries within 3 miles of the proposed lease modification (USDHS/FEMA 2015).

Rangeland Health/Standards for Public Lands Health – The proposed lease modification area is 

almost entirely within an area managed by the UMU Farm and Ranch Enterprise as the Hay Gulch Ranch

(refer to Map A-1, Appendix A). There is a small parcel of BLM-administered land along a steep slope 

immediately adjacent to the mine entrance that is not part of any grazing allotments. Accordingly, 

consideration of Standards for Public Lands Health does not apply as no mining activities affect BLMadministered surface lands. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-35-

2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES(S)

2.1 Proposed Action

GCC has filed an application for a modification to existing Federal Coal Lease COO-62920 to incorporate 

four additional tracts adjacent to currently leased areas of the King II Mine. The proposed lease 

modification would add approximately 950.55 acres to the existing coal lease, which covers an area of 

1,311.69 acres. All of the surface lands above the proposed lease Parcel’s A, B, and D are private 

properties owned by the UMU Tribe. Parcel E surface land is also private property not owned by the

UMU Tribe. The proposed lease modification areas are shown on Map A-2 in Appendix A.

The above existing and proposed lease modification lie contiguous to a State of Colorado fee lease 

obtained by GCC to the south of the BLM lease. The current BLM and fee leases and OSMRE permit 

area are accessed from the King II Mine's portals and underground workings constructed on the State of 

Colorado lease in T35 N, R12W New Mexico Principal Meridian (NMPM), North of Ute Line, Section 

36. All surface facilities and disturbance for the King II Mine extension are located on the State land, and 

have been permitted under CDRMS permit number #C-1981-035. OSMRE is the regulatory authority that 

administers Federal Permit CO-0106A, which covers the permitted underground mining area beneath land 

owned by the UMU Tribe and surface effects associated with the King II Mine.

The cumulative total acres approved for disturbance at the King I Mine for 2016 was 23.60 acres. The 

cumulative total acres approved for disturbance at the King II Mine for 2016 was 24.99 acres; 22.89 acres 

of surface disturbance have been approved and constructed under the CDRMS permit and bond to date. 

Additionally, 3.29 acres of surface disturbance has been approved by OSMRE for exploration drilling.

The disturbance has been reclaimed, and OSMRE currently holds a $32,555 reclamation bond. Disturbed 

areas include surface facilities for King I and II, three sediment ponds, roads, a refuse pile (gob), and 

exploration drill pads. 

As part of the Proposed Action, OSMRE is considering GCC’s 2012 and 2017 permit renewals that are 

under an administrative delay pending analysis in the subject EA. The complete permit renewal 

application is publicly available from OSMRE. In addition to the renewal, GCC has submitted a PAP 

revision for Federal Permit CO-0106A to include mining the proposed additional lease acreage being 

considered by the BLM. The proposed PAP revision also includes a Reclamation Plan; a Subsidence 

Control Plan; and an updated Right-of-Entry onto the UMU lands (consisting of a Surface Use Agreement 

between the UMU Tribe and GCC). The currently approved PAP and proposed revision are publicly 

available from OSMRE.

2.1.1 Legal Description of Lease Modification

The legal description for the COC-62920 modification tracts is as follows:

New Mexico Principle Meridian La Plata County Colorado

Tract A containing 220.00 acres more or less

T35N, R11W, Sec. 19, NE, S2SENW, and Sec. 20, NWNW
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-36-

Tract B containing 360.55 acres more or less

T35N, R11W, Sec. 30, lots 1-4, E2NW, and NWNE;

T35N, R12W, Sec. 25, lots 3-8

Tract D containing 10.00 acres more or less

T35N, R12W, Sec. 26, SENENE

Tract E containing 360.00 acres more or less

T35N, R12W, Sec. 35, NENW, S2NW, SW, and S2SE

The modification area containing 950.55 acres more or less.

Table 2-1. Parcels proposed for addition to the existing coal lease

Tract Legal Description Area

(Acres)

A Township 35 North, Range 11 West, NMPM:

Sec. 19, NE, S2SENW, and Sec. 20, NWNW

220.00

B Township 35 North, Range 11 West, NMPM:

Sec. 30, lots 1-4, E2NW, and NWNE;

Township 35 North, Range 12 West, NMPM:

Sec. 25, lots 3-8

360.55

D Township 35 North, Range 12 West, NMPM:

Sec. 26, SENENE

10.00

E Township 35 North, Range 12 West, NMPM:

Sec. 35, NENW, S2NW, SW, and S2SE

360.00

TOTAL 950.55

Notes: NE = northeast; SE = southeast; SW = southwest; NMPM = New Mexico Principal Meridian; NW = northwest.

2.1.2 Coal Removal

Coal removal from the lease modification areas would occur in the same manner as current operations at 

the King II Mine using existing surface facilities and the mine plan as approved by the CDRMS and in 

accordance with OSMRE permit renewal and revisions requirements. 

The type of mining utilized is the “room and pillar” method. The thickness of the coal seam ranges from 6 

to 10 feet. The coal seam is mined using continuous mining machinery. After the coal is mined, it is 

brought to the surface via a conveyor into one of two stockpiles where it is crushed and prepared for 

transport. Coal refuse (underground development waste) from the King II Mine is transported less than 

one mile away to an approved refuse facility located on private lands at the King I Mine.

GCC is currently mining within an area defined by the initial development main tunnels or mains. The 

development mains and sub-mains, and subsequent mining panels, are oriented in a northeast-southwest 

direction, following the topography (and coal seam) defined by a mesa bounded by deep drainages on the 

northwest and southeast. Following the development of new mains, GCC plans to mine room and pillar 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-37-

blocks, which would run in a perpendicular direction to the mains (northwest-southeast). The lease 

modifications would allow development of mains, sub-mains, and panels within the lease modification 

area. Pillars would be removed in panels (retreat mining) and full extraction of coal would yield 

approximately 60 percent recovery of in-place coal reserves. The BLM estimates the recoverable federal 

coal reserves included in the lease modification area to be approximately 4.66 million tons. Recoverable 

tons represent the total coal in the lease modification area less the amount that would be left in place due 

to mining logistics and economic factors.

The King II Mine now operates more than 2 miles of underground roadway with an interconnected grid 

work of nearly 6 miles of tunnels. GCC is not proposing to expand surface facilities or make 

modifications to current mining methods employed at the King II Mine as a result of the proposed lease 

modification. While no new surface disturbing activities are proposed in the mine plan revision, it is 

typical that minor amounts of surface disturbance will be necessary from time to time until the coal 

resource is exhausted. These surface disturbing surface-disturbing activities are subject to CDRMS and/or

OSMRE oversight and are handled as technical revisions or minor permit revisions. Examples include the 

installation of five groundwater monitoring well clusters (associated with Technical Revision #26), 

potentially necessary surface stormwater and access road improvements, and disturbance associated with 

potential future exploration drilling activity within the permit and lease area. These potential surface 

disturbing activities are estimated to be cumulatively less than 5.0 acres for the duration of mining under 

the proposed mine plan revision. Both CDRMS and OSMRE require cultural and biological clearance 

surveys and reports when proposed disturbance locations are known. GCC has submitted an updated 

Reclamation Plan in anticipation of the possible future surface-disturbing activities. It is expected that 

ventilation of the new mine workings would be provided by the existing fan and ventilation system. 

2.1.3 Coal Production and Transport

Annual coal production at the King II Mine has fluctuated from a low of 392,348 tons/yr. in 2008 to a 

high of 970,790 tons/yr. in 2014. From 2007 to 2016, the mine has produced on average, 629,785 tons/yr.

as shown in Table 1-1. Coal produced at the King II Mine is hauled by truck to regional rail loading 

facilities where it is loaded for shipment by rail to cement production facilities in the southwestern U.S. 

and Mexico. Presently, trucks hauling coal from the King II Mine use La Plata CR 120 and SH 140 for 

both inbound and outbound trips to the mine (see Alternative Coal Haul Routes on Map A-4, Appendix 

A). The distance from the mine to the SH is 6.4 miles, approximately 3.9 miles of which are currently 

unpaved gravel surface. Due to the condition of CR 120 and the requirement that the mine be compatible 

with surrounding properties, the mine’s LUP RIA requires imposition of phased limits on the average of 

outgoing trucks based on a monthly average (with Sundays excluded) and a maximum number of 

outgoing trucks on any single day. This fluctuation was allowed by LPC to accommodate matters such as 

inclement weather.

Accordingly, coal production at King II is limited by their LPC LUP and the associated RIA. Table 2-2 

shows the loaded coal truck traffic allowed along CR 120 through each phase of the RIA. Following the 

completion of Phase 5 road improvements (scheduled for April 2022) GCC is authorized by LPC for an 

average daily loaded truck volume of 120 trucks per day, which equates to approximately 1,067,040

tons/yr. starting in 2022.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-38-

Table 2-2. Allowable loaded coal truck traffic along CR 120 through each phase of the RIA

Phase/Year Coal Production

(Tons)*

Average Daily Loaded

Truck Trips

Phase 1, 2 /November 2017 711,360 80 Loaded/160 ADTs

Phase 3/November 2019 711,360 80 Loaded/160 ADTs

Phase 4/November 2020 889,200 100 Loaded/200 ADTs

Phase 5/April 2022 1,067,040 120 Loaded/240 ADTs

Note: ADT = Average Daily Trips.

*It is important to note that the volume of coal production is based on the size of haul trucks contracted by GCC and in no way is 

limited by LPC. LPC has no jurisdiction with regards to allowable coal production. 

Table 2-3 shows the commensurate coal production volumes hauled to clients/markets in the 

southwestern U.S. and Mexico based on the BLM’s estimates of coal reserves (4.66 million tons) 

available within the currently proposed lease modification area.

Table 2-3. Estimated coal production through life of lease modification

Year Coal Production

(Tons/yr.)

Total Remaining

Reserve

2017 711,360 4,660,000*

2018 711,360 3,948,640

2019 711,360 3,237,280

2020 741,000 2,496,280

2021 889,200 1,607,080

2022 1,025,145 581,935

2023 1,067,040 0 by May 2023*

7 yr. Average 836,638

*Based on the emergency leasing request, GCC estimated in February 2016 that they could mine until May 2018 before reserves 

in the proposed lease modification areas would be bypassed.

As stated above, most of the coal produced is transported by truck to a rail terminal in Gallup, New 

Mexico owned and operated by Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). Coal is delivered by the BNSF rail 

network directly to GCC owned cement plants in Mexico (240,000 tons/yr.) and to variable customers in 

Arizona and Texas determined by coal and natural gas market conditions and available coal supply from 

King II. 

Based on the maximum average daily coal truck trips allowable under the LPC RIA, and because the 

contracted haul truck fleet have a 24.5 ton/truck capacity, approximately 1,067,040 tons/yr. can be hauled

from the King II mine and delivered to the Gallup, New Mexico BNSF rail terminal once Phase 5 road 

improvements have been completed in 2023. Of that total, approximately 867,000 tons could be delivered 

to the Gallup BNSF rail hub, 181,000 tons/yr. would be delivered directly by truck to two GCC-owned 

and operated cement plants in Pueblo, Colorado (105,000 tons/yr.) and in Tijeras, New Mexico (76,000 

tons/yr.) where the coal is used as a fuel source in the cement manufacturing process. Small coal volumes 

are sold for local residential heating (7,000 tons/yr. to Hay Gulch Coal Sales located on east end of CR 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-39-

120 N) and to the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gage Railroad (3,600 tons/yr.) and to the Cumbres and 

Toltec Scenic Railroad in Chama, New Mexico (1,500 tons/yr.) locally. It’s important to note that the 

King II mine would be close to having exhausted the estimated coal reserves in the proposed lease 

modification by 2023.

Table 2-4. Coal transport delivery

Destination Coal Delivered

(Tons/year)

Truck Deliveries 

Per Year

Trucking 

Miles/Year

Known Delivery Location*

GCC Pueblo Cement Plant 105,000 3,684 (12/day) 1,996,728

GCC Tijeras Cement Plant 76,000 2,666 (8.5/day) 1,215.696

Local home heating 7,000 n/a n/a

DSNGRR 3,600 123 (0.4/day) 4,920

TCSRR 1,500 53 (0.2/day) 13,462

Gallup NM Rail Delivery

Gallup NM 643,538**

(Max 873,940***)

22,847 (73/day) 7,767,980

*

Coal volumes based on known contracts directly trucked from King II to the customer. Estimates are conservative as natural gas 

usage offsets reduces coal volumes periodically.

**Coal delivered volume to BNSF Gallup estimated based on average estimated annual average between 2017 and 2023 (Table 

2-3).

***The maximum potential delivered to BNSF is based on the maximum volume of coal hauled annually from King II after 

Phase 5 road improvements have been completed (2023). Based on the estimated reserves, this volume could only be produced 

for 1 year (refer to Table 2-3).

For the environmental analysis completed in this EA, Table 2-4 shows the trucking miles of coal trucks 

taking coal to either be burned in a GCC-owned cement kiln or regional narrow gauge railroad; or 

delivering the coal to Gallup, New Mexico for national/international coal sales and delivery. The distance 

from the mine to rail loading facilities in Gallup, New Mexico is about 170 miles. 

As documented in Section 1.9 Scoping and Identification of Issues, the transportation of coal from the 

King II facility to SH 140 was the most frequently identified issue of public concern. During the La Plata 

County LUP process, GCC proposed access via State Highway 140 to CR 120 and then approximately 

6.4 miles south/west to the King II Mine site. The first 2.5 miles of CR 120 are paved and the road is 

approximately 22 feet wide. The last 3.9 miles of CR 120 are gravel and the road is approximately 24 feet 

wide. GCC’s proposed traffic accounts for approximately 99 percent of loading by weight on north CR 

120 and approximately 67 percent by volume (660/983 trips, Traffic Impact Assessment, November 19, 

2015). For this volume and load of traffic on north CR 120, the applicable road classification is “Local, 

10 plus units” (LPCLUC Sec. 74-91.c). County standards require a Local 10 plus units road to be 

constructed to a minimum 24-foot wide paved road plus 3-foot shoulders and a 60-foot short-term rightof-way (ROW). The adopted County code also addresses the need for safe road alignment and sight 

distance (LPCLUC Sec 74-91.d).

Anticipated traffic impacts along CR 120 were evaluated in the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) by 

Roadrunner Design Services dated November 19, 2015 (with earlier versions dated June 10, 2014 and 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-40-

July 31, 2015). For CR 120 to accommodate the haul trucks, in compliance with the adopted La Plata 

County Land Use Code, Chapter 74, roadway improvements were deemed necessary by La Plata County. 

GCC provided Conceptual Road Design Plans by Roadrunner Design Services, dated November 17, 2015 

and a Property Ownership Illustration dated September 1, 2015. At the time, LPC deemed the conceptual 

plans feasible.

To address the safety concerns and to bring the access and coal hauling portion of the project into 

compliance with LPCLUC, LPC chose to draft and execute a RIA with GCC. The RIA is a contract 

between the Board of County Commissioners and GCC. More specifically, the RIA addresses the 

following key topics:

▪ Acknowledgement of phased limits on the daily average for outgoing trucks (based on a monthly 

average and daily maximum);

▪ Right-of-way acquisition process and timing;

▪ Road construction development/standards;

▪ Construction phasing, timing and associated hauling allowances; and

▪ Ongoing road maintenance fees due to degradation of initial improvements through applicant’s 

ongoing use.

The RIA as executed now complies with LPC’s LUC requirements. Table 2-2 provides an overview of 

the allowable coal truck traffic authorized by the RIA per phase of road improvements completed. An 

average of 80 (96 maximum) haul trucks/day is the initial approved volume and loading during Phases 1, 

2, and 3 of road improvements in the executed RIA. Upon completion of Phases 1, 2, and 3, haul truck 

traffic would be allowed to increase to an average 100 haul trucks/day (120 maximum) until Phases 4 and 

5 are completed and accepted by LPC. Upon completion and County acceptance of Phase 5 

improvements, GCC would be authorized to haul coal at a rate of 120 haul trucks/day (144 maximum).

With respect to improvements to the intersection of CR 120 and SH 140; GCC is bound to the terms and 

conditions of their CDOT access permit that requires certain intersection upgrades when particular traffic 

volume thresholds are surpassed. Upon reaching the state highway, existing highway network is assumed 

to adequately support haul operations because existing traffic on SH 140 is 2600 Annual Average Daily 

Traffic count (AADT1), which King II Mine traffic would only account for less than 10 percent of the

total AADT on SH 140. Substantial detail around LPC’s decision-making process and the rationale for 

the RIA is included in LPC’s LUP Staff Report included as Exhibit 0 on the La Plata County GCC 

Energy Project webpage at http://lpccds.org/planning/gcc_energy_project/ (refer to 

http://laplatacountyco.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=3103 for all exhibit links referenced 

in this EA).

 

1 CDOT Traffic Count Station ID 104631, 2015 value. Available at: 

http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/trafficdata#ui/0/0/0/criteria//67/true/true/.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-41-

2.1.4 Road Improvements to CR 120

The road improvements to CR 120 will be performed by GCC in conformance with all County standards 

and specifications in effect at the time of commencement of construction including, but not necessarily 

limited to those standards and conditions set forth in Section 82-161 and Chapter 74 of Subpart B of the

LPCC, and in accordance with detailed plans and specifications of the proposed road improvements 

submitted to and approved by the LPC Engineer. There is no federal decision to be made by either 

OSMRE or BLM with regards to road improvements to CR 120. The regulatory decision that authorized 

GCC’s use of CR 120 for coal hauling was part of LPC’s Class II LUP process (refer to Sections 1.1.3 

and 2.1.3). 

As described in Section 2.1.3, the RIA, among other things, defines construction phasing, timing, and 

associated hauling allowances along CR 120. The phasing and timing of specific road improvements is 

included in the RIA that is publicly available for review from LPC and has been made a part of the 

Administrative Record for this EA.

The road improvements include temporary paving in front of several residences, realignment of specified 

road sections, widening specified road sections, regrading and paving specified road sections; and 

reconstruction of the existing portion of paved road. By the completion of Phase 5 road improvements, 

the entire approximately 6.5 miles of CR 120 from SH 140 to the King II facility would be paved and in 

conformance with LPC road design and safety standards (LPCLUC Sec 74-91.c.d.).

Table 2-5 summarizes the anticipated new ground disturbance along CR 120 anticipated from 

implementation of the RIA. Because the road improvements are incremental over a 5-year period, and 

dependent upon the LPC Engineer’s approval of proposed engineering design and construction plans, 

exact locations of future ground disturbance are not precisely known. For analyzing potential impacts to 

environmental resources along the existing CR 120 alignment, the following conservative ground 

disturbance assumption is made.

Table 2-5. Anticipated new ground disturbance from CR 120 improvements

a.

Reconstructed 

Roadway 

Width (feet)

b.

Exist 

Estimated 

Average 

Road 

Width 

(feet)

c.

Width of 

Disturbance

(feet)

(a. – b.)

d.

Length of 

Road 

Improvements

(miles)

e.

Length of 

Road 

Improvements 

(d. * 5,280)

f.

Approximate 

Area of 

Disturbance

(square feet)

(c. * e.)

Approximate 

Acres of 

Disturbance

(f./43,560)

30 24 6 6.5 34,320 205,920 4.7
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-42-

The estimate of approximately 4.7 acres of potential new ground along CR 120 is conservative because it 

assumes a 6-foot width of construction disturbance along the entire roadway. In actuality, there will be 

many areas where a narrower width of impact will occur and some areas where the disturbance area will 

be broader. The calculation of anticipated disturbance acreage in Table 2-5 represents a reasonable 

projection of anticipated ground disturbance. The road improvement construction process generally 

includes the following stages:

▪ Survey crews establish control lines (setting reference points in the existing pavement or ROW) 

to guide the construction crews.

▪ Vegetation within the ROW construction zone will be removed. 

▪ Equipment needed to construct the improvements includes track hoes, bulldozers, dump trucks, 

graders, compactors, and loaders and similar heavy equipment. A water tender would also be 

used for compaction of the road surface and dust abatement during construction. Several 

corrugated metal drainage pipes may be required at larger dry wash crossings.

Many of the road improvements required in Phases 1-3 have already been completed under the direction 

of LPC and as required by GCC’s LUP. Each. phase of construction is reviewed, approved and monitored 

for adherence to LPC LUC and adherence to approved plans throughout the construction process by the 

LPC Engineer. As part of the plan review process LPC requires that site-specific environmental reviews 

be prepared as part of plan review. Accordingly, site-specific clearances and, if necessary, permitting for 

crossing potentially jurisdictional areas of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (or other sensitive resource 

issues) will be completed under the purview of LPC at the time that site-specific road improvement 

construction plans are submitted to the LPC Engineer. Nonetheless, for the purpose of this analysis and 

consideration of road construction impacts, are analyzed as indirect potential impacts to the environment,

made to supplement or inform future site-specific approval by LPC. 

As defined in the RIA, GCC is required to pay a road maintenance fee of $0.12 per ton of coal removed 

from the mine project until January 1, 2018. Thereafter, the maintenance fee shall increase yearly in 

accordance with increases in the Annual Construction Cost Index published by the Colorado Department 

of Transportation. This fee will be used for road maintenance activities completed by LPC including the 

application of gravel, snow removal, signage, sign maintenance, blading, shoulder repairs, cleaning of 

drainage ditches and culverts, repair and replacement of culverts, restriping, repairs of erosion damage or 

embankment slopes, weed mitigation, dust control and stabilization, pavement preservation, pavement 

maintenance (including but not limited to asphalt crack sealing, pot hole repair, chip sealing, slurry or 

micro-surfacing, overlay or partial and/or full-depth repairs), pavement rehabilitation (including but not 

limited to structural enhancements that extend the service life of existing pavement and/or improves its 

load carrying capacity such as restoration treatments and structural overlays) and pavement 

reconstruction.

GCC is responsible for all work and costs associated with the reseeding and/or weed control of the 

improved portions of CR 120 for 1 year following the completion of any phase of the Road Improvements 

(Design Feature 5).
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-43-

2.1.5 Water Supply

Water is used at the King II Mine primarily for dust suppression, as required by MSHA and other 

regulations for worker safety and mine operations. Since there is no water supply at the mine, water for 

the King II Mine is based on water rights owned and leased by GCC. Water is delivered to the King II 

Mine site through ditches on the private Huntington Ranch and then the Huntington pipeline. GCC and 

Huntington Ranch have completed negotiations with respect to water rights conveyance and easements. 

The water right decree in Colorado Water Court District 7 for Case Number 07CW100 provides raw 

water for mine operations and for treatment to provide potable water for offices and sanitary facilities. 

The decree provides up to 34.07 acre-feet annually from three sources of water: Huntington irrigation dryup, diversion from the La Plata River, and well water. In 2015, GCC filed (2015CW3059) for 

supplemental water supply to meet the requirements of LPC’s land use code. The supplemental water 

supply is comprised of Huntington Class A Shares through dry-up of an additional 44 acres of previously 

irrigated Huntington-owned lands. This supplemental water supply required a “change of use” decree 

from the water court to allow irrigation water to be used at the mine. The supplemental water and “change 

of use” were approved by the District Court, Water Division No. 7 on January 6, 2017.

As part of GCC’s continued effort to reduce impacts to water resources, an existing 20-acre-foot 

underground reservoir was replaced in 2016 with an alternate storage reservoir with capacity of up to 40 

acre-feet at the Huntington Ranch location through enlargement of an existing pond. Per the current 

decree, GCC may store its First Lease Water, Second Lease Water, or any other water rights decreed in 

Case Number 07CW100 in this reservoir. This additional storage will allow for a reliable water supply at 

the mine into the future. 

2.1.6 Reclamation

After completion of mining the following sequence of reclamation events will occur as detailed in Table 

2-6. These actions are estimated to take the specified amount of time but GCC Energy, LLC does not 

commit to any specified timeframe. Certain activities may be accelerated or delayed dependent on season 

and whether they can be carried on contemporaneously with other activities.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-44-

Table 2-6. Reclamation Timetable

Activity Estimated 

Timeframe

Mine Portal Sealing 1 month

Demolition and Removal of Structures 4 months

Backfilling and Grading 6 months

Re-Establishment of Surface Drainages 2 months

Re-Top soiling 2 months

Revegetation 1 Month

Removal of Sediment Control Structures, 

Re-Top soiling, and Revegetation

2 months 

(through 2 years later)

Revegetation Monitoring Biennially

(estimated at 2-3 years until bond release)

Reclamation details including: soil removal, storage, and redistribution; soil suitability descriptions; 

revegetation; revegetation success criteria; and sealing mine openings are described in detail in the state 

mine permit C-1981-035. Reclamation details for surface disturbance associated with exploration drilling 

on UMU surface are provided in Federal Permit CO-0106A. All reclamation activities are in conformance 

with all information required under 30 CFR 784.13 through 784.26 and CDRMS Regulations of the 

Colorado Mined Land Reclamation board for Coal Mining.

2.1.7 Design Features 

The design features included as part of the Proposed Action are measures intended to minimize impacts to 

the environment and to area residents. Many of these design features were included in GCC’s LPC LUP 

application or were negotiated or required by LPC during the LUP review process to meet LPC’s Code 

Standards for Compatible Development (Section 82-193(c) (2)(a) through (f) of the LPC Code of 

Ordinances) as required to obtain a Class II land use permit. These measures are summarized below and 

grouped by the issues that they address. These design features are included in the Proposed Action as 

GCC committed measures to eliminate, reduce, or monitor potential resource impacts associated with 

mining activities at King II Mine. These and additional operating conditions are detailed in the LPC LUP 

Staff Report publicly available on the La Plata GCC Energy website at: http://laplatacountyco.iqm2.com

/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=3103&MediaPosition=&ID=3163&CssClass=.

Design Feature 1a: Dust from facility and mining operations 

Dust generated by surface coal handling activities is suppressed or contained by the design of processing 

equipment. For example, conveyors and transfer points and associated screening and crushing equipment 

are enclosed. The coal stockpile conveyors are discharged through stacking tubes rather than into open 

air. Coal is loaded into trucks with equipment designed to minimize fugitive dust emissions. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-45-

Design Feature 1b: Dust from truck traffic

Dust generated by coal truck traffic is minimized through a variety of measures including applying water 

and magnesium chloride solution to unpaved road surfaces, reducing truck speeds on unpaved surfaces, 

and covering coal loads to eliminate blown coal dust. Some of the specific measures that GCC has 

committed to as part of their LUP include: 

▪ Temporary paving of approximately 1 mile from 2541 to 3230 CR 120 was completed in June 

2016 (Phase 1).

▪ Until such time the entirety of north CR 120 between SH 140 and the King II Coal Mine is paved, 

GCC shall treat unpaved sections of north CR 120 with dust retardant such as water and/or 

magnesium chloride as determined by the LPC Public Works Director.

▪ Until such time that the entirety of north CR 120 between SH 140 and the King II Coal Mine is 

paved, GCC shall ensure trucks hauling coal from King II Coal Mine do not cause dust that rises 

any higher than a coal truck’s wheels to be visually observed.

▪ GCC shall ensure that all coal trucks hauling coal from the King II Coal Mine cover their loads 

prior to leaving the mine site.

Design Feature 2: Groundwater Quality

To verify baseline conditions and monitor that the King II Mine is not adversely affecting the water wells 

of adjacent landowners, GCC has completed the following measures:

▪ GCC has installed four monitoring well clusters (Technical Revision #26). Refer to Map A-8 for 

the locations of the monitoring well clusters. Each monitoring well cluster includes one well 

completed above the Menefee Formation “A” coal seam, one well completed in the “A” coal 

seam, and one well completed in the lower Menefee Formation below the “A” coal seam where 

groundwater is encountered. These clusters are located upgradient and downgradient of the King 

II Mine. They will be used to meet monitoring and data requirements for LPC, CDRMS, and the 

OSMRE related to groundwater quality and hydrologic balance. Data from these monitoring 

wells will also be used to support updates to the Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 

(CHIA) and Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) for the King II Mine permit. 

▪ GCC has committed to replacing the existing underground water storage with aboveground water 

storage as part of its supplemental water supply plan. Closure of the underground water storage 

will further eliminate risk to groundwater and be reclaimed or recovered per requirements 

specified by CDRMS and the OSMRE as part of the associated mine permit.

Design Feature 3: Subsidence

Compliance by GCC with CDRMS Regulation 2.03.7(3), Relationship to Areas Designated Unsuitable 

for Mining, addresses risk of subsidence from underground mining to adjacent surface property. While 

this is not a typical design feature, it is highlighted here to directly address scoping issues raised by 

adjacent landowners. The regulation restricts mining to an area outside 300 feet of an occupied dwelling. 

Furthermore, OSMRE and CDRMS typically requires that “angle-of-draw” be considered in determining 

a distance where mining is not permitted. Angle-of-draw accounts for the possibility that the effects of 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-46-

subsidence may extend beyond the actual extent of mining, typically figured at a 35-45-degree angle 

extended to the surface. See the diagram below. For added assurance, GCC has agreed to the following 

design features:

▪ As a LPC LUP condition, GCC has committed to avoiding mining activity within 600 feet 

measured horizontally of a dwelling without an expressed waiver in writing executed by the 

dwelling owner.

▪ GCC has committed in its subsidence monitoring program prepared and undertaken pursuant to 

Rule 2.05.06(6)(c) of the Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal 

Mining to include all dwellings within 1,000 feet measured horizontally of the mining activities.

▪ GCC has agreed to measure and monitoring on a quarterly basis the static groundwater level in 

the wells identified within CDRMS Technical Revision-26 or as amended, and within 10 days of 

measuring the static groundwater post the results on a publicly accessible website.

▪ GCC has committed to annual subsidence monitoring after snowmelt on UMU surface in 

accordance with Federal Permit CO-0106A. 

Design Feature 4a: Noise and vibration from the facility

GCC has implemented the following measures to minimize on-site and off-site noise and vibration from 

its mining operations and facilities. 

▪ GCC limits operation of the coal crushing and screening facility on the surface to daylight hours. 

Coal crushing and screening on the surface is normally limited to 6 to 10 hours per day.

▪ The largest source of noise generated at the facility is the ventilation fan at the mine portal

(Matheson Mining Consultants 2013). Although the 2013 noise study did not detect fan noise at 

nearby residences, it was reported anecdotally that under certain atmospheric and wind 

conditions, some mine noise could be detected as much as a few miles away. Additional noise 

studies were completed in 2015 by Aimone-Martin (hired by LPC) and in 2016 by Wave 

Engineering (hired by GCC) and Braslau Associates (hired by a landowner; David Braslau 

Associates, Inc. 2016). In response to the findings in these studies (additional detail provided in 

Section 3.11 Noise and Vibration), GCC installed noise-reduction equipment on this fan in April 

2015 and will install similar or newer technology noise-reduction equipment on other large fans 

that may be used at the mine in the future.

▪ GCC learned that noise from surface equipment startup alarms and backup alarms at the mine site 

could be heard at neighboring residences. Several subsequent actions were undertaken to 

eliminate or reduce alarm noise. Two alarms that emitted a loud two-tone chirp several hundred 

times daily were eliminated entirely. Alarms required for safety or by law were replaced or 

modified so as not to project sound beyond the site boundaries. Finally, all alarm sounds were 

reduced to the minimum level required to meet safety and legal standards.

▪ GCC also modified facility load-out procedures to reduce activation of truck backup alarms 

during the loading process. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-47-

▪ GCC has and will continue to solicit observations from neighbors to assist in identifying noise 

that has not otherwise been addressed.

Design Feature 4b: Noise and vibration from truck traffic

GCC has prepared a noise and visual buffering plan for site-specific conditions at 2541 and 3230 CR 120, 

which provide a definitive commitment to directly address this design feature. These residences are 

immediately adjacent to the road and thereby warranted buffering from noise and dust. Buffering 

measures included in the plan include sound walls, landscaping, and berming as the respective condition 

provides to directly address and achieve compatibility. Impacts directly mitigated with this plan include 

noise, traffic, dust, unsightly views and other negative impacts, which are perceptible by adjoining land 

uses along north CR 120. The noise and visual buffering plan will be implemented by GCC at the 

discretion of the respective landowners; and will be available for implementation from the time of 

approval of this project up until the completion of Phase 5 road improvements. 

In addition to buffering and screening, which have the potential to mitigate certain impacts for those 

directly adjacent to the road, the following design criteria will be implemented for all residents along CR 

120:

▪ At any time prior to the completion of Phase 5 road improvements, GCC shall reimburse La Plata 

County up to $5,000 for expenses incurred hiring a consultant to determine the adequacy and 

efficacy of any buffering plan and/or installation required as part of this class II land use permit.

▪ Haul trucks must travel at no greater than 10 mph or as determined by the LPC Engineer on 

gravel portions of the road within 200 feet of residential structures, unless the La Plata County 

Public Works Director authorizes a faster speed in writing. 

▪ Sound measurements at 50 feet from the edge of north CR 120 between State Highway 140 and 

King II Coal Mine attributed to trucks hauling coal from the King II Coal Mine shall not exceed 

86 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at any time.

Design Feature 5: Traffic 

To provide for the safety of the traveling public, residents, and mine traffic, the route proposed for use by 

haul trucks needs to be improved to minimum county standards as per LPCLUC 74-91(c), design 

standards. GCC proposes to achieve these minimum requirements via an executed RIA that captures the 

improvements within a phased (5 phases) development schedule. Executed in conjunction with the land 

use permit, each scheduled improvement under this agreement would provide improved and safer 

conditions to the roadway, while progressively achieving compliance with the land use permit.

To improve conditions on CR 120 related to traffic and road hazards created by the coal truck traffic, 

GCC has committed to the following measures, which are also illustrated in Map A-7, CR 120 N

Roadway Current Conditions and Proposed Improvements in Appendix A:

▪ GCC will pave and improve CR 120. GCC will pave certain gravel portions of CR 120 with the 

temporary widening of the 90-degree corner at mile marker 0.3 2016. The first scheduled paving 

of the gravel portions of CR 120 will be adjacent to residences near the end of the existing 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-48-

pavement. The proposed schedule of paving and road improvements is detailed in the updated 

GCC Energy King II Coal Mine Traffic Impact Assessment dated July 31, 2015, in the RIA and 

included in GCC’s revised land use permit application. 

▪ GCC will also extend culverts for the Big Stick irrigation ditch and widen pavement at the curve 

and repaint centerlines on CR 120 at mile marker 0.3 from SH 140 to provide for better lane 

usage by haul trucks. This project was initiated in the spring of 2015, but was halted when the Big 

Stick ditch came on call (was flowing water. The work was completed in the Fall of 2015 after 

the irrigation season. 

▪ Vegetation has been cleared along CR 120 in certain locations for purposes of improving sight 

distances for vehicles traveling along the road. 

▪ GCC has a written policy that imposes speed limitations on all haul trucks on CR 120. Under this 

policy, trucks shall not travel faster than 25 mph on gravel sections of CR 120, shall reduce speed 

to 10 mph while passing residences on the gravel portions of CR 120, shall abide by advisory 

speed signs, and shall travel no faster than 5 mph below posted speed limits on paved sections. 

▪ GCC has established a direct dial phone number that can be used to report safety concerns or 

violations. 

▪ Haul trucks are not allowed to install or remove load tarps in CR 120 traffic lanes. Sufficient 

parking space is provided at the mine site for these activities. 

▪ GCC shall be responsible for all work and costs associated with the reseeding and/or weed 

control of the improved portions of CR 120 for 1 year following the completion of any phase of 

the Road Improvements.

▪ GCC shall be responsible for all costs associated with LPC’s acquisition of the ROW, either 

through eminent domain or threat of eminent domain, all costs (including but not limited to the 

cost of appraisers and expert witnesses) and reasonable attorney’s fees associated therewith.

▪ GCC shall pay an annual Maintenance Fee for their usage of CR 120. Until January 1, 2018, the 

Maintenance Fee shall be $0.12 per ton of coal removed from the Mine Project. Thereafter, the 

Maintenance Fee shall increase yearly in accordance with increases in the Annual Construction 

Cost Index published by the Colorado Department of Transportation.

Operational and Interim Mitigation Measures

In addition to the date specific road improvements and the respective upper (120 haul trucks/day) and 

lower (80 haul trucks/day) truck volume limitations, GCC will implement the following additional 

mitigation measures (Phase 1 road improvements have been completed by GCC, yet are described in this 

section to clarify measures taken to reduce resource impacts analyzed in this EA):

▪ GCC will temporarily pave from 2541 (McQue property) to 3230 CR 120 (Hunzeker property) 

for an approximate 1-mile stretch (Phase 1), to reduce dust, noise, and improve road safety.

▪ Concentration of permanent road improvements in 2017 to specifically address key areas of road 

safety. Phases 2 and 3 include realignment of the 90-degree corner, widening and repaving 2 

miles from the edge of existing pavement (McQue residence) to King I providing paving for three 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-49-

residences and realignment by Wiltse’s Barn and other constrained areas. The area known as the 

Narrows between King I and King II will be widened and regraded to improve line of sight and 

safe travel.

▪ Concurrent with Phase 1 road improvements, install automated, flashing warning lights and safety 

signage at locations known as the Narrows and Wiltse’s Barn to increase driver awareness of 

truck traffic.

▪ Hauling is suspended on Sundays to provide a day of respite for the residential uses along the 

chosen haul route.

▪ The maximum number of outgoing haul trucks in a single-day is not to exceed 20 percent above 

the monthly average (e.g., 80*20% = 96, 100*20% = 120, 120*20% = 144). This creates a cap on 

the degree to which truck traffic can peak on any given day.

▪ To minimize night-time hauling and associated safety (and noise) impacts, a maximum of 20

percent total haul trucks to run between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. the next morning. 

▪ To increase road safety and reduce dust, a speed limit for semi-trucks is 25 mph on gravel, 5 mph

under posted limits on pavement. GCC is committed to ensuring that all contracted truck hauling 

businesses and drivers are aware of and adhere to said prohibition.

▪ To increase road safety, coal hauling trucks are prohibited from stopping or parking within the 

ROW along CR 120 or any other CR. Except in unforeseen circumstances or cases of emergency, 

the installation or removal of tire chains is not permitted anywhere within the CR 120 ROW. 

GCC shall be responsible for ensuring that all contracted truck hauling businesses and drivers are 

aware of and adhere to said prohibitions.

▪ To increase road safety, GCC shall ensure that no trucks haul coal from the King II Coal Mine 

anytime the permittee or the LPC Public Works Director, or his/her designee, determines that 

road conditions are, or will be in the near future, substandard for any reason such that continued 

coal hauling could create an unsafe condition for the traveling public; the permittee may resume 

allowing trucks to continue hauling coal from the King II Coal Mine only after the LPC Public 

Works Director, or his/her designee, verifies orally or in writing that it is safe to resume hauling 

operations. 

▪ GCC shall require all coal haul trucks and trailers to have easily identifiable vehicle numbers to 

aid in reporting truck issues. GCC shall have a direct dial phone number (currently 970-247-

7934) for the public to relay such information to GCC. GCC shall keep a log of truck transports 

and reports of truck issues for the purposes of addressing unsafe driving behavior. GCC shall be 

responsible for ensuring that all contracted truck hauling businesses and drivers are aware of and 

adhere to said condition. Upon receipt of a complaint, GCC shall investigate and take action to 

remedy any unsafe driving behavior.

▪ Should GCC seek increased transportation of coal trucks beyond the maximum number per day 

on CR 120, GCC shall apply for a major amendment to this Class II land use permit in 

accordance with the standards and process dictated by the applicable provisions of the LPC Code.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-50-

2.2 No Action

The BLM NEPA Handbook (USDI/BLM 2008) states that for EAs on externally initiated Proposed 

Actions, the No Action Alternative is generally to reject the proposal or deny the license. This option is 

provided in 40 CFR 1502.14. The No Action Alternative provides a useful baseline for comparison of 

environmental effects (including cumulative effects) and demonstrates the consequences of not meeting 

the need for the action. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease modification would not be approved. Thus, federal coal 

reserves within the four tracts being applied for would not be recovered by GCC and approximately 4.66 

million tons of recoverable coal would not be mined.

Coal production at the King II Mine would cease once coal reserves under existing leases were mined and 

reclamation activities would commence. Based on GCC and BLM estimates, reserves would be depleted 

prior to 2019; dependent upon how GCC staggered production as it began mine closure. Under the No 

Action Alternative, there would be no new surface disturbance, removal of coal, or other impacts 

associated with the activities described under the Proposed Action. Under this scenario, GCC would 

likely request renegotiation of the RIA with LPC as the currently required improvements could not be 

capitalized without the coal production authorized in the RIA. For this analysis, it is estimated that road 

improvements would be completed through Phase 3 (November 2019).

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

If an alternative is considered during the EA process but the agency decides not to analyze the alternative 

in detail, the agency must identify those alternatives and briefly explain why they were eliminated from 

detailed analysis (40 CFR 1502.14). An action alternative may be eliminated from detailed analysis if: 

▪ it is ineffective (does not respond to the purpose and need);

▪ it is technically or economically infeasible (consider whether implementation of the alternative is 

likely given past and current practice and technology);

▪ it is inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the area (such as, not in 

conformance with the land use plan);

▪ its implementation is remote or speculative;

▪ it is substantially similar in design to an alternative that is analyzed; and,

▪ it would have substantially similar effects to an alternative that is analyzed.

Several alternatives to the proposed lease modification were considered, including alternative lease tracts 

as well as alternative coal removal and transport methods to minimize the impacts for efficient coal 

resource recovery. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-51-

2.3.1 Leasing and Mining Alternatives

The original submission for the lease modification submitted to the BLM in March 2012 included a Tract 

C that was removed by GCC in October 2014 because timing and coal quality issues would make it 

inaccessible from the active workings of the King II Mine. GCC requested that Tract A be modified to 

include additional acreage to replace the acreage removed. The result was the final lease modification 

being evaluated in this EA. 

Potential alternative methods for mining the coal reserves in the lease modification area identified by 

GCC were either determined to be technologically unsuited to the topography and character of the coal 

seam (as underground long-wall mining requires significantly wide deposits [0.25 to 1.0 mile] of nearly 

uniform coal seams of a given height and character), or would result in significantly greater 

environmental disturbance (including open pit, contour, or other surface mining methods). 

2.3.2 Coal Transportation Alternatives

Alternative coal transport options have been considered and analyzed by the BLM and the OSMRE and 

by the cooperating agencies—particularly LPC—since July 2012 when GCC submitted a Class II LUP 

application to LPC. During this time, there was also substantial input from GCC, the public, and a variety 

of expert witnesses as the LPC Planning process presented a platform for the exchange of ideas and 

debate. In 2014 Roadrunner Engineering, LLC, under contract to GCC, prepared a TIA. The TIA was an 

integral part of the LPC planning process and was revised/updated in July 2015 and again in November 

2015 as directed by LPC or was necessary to respond to new information presented by the public during 

the LPC LUP review process. The TIA evaluated baseline traffic values and projected traffic volumes 20 

years into the future using LPC data. The TIA also evaluated project area accident records, traffic 

volumes and loading, speed limits and sight distances, design criteria, and included an assessment of 

alternative haul road option assessment. The TIA is publicly available on the LPC Planning Department 

website under the GCC Energy Project link at: http://lpccds.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_1323669/File

/La%20Plata%20County's%20Community%20Development%20Services%20Department%20Migration/

Planning/Oil%20and%20Gas/GCC%20Energy%20Project/1%20-%20GCC%20Energy%20King%20II

%20TIA%20-Final%20151119.pdf.

The TIA performed an assessment of eight different haul route options to move coal product from the 

mine to SH 140. In addition to the transportation alternatives evaluated in the TIA and considered by 

LPC, there were variations of the TIA alternatives and new alternatives presented by the public and/or via 

expert testimony that frame the consideration of alternative coal transportation in this EA. These 

transportation alternatives, listed in Table 2-6, were the focus of 4 years of detailed LPC Planning 

Commission and Board of County Commissioners evaluation whereas 96 technical and/or communication 

exhibits were generated throughout the public participation and decision-making process.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-52-

Table 2-7. Transportation coal hauling alternatives

No. Alternative Description Source of 

Alternative

1 New North Bound 

Haul Road

This option included construction of a dedicated haul 

road north to a new intersection with U.S. 160. The 

roadway would be approximately eight miles in 

length. 

TIA (2015)

Public Comment 

(San Juan 

Citizen’s 

Alliance)

2 Railroad Spur This option is based on the development of a railroad 

spur line from Gallup to Farmington then north to the 

vicinity of King II Mine. 

TIA

3 CR 120 North All coal production transported via CR 120, northern 

route. This option reflects that both inbound and 

outbound transport vehicles (semi-trucks) utilize the 

northern segment of CR 120. This is the approved 

access road in the GCC Class II LUP recently issued 

by LPC; conditioned by the RIA.

TIA

Public Comments 

(multiple)

4 Loop Route 1 Inbound (empty) transport vehicles utilize the 

southern segment of CR 120 and outbound (loaded) 

vehicles utilizing the northern segment of CR 120.

TIA

Public Comments 

(multiple)

5 Loop Route 2 Inbound (empty) transport vehicles utilizing CR 119 

with outbound (loaded) vehicles utilizing the northern 

segment of CR 120.

TIA

Public Comments 

(multiple)

6 New Designated Haul 

Road

This option would utilize a newly constructed haul 

road (approximately 5.5 miles) across State of 

Colorado and private lands. This new haul road would 

support both inbound and outbound transport trucks 

and would tie into CR 120 near the King I Mine 

location. The short segment of CR 120 between King I 

and King II would continue to be used for coal 

transport.

TIA

Public Comments

7 New Haul Road with 

Conveyor

This option would utilize a newly constructed haul 

road (approximately 5.3 miles) across State of 

Colorado and private lands. Coal would be transported 

by conveyor from the existing load-out to a new loadout constructed at the top of the mesa (approximately 

0.7 mile). Transport trucks would receive at the new 

load-out and haul via the new haul road. The new haul 

route would tie into the County roadway 

approximately 0.2 mile from intersection of SH 140 

and CR 120.

TIA

8 Coal Conveyor This option utilizes a newly constructed conveyor 

from the existing King II load-out to a new load-out 

located adjacent to SH 140 (approximately 6.0 miles 

in length). The new load-out would tie into the CR 

120 approximately 0.2 mile from intersection of SH 

140 and CR 120.

TIA

Public Comment
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-53-

No. Alternative Description Source of 

Alternative

9 Aerial Tram/Conveyor Little detail was provided in the scoping comment. For 

the purpose of consideration of an aerial tram or 

elevated conveyor; it is assumed that the alignment 

would follow that of alternatives 6, 7, and 8.

Public Comment

(Danielson)

10 Slurry Pipeline Little detail was provided in the scoping comment. For 

the purpose of consideration of constructing a pipeline 

to slurry convey coal; it is assumed that the alignment 

would follow that of alternatives 6, 7, and 8.

Public Comment

(Danielson)

As stated above, when considering alternatives to be carried through in a NEPA analysis, the alternatives

must, among other criteria, meet the project purpose and need; be technically and economically feasible; 

and its implementation must not be remote or speculative.

2.3.3 Alternatives Eliminated Following Initial Screening

Of the ten transportation alternatives identified through scoping, four alternatives were initially screened 

and subsequently eliminated from future detailed consideration and analysis in the EA. A summary 

description of each of the alternatives follows, along with the pros and cons identified and considered, and 

the rationale for eliminating from detailed analysis in this EA.

Alternative 1 – New North Bound Haul Road

This option would involve the construction of a dedicated haul road north to a new intersection with U.S. 

Highway 160. The roadway would be approximately 8 miles in length. This option was reviewed as a 

coal hauling alternative route that would eliminate the impacts to residents along CR 120 and CR 119. It 

would also reduce coal truck traffic along SH 140. The land north of the King II Mine to U.S. Highway 

160 is forested ponderosa pine and spruce/fir woodlands at the higher elevations and piñon-juniper and 

Gambel oak at lower elevations. The King II Mine is at 7,200 feet in elevation. The terrain extending to 

the north is characterized by steep slopes climbing in elevation to approximately 8,500 feet before 

descending back down to U.S. Highway 160. The area is remote, largely undisturbed land with excellent 

wildlife and scenic values. Some of the canyons in this area contain suitable habitat for the Mexican 

spotted owl, a federally threatened species, although there are no owl occurrence records from the 

immediate area (refer to Section 3.10 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species). There is a small 

network of primitive roads and/or 2-tracks that are likely used for hunting by area landowners. The land is 

mostly private all the way to the highway (minimum of eight private land parcels would be crossed). The 

access onto U.S. Highway 160 would be in the immediate vicinity of the Hesperus Ski Area creating a 

safety concern and impacts to the recreation experience. Once on U.S. Highway 160, coal trucks would 

need to travel westbound to U.S. Highway 491, either through the Cortez business district or via a newly 

constructed bypass.

The reasons for eliminating this alternative include the following:
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-54-

▪ Economically infeasible. Development of a new 8-mile long haul road and constructing a likely 

Cortez bypass to mitigate coal truck traffic through the business district would cost millions of 

dollars.

▪ Logistically infeasible, due to the duration of time to construct this alternative.

▪ Environmental impacts would be greater than those under consideration for the Proposed Action

and would add 10-15 additional one-way trucking miles per trip.

Alternative 2 – Railroad Spur

This option is based on the development of a railroad spur line from Gallup, New Mexico to Farmington, 

New Mexico. Several studies have estimated route options and costs. The most recent estimates to 

construct a railroad from Gallup, New Mexico to Farmington, New Mexico are in the range of $550 

million in 2013 dollars (NMDOT 2013). An additional length of railroad would be required to reach the 

Hesperus region. The original 99-mile spur plus the additional length to Hesperus does not change the 

findings of the Economic Feasibility Study that stated “in summary, it has been demonstrated that the 

heavy burden of the construction cost cannot be fully serviced by the cash flow generated by the railroad 

in the foreseeable future.”

In addition to the current economic infeasibility of building a rail line to Hesperus from Gallup, the 

majority of the land along the rail corridor between the Gallup/Thoreau area and Farmington crosses the 

Navajo reservation and federal lands. Even if the economics existed to support development of the 

Gallup-Farmington-Hesperus railroad, the environmental review alone (including a NEPA analysis)

would take years to complete. Under this alternative, coal would be bypassed within the existing King II 

permit area and GCC would be unable to move potential future coal to markets.

The reasons for eliminating this alternative include the following:

▪ Economically infeasible

▪ Logistically (from a timing perspective) infeasible, as it would take years to develop this 

alternative

▪ Because of the very high costs, extension of the rail service to the project area would require 

multiple other rail users (customers/investors); making development of this alternative highly 

speculative and remote

Environmental impacts would be significantly greater than those under consideration for the Proposed 

Action. 

Alternative 9 – Aerial Tram/Conveyor 

Development of an aerial tram/conveyor was an alternative raised during supplemental scoping. Little 

detail was provided in the scoping comment other than to describe this alternative as having a “very high 

relative capital cost,” a “low relative operating cost,” a “medium” production volume capability (with 

medium undefined); and that in terms of environmental considerations it was stated that an aerial tram 

would be “quiet with a limited footprint.” For consideration of an aerial tram or elevated conveyor; it is 

assumed that the alignment would follow that of alternatives 6, 7, and 8.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-55-

Coal conveyors are commonly constructed with a supporting service road to facilitate operations and 

maintenance. Assuming a modest 50-foot-wide disturbance corridor to construct a conveyor for the 

approximately six-mile length of alternatives 6, 7, and 8, ground disturbance would be approximately 

36.4 acres of permanent impact, an impact nine times greater than the Proposed Action. It is inaccurate to 

claim that aerial coal conveyors are “quiet.” While there have been some technological advancements to 

mitigate noise generated from coal conveyors, several studies referenced below identify coal conveyors as 

one of the noisiest pieces of equipment at an underground coal mine.

The following information is excerpted from Conroy et al. (2014) in a United States Patent Office filing: 

“Coal conveyors are widely used in the coal mining industry. They are used, for example, to convey raw 

coal or coal ore stones. Coal conveyors can save labor and improve efficiency by moving large volumes 

of material. A common type of coal conveyor is a belt conveyor. Belt conveyors typically include a long 

belt supported by a support structure, such as a metal frame. Rollers often are disposed at least at ends of 

the system. The belt is looped around each of the end rollers, one or more of which is powered to drive 

the belt across the metal frame, thereby moving the material. 

Typical coal conveyors can be expensive to implement. For example, a typical truss conveyor often has a 

large amount of structural steel. Typical coal conveyors also can be difficult to install. Because they are 

disposed on the ground and extend over a long span, it can be difficult to traverse roads and rough terrain. 

Installation can sometimes require the use of longer, alternative routes to avoid difficult to traverse areas. 

Coal conveyors also can have a significant environmental impact, especially relating to the generation of 

noise.”

In a study presented at Acoustics 2004 (Brown 2004), Brown concluded the following; “Large, outdoor 

belt conveyor systems for bulk materials are major sources of industrial noise and frequently become an 

environmental emissions issue for many existing and proposed plants. Deficiencies in the industry’s 

understanding of the complex, underlying conveyor noise generating mechanisms has meant there are 

relatively few practical and cost-effective noise management strategies.” In a “Coal Mining Planning and 

Design Institute, Survey Report” (2012), it was estimated that average noise generated by a belt conveyor 

system is about 89 decibels (dB). Elevating that continuous (day and night) noise 10-20 feet above the 

ground and along the mesa top east of Hay Gulch would serve to unnecessarily expand noise impacts to 

both area residents and wildlife. 

From a logistical standpoint, it would be unreasonable to assume that a feasible alignment and associated 

ROW could be obtained; then the conveyor constructed before the King II current coal reserve is 

exhausted. The commenter acknowledged this fact in the following statement: “The issue that GCC 

Energy has is that they do not have permission to mine coal in the lease modification or the exploration 

area. This would leave them about 2.67 million tons to mine. This situation is a time problem given the 

schedule for permit modification assuming the lease modification can be issued within the next year.”

The reasons for eliminating this alternative include the following:

▪ Economically infeasible; the commenter acknowledged, “It is unlikely that use of a conveyor 

would be lower cost as compared with over-the-road or off-highway trucks on a single use road.”
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-56-

The TIA reported an Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) cost over 20-years at a cost more than 3.5 

times that of the Proposed Action.

▪ Logistically (from a timing perspective) infeasible, could not be permitted and constructed before 

coal is bypassed and the current lease reserve exhausted; and

▪ Environmental impacts would be greater than those under consideration for the Proposed Action.

Alternative 10 – Development of a Slurry Pipeline

Development of a coal slurry pipeline was an alternative raised during supplemental scoping. Little detail 

was provided in the scoping comment other than to describe this alternative as having a “very high 

relative capital cost,” a “medium/low relative operating cost,” a “medium/high” production volume 

capability (tonnages undefined), and that in terms of environmental considerations it was stated that a 

slurry pipeline “requires water and dewatering systems, is quiet with a limited footprint.” For the purpose 

of consideration of a slurry pipeline; it is assumed that the alignment would follow that of alternatives 6, 

7, and 8. 

Coal transportation via slurry pipeline moves large quantities of coal suspended in water. Typically, the 

volume of coal equals the volume of water. In the West, water for suspending the coal is supplied by 

wells that pump water from groundwater aquifers; recharge of such aquifers is negligible relative to the 

rate of withdrawal (Gleick 1994). Assuming the estimated average annual production (over 7 years) as 

calculated in Table 2-3, GCC would need approximately 615-acre feet or about 200,509,222 gallons of 

water annually to slurry transport 837,126 tons of coal. Additionally, slurry pipelines usually terminate at 

a power plant where the water used to move the coal is recycled as cooling water for the power plant. In 

this case, the slurry pipeline would terminate at SH 140 where a dewatering facility would need to be 

designed and constructed. At this point recovered water would have to be either recycled, or reinjected 

into a water disposal well.

The reasons for eliminating this alternative include the following:

▪ Economically infeasible; the commenter acknowledged the “very high relative capital cost” and 

“medium/low relative operating cost.” 

▪ Technically and logistically infeasible. There is not sufficient water available to GCC to develop 

a slurry line.

2.3.4 Coal Transportation Alternatives Evaluated in Detail

Six other options were reviewed for cost magnitude, feasibility (including timing to develop), public 

safety, and environmental considerations. Three options were alternative haul routes on existing roads 

(Alternatives 3, 4, and 5) and three options considered dedicated haul roads or conveyors that do not use 

county roads (Alternatives 6, 7, and 8). A short description of each alternative is provided in Table 2-6. 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are also illustrated on Map A-4 included in Appendix A. Detailed engineering and 

cost analysis of each option is included in the TIA completed as part of GCC’s land use application with 

La Plata County and reviewed by La Plata County engineers (Roadrunner 2015). 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-57-

Additional detail regarding the factors that LPC considered when evaluating each alternative are included 

in the 2016 Planning Commission staff report, in the 77 attachments to the staff report listed on pages 47-

49 and within the 19 additional exhibits presented during the May 31, 2016 Board of County 

Commissioners hearing. Where appropriate, detail from the numerous exhibits is presented in the 

evaluation of each alternative below. 

Alternative 3 – CR 120 North (Current LPC Permitted Transportation Route under 

the Proposed Action)

Under this alternative, all coal production from King II Mine would be transported via CR 120, northern 

route. This option reflects that both inbound and outbound transport vehicles (semi-trucks) utilize the 

northern segment of CR 120. This is the approved access road in the GCC Class II LUP recently issued 

by LPC; conditioned by the RIA.

During the LUP public review process expert testimony was presented by transportation experts from 

Roadrunner Engineering (GCC’s consultant) and by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. (LSC). LSC 

was commissioned by the Law Offices of Luke Danielson, on behalf of Cross Creek Ranch. It should be 

noted that all parties participating in the discussions and debate around acceptable traffic volumes on CR 

120 agreed that the condition of the road, at the time of GCC’s Class II LUP application and prior, was 

unsafe as defined by the LPCLUC.

As stated above, Roadrunner Engineering evaluated this and other alternatives in the previously 

referenced RIA (Exhibit 4 in the LPC LUP staff report). LSC reviewed documents submitted and data 

provided by GCC, the mine’s owner, their consultants, LPC, and other consultants retained by Cross 

Creek Ranch. LSC also conducted field evaluations, traffic counts, and technical analysis. Thus, LSC 

Technical Memorandum #154580 (Exhibit 34 in the LPC LUP staff report) summarized their analysis, 

findings, and recommendations. LSC made 11 recommendations regarding CR 120 improvements, all of 

which appeared to pertain to industry and/or LPC road engineering standards. Roadrunner Engineering 

(Exhibit 8 in the LPC LUP staff report) agreed with all the recommendations and provided additional 

reference to LPC Code Sec. 74-91. 

In Exhibit 34, LSC made several recommendations pertaining to interim mitigation measures that should 

be implemented until such time as CR 120 is improved to LPC road engineering standards. The 

recommendations made by LSC included endorsing (with comments added) recommendations that had 

been made by the Hay Gulch Citizen’s Advisory Panel (Exhibit 26 in the LPC LUP staff report). Included 

in the recommendations were to allow loaded truck trips at a level (2010 levels) less than was proposed 

by GCC and conditionally permitted by LPC with the RIA. The experts disagreed on what level of truck 

traffic is safe for CR 120. The RIA allows 80 loaded truck trips per day through phases 1, 2, and 3, 

increasing to 100 after Phase 4 and to 120 after completion of Phase 5 of road improvements. LSC 

recommended 55 loaded truck trips as a “reasonable compromise.” The LPC Public Works Department 

issued a memo dated March 25, 2016 (Exhibit 58 in the LPC LUP staff report) that concluded that the CR 

120 north alternative can safely accommodate the truck volumes negotiated in the RIA. Importantly, the 

required road improvements under this alternative can be completed within a timeframe that meets the 

purpose and need of the Proposed Action. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-58-

Environmental and public safety factors considered when evaluating this alternative included the 

following: 

▪ Length of the access alternative (7 miles)

▪ Number of CR intersection (none)

▪ Number of SH intersections (1)

▪ Number of residence driveways along route (20)

▪ Steep grades (1)

▪ Acres disturbed: (4.7 acres, refer to Table 2-5)

▪ Environmentally sensitive areas (none)

Economic considerations included those detailed in the RIA. Estimated OPC cost over 20-years is 

$10,790,947. This is the approved access road in the GCC Class II LUP recently issued by LPC; 

conditioned by the RIA and the transportation route described under the Proposed Action.

This alternative was carried through this EA for detailed analysis for the following reasons:

▪ Was deemed feasible and safe by LPC engineers

▪ Had lesser environmental impacts than Alternatives 4 and 5 

▪ Fewer residences impacted by this alternative

It should be noted, that during the public review process of this alternative, there were various 

recommendations from the public to implement road improvements to CR 120 N sooner than was detailed 

in the RIA. LPC’s stated position with regards to these recommendations was that GCC was an existing 

use and therefore it is necessary to bring GCC into compliance with the LPCLUC through a series of 

reasonably timed phases (Exhibit 78 in the LPC LUP staff report). 

Alternative 4 – Loop Route 1

This alternative consisted of in-bound (empty) coal trucks utilizing the southern segment of CR 120 and 

out-bound (loaded) vehicles utilizing the northern segment of CR 120. The LSC Technical Memorandum 

(Exhibit 34 in the LPC LUP staff report) also recommended consideration of a reverse flow (empty trucks 

on CR 120 N and loaded trucks on CR 120 S) to this alternative and listed potential benefits of “one-way” 

hauling that included, among other potential benefits, the following:

▪ Reducing truck volume on CR 120 (N)

▪ The volume impacts of coal transport trucks would be more dispersed rather than concentrating 

impacts and along CR 120 (N)

▪ Eliminate coal trucks passing along a CR

LSC also suggested, citing the Mine Engineers, Inc. report (Exhibit 29 in the LPC LUP staff report) that 

southbound one-way coal haulage would be shorter and thus more cost effective for GCC. It was also 

suggested that southbound coal hauling would be less noisy due to “less mountainous terrain” and 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-59-

consequently a reduced need for noisy down clutching or braking. While these potential benefits may 

exist, the LSC Technical Memorandum recommended further evaluation of this option. This option was 

evaluated in more detail by LPC and by BLM and OSMRE in the preparation of this EA. Whether 

traveling inbound or outbound on CR 120, there are four steep hill grades compared to one along CR 120 

N; therefore, truck clutch and brake noise would be more frequent along CR 120 S. As described below, 

this alternative expands the impacts associated with Alternative 3 by increasing the number of residences 

affected and the magnitude of road improvements that would be needed to achieve LPC and CDOT road 

and intersection safety standards. 

The increased public safety issues associated with this alternative were expressed and identified by the 

Durango 9-R School District and the Fort Lewis Mesa Fire Protection District (FLMFPD) over this CR 

120 S route. Thus, in 2011 GCC decided to restrict coal truck traffic to the north end of CR 120. The

following concerns regarding CR 120 S (Exhibit 42 in the LPC LUP staff report) were identified:

▪ Trucks turning onto CR 120 are obscured by the berm on the east side of SH 140 to south bound 

traffic creating a visibility issue.

▪ Turning onto CR 120 from SH 140 northbound is a severe angle and would present challenges for 

drivers negotiating the intersection especially in adverse weather conditions.

▪ This route has five hills to negotiate instead of one on the northern CR 120 route.

▪ This route has five 90 +/‐ degree turns as opposed to one on the northern CR 120 route.

▪ Increased population would be exposed to traffic.

▪ Five county road intersections.

Environmental and public safety factors considered when evaluating this alternative included the 

following (some duplicate factors identified by the FLMFPD): 

▪ Length of the access alternative (7-9 miles);

▪ Number of CR intersection (5);

▪ Number of SH intersections (2);

▪ Number of residence driveways along route (70);

▪ Steep grades (42);

▪ Acres disturbed: (4.7 to 6.5 acres);

▪ Environmental sensitive areas (Hay Gulch).

 

2 Upon closer evaluation during the preparation of this EA, there are four steep grades as opposed to the five

identified by FLMFPD.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-60-

Economic considerations included those detailed in the RIA. Estimated opinion of probably cost over 20-

years is estimated at $21,430,194. When considering these factors, the reasons for eliminating this 

alternative include the following:

▪ Greater public health and safety concerns; 

▪ Would impact more than triple the number of directly impacted residences from traffic, dust, 

noise, etc. compared to Alternative 3; 

▪ Would have greater environmental impacts compared to Alternative 3; and 

▪ Would necessitate additional area road improvements and higher costs compared to Alternative 3.

Alternative 5 – Loop Route 2

This alternative consisted of in-bound (empty) coal trucks utilizing CR 119 with outbound (loaded) 

vehicles utilizing the northern segment of CR 120. This alternative essentially increases all of the impacts 

identified for alternatives 3 and 4 and would require reconstruction of the CR 119 bridge over the La Plata 

River. As with Alternative 4, LSC recommended evaluating having loaded truck traffic utilize CR 119 to 

access SH 140. This option was evaluated in more detail by LPC and in the preparation of this EA. This 

alternative would authorize coal truck traffic along a 9-R School District bus route. Additionally, a 

significant safety concern exists associated with the CR 119/SH 140 intersection being 0.12 mile from the 

entrance to Fort Lewis Mesa Elementary School. As a direct result of concerns expressed by the School 

District and the Fort Lewis Mesa FPD over use of CR 119, in 2011 GCC decided to restrict coal truck 

traffic to the north end of CR 120. These concerns, excerpted from Exhibit 42 in the LPC LUP staff report 

are listed as follows:

▪ “The intersection of SH 140 and CR 119 geometry supports passenger car and single‐unit vehicle 

movements.

▪ Crossing highway routes trucks through a busy school zone and poor access angles off CR 130 

onto SH 140.

▪ Route passes through five county road and two private road intersections.

▪ Route travels through two 90 +/‐ degree turns.

▪ Increased number of residents impacted.

▪ Increased length of county road impacted.

▪ Increased congestion in vicinity of elementary school.”

Environmental and public safety factors considered when evaluating this alternative included the 

following (some duplicate factors identified by the FLMFPD): 

▪ Length of the access alternative (14-16 miles);

▪ Number of CR intersections (5);

▪ Number of SH intersections (2);

▪ Number of residence driveways along route (90);
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-61-

▪ Steep grades (3);

▪ Acres disturbed: (10.2 to 11.6 acres);

▪ Environmental sensitive areas (Hay Gulch/La Plata River/Dry Gulch/FLM School/9-R bus stops).

Economic considerations included those detailed in the RIA. Estimated OPC cost over 20-years 

$23,536,248. When considering these factors, the reasons for eliminating this alternative include the 

following:

▪ Greater public health and safety concerns relative to Alternatives 3 and 4; 

▪ Would impact almost quadruple the number of directly impacted residences from traffic, dust, 

noise, etc. compared to Alternative 3; 

▪ Would result is three times the amount of ground disturbance compared to Alternative 3; 

▪ Crosses multiple perennial or intermittent water courses; and would necessitate additional area 

road and highway improvements and costs.

Alternative 6 – New Designated Haul Road

This alternative considers a newly constructed haul road (approximately 5.5 miles) across State of 

Colorado and private lands. The new haul road would support both inbound and outbound transport 

trucks and would tie into CR 120 near the King I Mine location. The short segment of CR 120 between 

King I and King II would continue to be used for coal transport. The benefit associated with this 

alternative is that it would eliminate much of the coal traffic along CR 120, concentrating the traffic in the 

immediate vicinity of the King I and King II locations. This alternative would require development of a 

steep road off the mesa top east of Hay Gulch. The alignment considered in this evaluation is depicted on 

alignment sheets prepared by Roadrunner Engineering and provided to LPC (Exhibit 4 in the LPC LUP 

staff report).

Challenges with this alignment are included in the TIA and consist of the following:

▪ Design and construction of new roadway;

▪ Permitting and approval of new roadway corridor;

▪ Increased acreage impacted by roadway(s);

▪ Reduction and/or modification to ranch/agriculture operations;

▪ Alignment still adjacent to a few existing residential;

▪ Increased noise exposure to mesa top residents; and

▪ Steep roadway grade from mesa top to gulch.

Design, ROW acquisition, permitting, and construction all represent significant timing considerations 

associated with this alternative. Specifically, the length of time required to complete these steps does not 

represent a reasonable alternative considering the BLM’s evaluation of GCC lease modification under an 

emergency leasing exemption (refer to Section 1.2 Background). The current permit review and lease 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-62-

decisions around the subject lease modification are currently anticipated for late 2017 or approximately 6 

months prior to GCC closing the King II Mine.

From an environmental standpoint, construction of a 6.5-mile-long dedicated haul road would impact 

approximately 39.5 acres (assuming a 50-ft-wide ROW and construction disturbance width). Current land 

use along the alignment is primarily agriculturally based, or undeveloped land. Approximately 2.4 miles 

of the alignment would traverse relatively undisturbed piñon-juniper woodlands and sagebrush flats along 

the eastern end of the alignment. The remaining approximately 4.1 miles would follow the property line 

between private landowners to the north, and State of Colorado-owned lands associated with the Fort 

Lewis Agriculture Test Center to the south. Overall, at least 12 private land parcels and four home sites 

would be affected by the haul road. The four home sites would be within 0.25 mile of the haul road.

From an economics stand point, the TIA estimated that the 20-year OPC for this alternative would be 

around $19,401,710. In the Mine Engineers, Inc. assessment (Exhibit 29 in the LPC Staff Report), Mine 

Engineers, Inc. characterized this alternative as “low relative capital cost” and “medium/high relative 

operating cost.” This assessment was based on GCC contracting “off-highway trucks” that have 

individual capacity from “50 to 250 tons depending on type of units available. Typical capacity would be 

about 100 tons.” This compared to the current “over-the-road” trucks used that haul about 28.5 tons per 

load. An additional problem associated with using larger off-highway trucks to move coal along a 

designated haul road to SH 140 is the need to develop loading facilities at either end of the haul road. This 

potential additional cost was not calculated in the TIA as contracting or purchasing off-road trucks with a 

50 to 250-ton payload is not economically or logistically feasible under current production or relative to 

the current life of the mine (with or without the proposed lease modification).

As summarized in the TIA, developing a dedicated haul road with or without a conveyor system 

(Alternative 7) would require negotiations with property owners including the State of Colorado for a 

ROW and would likely take 4 to 5 years before construction could commence (if the road and facility 

could be permitted). Furthermore, the substantially higher cost for these options would also require that 

the life of the mine was secured for 25 to 30 years to allow sufficient time to recover the additional 

investment which is infeasible because the proposed lease modification and permit revision would only 

authorize coal mining until approximately 2024. Accordingly, the reasons for eliminating this alternative 

include the following:

▪ Economically infeasible

▪ Logistically (from a timing perspective) infeasible, that this alternative could facilitate the project 

purpose and need

Alternative 7 – New Haul Road with Conveyor

This alternative would utilize a newly constructed haul road (approximately 5.3 miles) across State of 

Colorado and private lands. Coal would be transported by conveyor from the existing load-out to a new 

load-out constructed at the top of the mesa (approximately 0.7 mile). Transport trucks would receive at 

the new load-out and haul via the new haul road. The new haul route would tie into the County roadway 

approximately 0.2 mile from intersection SH 140 and CR 120. With the additional development of a 

loading facility close to SH 140, it is assumed that the ground disturbance would be similar to Alternative 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-63-

6. A continuously operating conveyor taking coal from King II to a loadout on the top of the mesa south 

of the facility would likely introduce a new noise source to the area that would be audible at distances 

beyond that which current operations can be heard (refer to Alternative 9). 

The reasons for eliminating this alternative are similar to those associated with Alternative 6. The 

difference being that OPC costs would be substantially higher (refer to Table 2-7 Comparison of 

Alternatives).

Alternative 8 – Coal Conveyor

This option utilizes a newly constructed conveyor from the existing King II load-out to a new load-out 

located adjacent to SH 140 highway (approximately 6.0 miles in length). The new load-out would tie into 

the CR 120 approximately 0.2 mile from intersection of SH 140 and CR 120.

The reasons for eliminating this alternative are like those associated with Alternative 6 and Alternative 9 

(aerial conveyor). The difference being that OPC costs would be substantially higher (refer to Table 2-7 

Comparison of Alternatives) making this alternative economically infeasible.

2.3.5 Comparison of Coal Transportation Alternatives Evaluated in Detail

Table 2-8 summarizes the comparison of transportation alternatives completed as part of this analysis. 

Alternatives associated with utilizing county roads other than CR 120 N were eliminated primarily due to 

increased risks to public health and safety, and because safety and environmental impacts would be 

spread out impacting more area residents. Cost was also a factor considered, although was considered less 

important relative to safety and environmental factors. 

The Mine Engineers, Inc. report (previously referenced Exhibit 29) contains a section entitled “General 

Economics of the King II Mine and Available Coal Resources.” This section highlights the fact that the 

viability or reasonableness of transportation alternatives at King II (or any mine) is dependent upon the 

available and secured, future reserves. To reiterate a statement made in the report: 

“The issue that GCC Energy has is that they do not have permission to mine coal in the lease modification 

or the exploration area. This would leave them about 2.67 million tons to mine. This situation is a time 

problem given the schedule for permit modification assuming the lease modification can be issued within 

the next year.”

Time, available reserves, and the potential for cost recovery of investment is what drives all mining 

operational decisions; King II is no different. GCC was issued an exploration license by the BLM in 2015 

(BLM 2015) to drill 24 exploration core holes north of the current and proposed modified lease areas.

Should these exploration activities identify coal reserves that are economically viable to recover, it is 

possible that GCC would apply in the future for another lease modification or may pursue a larger lease 

acreage under a Lease by Application.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-64-

Table 2-8. Comparison of transportation alternatives evaluated in detail

Alt.

No.

Transportation 

Alternative Pros Con Environmental Considerations

Alternatives 

Analyzed in 

Detail 

throughout 

the EA

3 CR 120 North Limited

length of 

county 

roadway

impacted

Reduced 

number of 

affected 

residents

CR 120 N residents 

experience 100 percent of 

truck burden

4.7 acres of new 

disturbance

No 

perennial/intermittent 

waterways crossed

Analyzed 

under the 

Proposed 

Action

4 Loop Route 1 Affected 

residents 

receive 50

percent of 

truck burden

Increased length of county 

roadway impacted

Increased number of 

affected residents

4.7 to 6.5 acres of 

new disturbance

1 intermittent 

waterway crossed

Eliminated 

from

Detailed 

Analysis

5 Loop Route 2 Affected 

residents 

receive 50

percent of 

truck burden

Increased length of county 

roadway impacted

Increased number of 

affected residents

Increased congestion at SH 

140 intersection near

Fort Lewis Elementary 

School operations

Alignment still adjacent to 

a few existing residential

Increased noise exposure to 

mesa top residents

Steep roadway grade from 

mesa top to gulch

10.2 to 11.6 acres of 

new disturbance.

Four

perennial/intermittent 

waterways crossed

Eliminated 

from

Detailed 

Analysis

6 New 

Designated 

Haul Road

No truck 

traffic on

segment of 

county road 

adjacent to

residents

Limited 

length of 

county

roadway 

impacted

Creation & Construction of 

new roadway

Permitting and approval of 

new roadway corridor

Increased acreage impacted 

by roadway(s)

Reduction and/or 

modification to 

ranch/agriculture 

operations

Alignment still adjacent to 

a few existing residential.

Increased noise exposure to 

mesa top residents

39.5 acres of new 

disturbance.

Views to the south of 

4 home sites, 

impacted by haul 

road.

Wildlife habitat 

fragmented (2.1 

miles)

Conversion of 

agricultural lands to 

industrial use

Eliminated 

from

Detailed 

Analysis
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-65-

Alt.

No.

Transportation 

Alternative Pros Con Environmental Considerations

Alternatives 

Analyzed in 

Detail 

throughout 

the EA

Steep roadway grade from 

mesa top to gulch

7 New Haul Road 

with Conveyor

No truck 

traffic on 

county road 

adjacent to

residents

Creation and Construction 

of new roadway

Permitting and approval of 

new roadway corridor

Increased acreage impacted 

by roadway(s)/conveyor

Reduction and/or 

modification to 

ranch/agriculture

operations

Alignment still adjacent to 

a few existing residential.

Increased noise exposure to 

mesa top residents

Maintenance of conveyor 

system

Constant noise of operating 

conveyor

Construction of new loadout facility

Similar to Alternative 

6 but greater noise 

impacts

Eliminated 

from

Detailed 

Analysis

8 Coal Conveyor No truck 

traffic on 

county road 

adjacent to

residents.

Same as Alternative 7 Similar to Alternative 

7

Eliminated 

from

Detailed 

Analysis
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-66-

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter presents the affected existing environment (i.e., the physical, biological, social, and 

economic values and resources) of the affected area as identified during internal and external scoping and 

presented in Chapter 1 of this EA. As described within this chapter, a variety of intensive resource 

inventories, studies, and assessments have been within the project area. Some of the studies were 

commissioned by GCC, others by LPC and yet others were required as part of ongoing regulatory 

requirements associated with continued operation and agency regulatory oversight of the King II 

operations. The resources included for analysis in this EA include air quality and climate; greenhouse 

gases and climate change; health and safety; geology and minerals; paleontological resources; soils; water 

resources; vegetation; wildlife; threatened, endangered and sensitive species; access and transportation;

noise and vibration; visual resources; cultural resources; land use; socioeconomics, and environmental 

justice.

This chapter also analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative and the 

No Action Alternative. It is assumed that the Proposed Action would be carried out as described with the 

design features specified in Section 2.1.6. Where appropriate, additional mitigation measures are 

presented in this Chapter to further mitigate potential impacts. Mitigation measures would be identified as 

stipulations on the lease modification if carried forward. The potential impact of each alternative is 

evaluated for the affected area for each resource in terms of direct, indirect, and residual effects.

▪ Direct effects are those that are caused by an action in the alternative and occur at the same time 

and place as the action.

▪ Indirect effects are those that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects 

and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or 

growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.

Resource impacts are discussed in terms of the context of the intensity, duration, and type of impact. The 

intensity and type of impact (or “effect”) is described as negligible, minor, moderate, or major and as 

adverse or beneficial, defined as follows:

▪ Negligible – An adverse or beneficial effect would occur, but would be at the lowest levels of 

detection. 

▪ Minor – The effect would be noticeable, but would be relatively small and would not affect the 

function or integrity of the resource. 

▪ Moderate – The effect would be readily apparent and would influence the function or integrity of 

the resource. 

▪ Major – The effect would be substantial and would result in severely adverse or exceptionally 

beneficial changes to the resource. 

The duration of impacts is generally in terms of “short term” which is less than 5 years, or “long term” 

lasting beyond 5 years. Cumulative impacts are presented in Chapter 4.0. The maximum estimated 

surface disturbance associated with the Proposed Action is less than 10.0 acres (4.7 acres associated with 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-67-

CR 120 improvements, and less than 5.0 acres associated with surface activities resulting from the mine 

permit revision).

3.1 Air Quality and Climate

3.1.1 Affected Environment

Air quality for any region is influenced by the amount of pollutants that are released within the vicinity 

and up wind of the region, and can be highly dependent upon the contaminants chemical and physical 

properties. Additionally, an area’s topography or terrain (mountains and valleys) and weather, such as 

wind speed and direction, temperature, air pressure (the resulting turbulence), rainfall, and cloud cover 

can all have a direct influence on how pollutants accumulate, form, or disperse in the local environment.

Transportation is another important consideration, as some pollutants can be transported far from their 

origin (e.g., ozone, secondary PM2.5, mercury).

The affected area for the air quality analysis of the direct effects of the Proposed Action includes La Plata 

and Montezuma counties, although most direct air quality impacts will be limited to the vicinity of the 

mine itself (see Map A-5 in Appendix A). Indirect effects associated with coal transport and combustion 

occur at numerous locations. Most of the coal produced (approximately 83 percent) is transported by 

truck to a rail terminal in Gallup, New Mexico. Approximately 1,067,040 tons/yr. can be delivered to 

markets in the southwestern U.S. via the Gallup rail hub. Of the total, approximately 181,000 tons/yr. are 

delivered by truck to two GCC-owned and operated cement plants in Pueblo, Colorado (105,000 tons/yr.) 

and in Tijeras, New Mexico (76,000 tons/yr.) where the coal is used as a fuel source in the cement 

manufacturing process. Small coal volumes are also sold and delivered by truck to the Durango & 

Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad (3,600 tons/yr.), the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad in Chama, 

New Mexico (1,500 tons/yr.), and locally (7,000 tons/yr.) for home heating. The remaining approximately 

873,940 tons is delivered by rail from the rail terminal in Gallup, New Mexico to GCC-owned cement 

plants in northern Mexico (240,000 tons/yr.) and to variable cement facilities in Arizona and Texas.

Pollutants and Regulatory Framework

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and FLPMA require BLM and other federal agencies to ensure actions taken 

by the agency comply with federal, state, tribal, and local air quality standards and regulations. FLPMA 

further directs the Secretary of the Interior to take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation of the lands [Section 302 (b)], and to manage the public lands “in a manner that will protect 

the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, 

and archeological values” [Section 102 (a)(8)].

Criteria Air Pollutants

The USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants, 

which include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter emissions

that are less than 10 microns or 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), and lead (Pb). Exposure to air pollutant concentrations greater than the NAAQS has been shown to 

have a detrimental impact on human health and the environment, and thus ambient air quality standards 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-68-

must not be violated in areas where the public has access. All the criteria pollutants are directly emitted 

from a variety of source types, except for ozone and the secondary formation of condensable particulate 

matter (PM2.5). Ozone is chemically formed in the atmosphere via interactions of oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight and under certain 

meteorological conditions (NOX and VOCs are ozone precursors). Secondary PM2.5 forms when certain 

products of combustion (SO2 and NOX) cool sufficiently enough to condense and form a solid or aerosol 

that can then be measured via traditional monitoring methods. Condensable particulate matter is primarily 

ammonium sulfate and nitrate, which is formed in the atmosphere from reacting gaseous emissions of any 

available ammonia (NH3). In the western U.S., organic carbon is generally the largest estimated 

component of PM2.5 by mass.

Ozone and secondary PM2.5 are formed in the atmosphere via complex chemical reactions that are 

spatially and temporally dependent. The current technical approach for analyzing these pollutants requires 

the development of a photo-chemical grid model to simulate the entirety of Earth’s atmosphere. As part of 

the Colorado Air Resources Management Modeling Study (CARMMS), BLM conducted photo-chemical 

grid modeling within a domain including the direct effects study area. The CARMMS modeling was 

developed to examine potential cumulative air quality impacts from BLM authorized activities including 

the King II mine. Detailed information from the CARMMS modeling including, ozone and secondary 

PM2.5 formations, is addressed in the cumulative impacts discussion where sufficient data exists.

The CAA established two types of NAAQS:

1. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" 

populations (such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly).

2. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased 

visibility, and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.

The USEPA regularly reviews the NAAQS (every 5 years) to ensure that the latest science on health 

effects, risk assessment, and observable data such as hospital admissions are evaluated, and can revise any 

NAAQS if the data supports a revision. The Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission and the New 

Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau, by means of an approved State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), can establish state ambient air quality standards for a criteria pollutant that is at least as 

stringent as, or more so, than the NAAQS. Ambient air quality standards must not be exceeded in areas 

where the public has access. Table 3-1 lists the federal and state ambient air quality standards applicable 

to the project area. 

Table 3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Standard Averaging 

Period Level Form

Carbon 

Monoxide

Primary 1-hour 35 ppm

(40,000 ug/m3)

Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year

8-hour 9 ppm

(10,000 ug/m3)

Lead Primary and 

Secondary

Rolling 3-

month average

0.15 ug/m3 Not to be exceeded
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-69-

Pollutant Standard Averaging 

Period Level Form

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Primary 1-hour 100 ppb

(189 ug/m3)

98th percentile, averaged over 3 

years

Primary and 

Secondary

Annual 53 ppb

(100 ug/m3)

Annual mean

Ozone Primary and 

Secondary

8-hour 0.070 ppm

(140 ug/m3)

Annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hr concentration, 

averaged over 3 years

Particulate 

Matter

PM2.5 Primary and 

secondary

24-hour 35 ug/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 

years

Primary Annual 12 ug/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 

years

Secondary Annual 15 ug/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 

years

PM10 Primary and 

secondary

Annual 150 ug/m3 Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year on average over 3 

years

Sulfur 

Dioxide

Primary 1-hour 75 ppb

(196 ug/m3)

99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years

Secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm

(1,300 ug/m3)

Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year

Source: National – 40 CFR 50, Colorado – 5 Code of Colorado Regulations (CCR) 1001-14.

Notes: FR = Federal Register; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter, ppb = parts per billion, 

PM2.5 = particulate matter emissions that are less than of 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter emissions that are 

less than 10 microns in diameter; ppm = parts per million.

Table 3-2 shows recent ambient air quality monitor data for potential pollutants of concern from monitors 

located in or nearby the affected area. The primary pollutant of concern from the Proposed Action is 

particulate matter (as determined from the emissions inventory presented below). The area monitors also 

show that ozone levels are relatively close to the new standard promulgated by EPA in 2015. All the 

monitoring data is from the USEPA's AQS Data Mart (https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data), 

and excludes exceptional events. The database contains ambient air pollution data collected by USEPA, 

state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies, and from various federal land managers from 

thousands of monitors. Monitoring data is limited, and all pollutants are not monitored at all monitoring 

locations, and thus data for a particular pollutant may not be available for all portions of the affected 

environment. For example, monitoring data for Pueblo County, CO is limited to PM10 and PM2.5. The 

location of air quality monitoring stations within the project analysis area are depicted on Map A-5 in 

Appendix A. The closest ozone monitoring is in El Paso County to the north, which is going to be more 

highly influenced (if not totally) by the Colorado Springs metropolitan area versus Pueblo area emissions 

sources. Air quality within the project area and within the vicinity of the indirect sources is generally 

considered good, and all identified areas are currently in attainment status for all criteria pollutants.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-70-

Table 3-2. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Trends

County Pollutant (Standard) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Percent of 

NAAQS

La Plata NO2 (1 hour - ppb) 38 29 35 24 25 28

La Plata NO2 (annual - ppb) 6.8 5.5 5.6 4.7 4.5 10

La Plata O3 (8 hour - ppm) 0.077 0.069 0.072 0.067 0.068 99

Montezuma O3 (8 hour - ppm) 0.071 0.068 0.069 0.065 0.066 95

La Plata PM10 (annual - μg/m3) 50 59 34 34 37 29

La Plata PM2.5 (annual - μg/m3) 4.4 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.3 31

Montezuma PM2.5 (annual - μg/m3) 6.1 5.6 6.1 5.2 4.5 44

La Plata PM2.5 (24 hour - μg/m3) 11 10 29 10 8 45

Montezuma PM2.5 (24 hour - μg/m3) 15 12 12 9 10 30

Pueblo PM10 (annual - μg/m3) 52 50 62 77 46 31

Pueblo PM2.5 (annual - μg/m3) 5.7 6.6 6.5 5.7 5.3 49

Pueblo PM2.5 (24 hour - μg/m3) 14 17 17 12 22 49

Bernalillo NO2 (1 hour - ppb) 50 49 45 42 43 43

Bernalillo NO2 (annual - ppb) 13 14 12 12 11 22

Bernalillo O3 (8 hour - ppm) 0.076 0.077 0.07 0.064 0.068 96

Bernalillo PM10 (annual - μg/m3) 153 145 120 143 126 84

Bernalillo PM2.5 (annual - μg/m3) 6.4 11.3 8.7 7.4 6.7 63

Bernalillo PM2.5 (24 hour - μg/m3) 29 25 20 23 21 61

Notes: NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; ppb = parts per billion; O3 = ozone; ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic 

meter, PM2.5 = particulate matter emissions that are less than of 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter emissions that 

are less than 10 microns in diameter.

Where multiple monitors for single pollutant exist within the same county, the monitor with the highest values is presented to the 

reader for the purposes of this EA. For each pollutant with a multi year standard (O3, NO2, PM2.5), the percent NAAQS is 

calculated for the most recent three year averaging period (2013-2015).

As stated above, air quality for any given area is influenced in part by the amount of pollutants released 

within and upwind of the area of interest (i.e., emissions loading). The following National Emissions 

Inventory Data (EPA 2014) presented in Table 3-3 shows the amount of pollutants released within the 

project and indirect source areas. Combined with the available monitoring data shown above, readers can 

get a sense of the localized atmospheric response to the emissions loading occurring in the vicinity of the 

ambient air quality monitors. Despite this fact, the areas remain in attainment for all of the NAAQS. The 

NEI data by default includes all of the project and indirect source emissions (as shown below), as these 

sources and supporting emissions generating activities have been in existence for several NEI reporting 

periods (the NEI is produced every 3 years). Despite this fact, the areas remain in attainment for all the 

NAAQS.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-71-

Table 3-3. 2014 NEI Data (tons/year)

County PM10 PM2.5 VOC NOX CO SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O HAPs

La Plata 8,538 1,490 29,432 7,756 21,658 111 409,893 148 11 4,154

Montezuma 5,589 931 24,349 1,318 10,175 45 234,355 80 6 4,836

Pueblo 7,474 1,696 18,668 12,015 28,797 3569 926,481 97 35 4,453

Bernalillo 42,225 6,024 28,719 17,326 73,744 649 3,028,848 315 73 4,948

The 2014 NEI data includes all emissions generating activities (sectors) within a reporting area (county). Sector examples include 

agriculture, industrial processes, fuel combustion, mobile sources/road dust, waste disposal fires, and other retail operations. 

Note: The greenhouse gas data (CO2, CH4, N2O) data is limited to mobile sources and fires only.

Hazardous Air Pollutants

Other common pollutants include air toxics, otherwise known as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). HAPs 

are chemicals or compounds that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, 

such as compromises to immune and reproductive systems, birth defects, developmental disorders, or 

adverse environmental effects and may result from either chronic (long term) and/or acute (short term) 

exposure. CAA Sections 111 and 112 establish mechanisms for controlling HAPs from stationary 

sources, and the USEPA is required to control emissions of 187 HAPs. Ambient air quality standards do 

not exist for HAPs; however, mass-based emissions limits and risk-based exposure thresholds have been 

established as significance criteria to require maximum achievable control technologies under the USEPA

promulgated National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 96 industrial source classes.

The majority of the HAPs emitted from the King II Mine’s operations are the result of the on and off road 

vehicle use. The largest components of the HAPs emissions from these sources are typically various 

benzene compounds and formaldehyde.

Greenhouse Gases

Another group of emissions that are commonly emitted are the GHGs. These gases include carbon 

dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), and several fluorinated species of gases such as 

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Carbon dioxide is emitted from the 

combustion 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). Methane is emitted during the production 

and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane also results from livestock and other agricultural 

practices and by the decay of organic waste in the natural environment and in municipal solid waste 

landfills. Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during 

combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.

All of the different greenhouse gases have various capacities to trap heat in the atmosphere, which are 

known as global warming potentials (GWPs). GWPs can be expressed for several different time horizons 

to fully account for the gases’ ability to absorb infrared radiation (heat) over their atmospheric lifetime.

The BLM uses the 100-year time interval since most of the climate change impacts derived from the 

available climate modeling studies is expressed toward the end of the century. Carbon dioxide has a GWP 

of 1, and so for the purposes of analysis a GHGs GWP is generally standardized to a carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2e), or the equivalent amount of CO2 mass the GHG would represent. Methane has a 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-72-

current GWP estimated to be between 28 (gas alone) and 36 (with climate feedbacks), and Nitrous Oxide 

has a GWP of 298. As with the HAPs, ambient air quality standards do not exist for GHGs.

Emissions, Source Classifications, and Regulatory Authority

Emissions sources are generally regulated according to their type and classification. Essentially all 

emissions sources fall into two broad categories, stationary and mobile. Stationary sources are nonmoving, fixed-site producers of pollution such as power plants, petro-chemical refineries, manufacturing 

facilities, and other industrial sites such as oil and gas production pads. Stationary facilities emit air 

pollutants via process vents or stacks (point sources) or by fugitive releases (emissions that do not pass 

through a process vent or stack). Stationary sources are also classified as either major or minor. A major 

source is one that emits, or has the potential to emit, a regulated air pollutant in quantities above a defined 

threshold. Stationary sources that are not major are considered minor or area sources. A stationary source 

that takes federally enforceable limits on production, consumptions rates, or emissions to avoid major 

source status are called synthetic minors. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

(CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) has authority under their USEPA-approved SIP to 

regulate and issue Air Permits for stationary sources of pollution in Colorado. The King II Mine has been 

issued an APCD permit for its operations (Permit Number; 09LP0202F dated September 3, 2013) that 

classifies the facility as a minor source.

Mobile sources include any air pollution that is emitted by motor vehicles, engines, and equipment that 

can be moved from one location to another. Due to the large number of sources, which includes cars, 

trucks, buses, construction equipment, lawn and garden equipment, aircraft, watercraft, motorcycles, etc., 

and their ability to move from one location to another, mobile sources are regulated differently than 

stationary sources. In general USEPA and other federal entities retain authority to set emissions standards 

for these sources depending on their type (on-road, off-road, and non-road), classification (light duty, 

heavy duty, horse power rating, weight, fuel types, etc.), and the year of manufacture or in some 

circumstances their reconditioning. Mobile sources are not regulated by the state unless they are covered 

under an applicable SIP (usually as part of an inspection and maintenance program).

Airshed Classes and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration

The overall health of any region’s air quality is determined by monitoring for a pollutant at ground level 

and determining if the measured concentration is below the applicable standard’s design value. Areas 

where pollutant concentrations are below the applicable standard are considered to be in attainment with 

the NAAQS. Areas that currently violate a standard are designated as nonattainment. Two additional 

subset categories of attainment exist for those areas where a formal designation has not been made, i.e.,

Attainment/Unclassifiable (generally rural or natural areas where no monitoring data exists), and for areas 

where previous violations of the NAAQS have been documented, but the pollutant(s) concentration no 

longer exceeds the NAAQS design value(s), i.e., Attainment/Maintenance areas. As previously stated, air 

quality in the project area and within the vicinity of the indirect sources is generally considered good, and 

all of the identified areas are currently in attainment status for all criteria pollutants.

Further, all geographical regions are assigned a priority Class (I, II, or III), which describes how much 

degradation to the existing air quality is allowed to occur within the area under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting rules. Class I areas are areas of special national or regional 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-73-

natural, scenic, recreational, or historic value, and essentially allow very little degradation in air quality, 

while Class II areas allow for reasonable industrial/economic expansion. There are currently no Class III 

areas defined in the U.S.

Although the PSD rule is only applicable to major stationary sources of air pollution, a PSD increment 

analysis can provide a useful measure to determine how likely a new source of pollution (major or minor) 

could have a significant impact on regional air quality. A PSD increment is the amount of pollution an 

area is allowed to increase while preventing air quality in the airshed from deteriorating to the level set by 

the NAAQS. The NAAQS is a maximum allowable concentration "ceiling," while a PSD increment is the 

maximum allowable increase in concentration that is allowed to occur above a baseline concentration for 

a pollutant within the PSD area boundary. The baseline concentration for a pollutant is defined as the 

ambient concentration existing at the time that the first complete PSD permit application affecting the 

boundary is submitted. PSD applicable sources are required to provide an analysis to ensure their 

emissions in conjunction with other applicable emissions increases and decreases within an area will not 

cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS or PSD increment. Significant deterioration is 

said to occur when the amount of new pollution would exceed the applicable PSD increment. An official 

PSD increment analysis is the sole responsibility of the regulatory permitting authority, any subsequent 

analysis performed for NEPA purposes will be used for informational purposes only.

The closest Class I areas to the project area include Mesa Verde National Park, about 14 miles to the 

west, and the Weminuche Wilderness Area located 25 miles to the northwest. For the known indirect 

sources of significant emissions (the Pueblo and Tijeras cement facilities), the closest Class I areas are the 

Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve in Colorado (approx. 80 kilometers [km] to the west south 

west), and the Bandalier National Monument and Pecos Wilderness Area in New Mexico (approx. 70 km

north of the facility).

In addition, the analysis required for PSD permitting must include an assessment of impacts to surface 

waters, soils, vegetation (i.e., deposition, ozone), and visibility, also known as Air Quality Related Values 

(AQRVs). Measuring AQRVs is particularly important at federally mandated Class I lands, which include 

areas such as national parks, national wilderness areas, and national monuments. Class I areas are granted 

special air quality protections under Section 162(a) of the federal Clean Air Act, and the federal land 

manager for any such area is responsible for reviewing PSD actions to ensure their goals for undue 

degradation to the resources are not impeded.

Deposition is the process by which pollutants are removed from the atmosphere via mechanical and 

chemical processes. When air pollutants such as sulfur and nitrogen are deposited into ecosystems, they 

may cause acidification, or enrichment of soils and surface waters. Atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur 

deposition may affect water chemistry, resulting in impacts to aquatic vegetation, invertebrate 

communities, amphibians, and fish. Deposition can also cause chemical changes in soils that alter soil 

microorganisms, plants, and trees. Although nitrogen is an essential plant nutrient, excess nitrogen from 

atmospheric deposition can stress ecosystems by favoring some plant species and inhibiting the growth of 

others. 

Visibility impairment or haze is caused when sunlight encounters tiny pollution particles in the 

atmosphere, and is either absorbed or scattered which reduces the clarity and color of what can be 

seen. The ability of a pollutant to cause various degrees of visibility impacts is primarily a function of its 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-74-

physical size, and chemical composition and properties. Visibility can be expressed in terms of deciview 

or standard visual range (km). A change of one deciview is approximately a 10 percent change in the light 

extinction coefficient (i.e., light that is scattered or absorbed and does not reach the observer), which is a 

small, but usually perceptible scenic change. 

Climate Baselines

The terrain of the affected area is varied, with lands to the west dominated by mesas and canyons of the 

Colorado Plateau and the remaining lands dominated by mountains, foothills, and river valleys of the San 

Juan Mountains. The normal temperature range for the area is 14 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit ( ̊F) in January 

to 55 to 86 ̊F in July. The Durango area receives an average annual precipitation amount of approximately 

20.84 inches. Average annual wind resultants are generally from the north, west southwest, and east 

northeast at speeds of approximately 4 to 8 mph. The fastest winds originate from the west (Meteoblue

2017).

There is broad scientific consensus that human actions are changing the chemical composition of Earth’s 

atmosphere. Activities such as fossil fuel combustion, industrialization, deforestation, and other changes 

in land use are resulting in the accumulation of trace GHGs such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and several industrial 

gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. The following synopsis of current climate change baseline information 

has been summarized from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is the 

leading international scientific body under the auspice of the United Nations charged with reviewing and 

assessing the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide 

relevant to the understanding of climate change. IPCC assessments provide rigorous and balanced 

scientific information that reflect a range of views and expertise to ensure an objective and complete 

assessment of current information. The work done by the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet 

policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.3

Between 1750 and 2011, cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions emitted to the atmosphere were 

approximately 2040 ± 310 GtCO2. About 43 percent of these emissions have remained in the atmosphere 

(880 ± 35 GtCO2); the rest was removed from the atmosphere and stored in natural terrestrial ecosystems 

(plants and soils – 29 percent) and in the oceans (28 percent). Although CO2 levels in the atmosphere 

have varied perpetually throughout Earth’s history (along with corresponding variations in climatic 

conditions), industrialization and the burning of carbon based fossil fuel sources has caused 

CO2 concentrations to increase measurably, from approximately 280 ppm in 1750 to 400 ppm in 2015.

The rate of change has also been increasing. This fact is demonstrated by data from the Mauna Loa 

CO2 monitor in Hawaii that documents atmospheric concentrations of CO2 going back to 1960, at which 

point the average annual concentration was recorded at approximately 317 ppm. The record shows that 

approximately 70 percent of the increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times 

(1750) occurred within the last 55 years. The trend corresponds to an increasing population and rising 

standards of living and modernization around the globe. From pre-industrial times to present, emissions 

from fossil fuel combustion and cement production have released 375 [345 to 405] GtC to the atmosphere 

(68 percent), while deforestation and other land use change are estimated to have released 180 [100 to 

 

3

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-75-

260] GtC (32 percent). Concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O now substantially exceed the highest 

concentrations recorded in ice cores during the past 800,000 years. Since pre-industrial times the 

estimated concentrations of CH4 have more than doubled (722 ppb to 1,803 ppb), while N2O 

concentrations have increased by a fifth (270 ppb to 324 ppb).

Scientists believe that increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations result in an increase in the earth’s 

average surface temperature, primarily by trapping and thus decreasing the amount of heat energy 

radiated by the Earth back into space. The phenomenon is commonly referred to as global warming.

Global warming is expected in turn, to affect weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, 

chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, all of which is collectively referred to as climate change.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are 

unprecedented over time spans of decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the 

amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. Each of the last three decades has been 

successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern 

Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium 

confidence). The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a

linear trend, show warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880 to 2012.

Ocean warming has dominated the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more 

than 90 percent of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). On a global scale, 

the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 meters (m) warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] 

°C per decade over the period of 1971 to 2010. More than 60 percent of the net energy increase in the 

climate system is stored in the upper ocean (0–700 m), and about 30 percent is stored in the ocean below 

700 m (40-year period from 1971 to 2010). The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been 

larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901 to 

2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m. It is very likely that the mean rate of global 

averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm yr–

1 between 1971 and 2010, and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993 and 2010, a trend that is increasing.

The driver for the buildup in heat within the climate system is best described in terms of radiative forcing 

(RF). The term describes the energy balance that will occur (i.e., heating (+) or cooling (-)) in units of W 

m–2. The total anthropogenic RF for 2011 relative to 1750 was 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] W m−2(includes both 

heating and cooling parameter estimates). For well mixed GHG’s the total positive forcing is estimated to 

be 2.83 [2.54 to 3.12] W m–2. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing since 1750 is caused by 

the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Emissions of CO2 alone caused an RF of 1.82 [± 

0.19] W m–2(64 percent), while CH4 caused an RF of 0.48 [± 0.05] W m−2(17 percent). The data 

highlights methane’s important role as a potent greenhouse gas, given its RF value in relation to its 

atmospheric loading trend, approximately 556 Tg yr–1(64 percent anthropogenic, 36 percent natural) and 

relatively short atmospheric lifetime (12 years). N2O has the third largest forcing of the anthropogenic 

gases, at 0.17 [± 0.03] W m–2(6 percent). Collectively the three GHG’s of concern account for 

approximately 87 percent of the positive forcing within the climate system.

According to the 2014 Climate Change in Colorado synthesis report (prepared by the CDNR Water 

Conservation Board), statewide annual average temperatures have increased by 2.0°F and 2.5°F over the 

past 30 and 50 years respectively. Warming trends have been observed over this period in most parts of 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-76-

the state, and show that daily minimum temperatures have warmed more than daily maximum 

temperatures. Additionally, temperature increases have occurred in all seasons. No long-term trends in 

average annual precipitation (30-50 years) have been detected across Colorado, although since 2000 the 

state has experienced below-average annual precipitation and snow pack. The warming trends have 

contributed to an earlier shift in snowmelt and peak runoff timing in spring by approximately 1 to 4 

weeks.

3.1.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The BLM has developed the Colorado Air Resource Protection Protocol, which is a strategy to address air 

resource concerns consistently across district and field offices (USDI/BLM 2013). This protocol is 

followed in this EA to evaluate potential impacts to air resources. Under the Proposed Action, the King II 

Mine would continue to produce and transport coal at levels below the maximum allowable production 

limit of 1.3 million tons per year (limit is per CDPHE air quality Permit No. 09LP0202F, Final Approval 

– Modification 1, Condition No. 2, dated 9/3/2013).

Direct Emissions

With the exception of particulate matter, all of the directly emitted criteria pollutants from the King II 

Mine’s operations are from fuel combustion sources, such as mobile mining equipment, haul trucks, and 

stationary sources such as emergency generators, heaters. In addition, coal mine methane (CMM) may be 

directly emitted by the ventilation air handling system required by MSHA to reduce the 

combustion/explosion potential of the mine’s underground atmosphere. Due to the area’s naturally low 

occurrence of gas in the coal formation, overburden, surrounding strata as well as GCC’s room and pillar 

mining methods, this is the only methane ventilation system required at the King II Mine. The ventilation 

air methane emissions estimates are based on a single methane concentration measurement (the highest 

ever recorded by MSHA at the mine was 0.02 percent) and the main vent fan air flow used by CDPHE to 

estimate vent particulate matter emissions. Stationary sources (including any area and fugitive emissions) 

at the King II Mine are regulated by CDPHE and are authorized by APCD permit number 09LP0202F. As 

shown in Table 3-4, the permit provides thresholds and requirements for the mine’s air emission sources. 

Several pieces of stationary equipment at the King II Mine are also covered by New Source Performance 

Standard Subpart Y, which specifies emissions standards for coal preparation plants. The APCD permit 

only covers source of particulate matter. None of the other pollutants emitted by stationary sources are 

generated in quantities significant enough to warrant permitting. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-77-

Table 3-4. CDPHE Permit 09LP0202F Emissions

Source ID

(AIRS Point)

PM10 

(tons/yr.)

PM2.5 

(tons/yr.)

Emissions Type

001 16.0 2.1 Fugitive

002 0.4 0.1 Point

003 0.2 0.0 Point

004 10.3 1.6 Point

005 0.7 0.1 Point

010 0.5 0.0 Point

011 1.0 0.1 Fugitive

Totals 12.1 1.8 Point

17.0 2.2 Fugitive

Mobile sources at the facility include underground mining equipment, listed under source classification 

code (SCC) 2270009010, aboveground construction equipment identified under SCC 2270002000, as 

well as light duty gasoline trucks and light and heavy duty diesel trucks. The underground mining mobile 

sources are specialized equipment designed to function in the unique environment of an underground 

mine. Above ground mobile sources would include heavy construction equipment used for material 

handling and stockpile management. To develop appropriate emissions estimates for the mobile sources 

the BLM utilized USEPA’s Nonroad Model (2008b) to generate SCC-specific emissions factors (grams 

per horsepower-hour) for Colorado. The BLM used estimated thermal efficiencies of the equipment 

engines along with the fuel data from the mine to provide for the overall emissions estimates. This data is 

assumed to be reasonably correlated to production volumes for the year the data was given (average of 

2011 and 2012), such that the BLM can provide a projection of emissions associated with the maximum 

expected production rates given for the Proposed Action.

Table 3-5 summarizes the direct emissions estimated from permit exempt stationary and mobile sources 

for the Proposed Action alternative. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-78-

Table 3-5. Unpermitted Source Emissions (max tons per year)

Sources PM10 PM2.5 CO NOX VOC SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

Mine Ventilation 

(ventilation air methane)

1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 503 NA

Misc. Permit Exempt 

Equipment 0.39 0.39 5.04 10.35 0.66 0.13 1,018 0.05 0.00

Underground Mining 

Equipment (mobile) 1.18 1.148 1.808 6.968 8.278 0.118 522.93 0.03 0.01

Surface Mining 

Equipment (mobile) 0.28 0.27 0.34 1.81 3.87 0.06 281.58 0.01 0.01

Total 1.85 1.81 13.82 22.50 12.81 0.30 1,823 503.09 0.02

1The VAM is hardwired; therefore, there are no direct emissions from the VAM other than the CMM.

Indirect Emissions 

Indirect air emissions from the Proposed Action were estimated for activities that are reasonably 

foreseeable, and include; coal transport (where a destination and quantity of delivered coal is known), CR 

120 improvements (construction), mine worker commutes, and downstream coal combustion. 

CR 120 Improvements 

The indirect emissions from mobile sources were estimated using USEPA MOVES model emissions 

factors and BLM’s Emissions Modeling Inventory Tool (EMIT - BLM 2017). The results include fugitive 

dust from travel on paved and unpaved roads and vehicle exhaust emissions. Data from Tables 1-1, 2-2, 

2-4 and that applicable design features from Section 2.1.7 (speed control, dust suppression, daily traffic 

restrictions, etc.) was used as input to populate the Emissions Modeling Inventory Tool and obtain the 

emissions estimates. Several conservative assumptions had to be made to quantify the CR improvement 

and worker commute emissions since little is actually known about these sources or the activity 

parameters that would drive emissions. For worker commutes it is estimated that 153 employees would be 

required to sustain the estimated maximum production rate (scaled from production/employee data in 

Table 1-1). It is further assumed that the average commute distance would be 50 miles (round trip) and 

that employees on average would make 1.25 trips per day, 6 days a week, for 52 weeks a year. For the CR

improvements, it was assumed continuous construction activities that would last for approximately 30 

days (non-consecutive). It was assumed daily operations of 10 pieces of off-road construction equipment 

of various sizes that averaged to 250 horsepower each. All equipment was assumed to operate at 50

percent capacity for 10 hours a day over the activity period. This equipment would be used to widen and 

grade the road, provide for any base improvements and asphalt paving operations. It was assumed a 

minimum of 1” of road base improvement and 3” of asphalt to support LPC requirements. It was 

estimated that roughly 400 haul trucks (20 tons each) would be needed to support equipment transport, 

fueling, base aggregate and asphalt deliveries, as well as watering/dust abatement operations during road 

construction. It was estimated that 120 loaded coal trucks would leave the King II mine per day, 6 days a 

week for 52 weeks a year. Coal haul truck emissions were estimated for transport to the Pueblo, Colorado 

and Tijeras, New Mexico GCC cement facilities, the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gage Railroad, the 

Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad in Chama, New Mexico and to the Gallup BNSF rail hub. Rail 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-79-

emissions associated with the transport of coal from the Gallup BNSF rail hub were not estimated because 

the exact transportation routes are unknown (outside of Mexico) and because the BNSF does not make 

dedicated coal hauls of GCC coal. Rather, GCC-produced coal is hauled as part of regularly scheduled 

east-west cargo freight deliveries. Table 3-6 quantifies the indirect emissions from mobile sources along 

CR 120.

Table 3-6. Indirect Mobile Source Emissions (max tons/year)

Sources PM10 PM2.5 CO NOX VOC SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

Worker Commutes 

(exhaust - phase 5, 

fugitive dust - phase 4)

17.73 1.81 20.97 2.22 1.55 0.02 997 0.1 0.05

Coal Haul Trucks 

(exhaust - phase 5, 

fugitive dust - phase 4)

39.91 8.68 4.33 89.26 26.30 0.26 37,045 1.01 0.05

CR 120 Improvements –

Heavy Equipment 

(fugitive dust & wind 

erosion from disturbance)

3.54 2.54 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

CR 120 Improvements –

Heavy Equipment 

(exhaust)

0.16 0.15 0.74 1.77 0.19 0.06 298 0.00 0.01

CR 120 Improvements –

Trucks (exhaust)

0.01 0.01 0.42 0.14 0.03 0.00 49.31 0.00 0.00

Note: Phase 4 represents the maximum potential generation for fugitive dust as CR 120 is not yet paved, while Phase 5 represents 

the maximum generation of mobile source emissions. To provide a conservative estimate maximum fugitive dust and mobile 

source emissions are combined regardless of which phase each will occur in. Detailed information on phases can be found in 

Section 2 Proposed Action and Alternative(s).

Downstream Emissions

As described in the Proposed Action, GCC Energy supplies approximately 193,100 tons (18 percent of 

max production) of coal to two cement kilns and two narrow gauge railroads directly, while the remainder 

of the coal is sold (via the Gallup, NM rail terminal) to GCC cement plants in Mexico (240,000 tons/yr.) 

and to variable cement facilities in Arizona and Texas (82 percent of max production). Both cement kilns 

operate under state issued air permits, and both facilities are subject to Title V permitting requirements 

(i.e., they are classified as major stationary sources). 

The GCC Rio Grande Pueblo plant (Table 3-7) has a permit (#98PB0893) condition that limits annual

firing fuel (coal and tire derived fuel [TDF]) to no more than 198,418 tons on a rolling 12-month basis. 

King II currently supplies 105,000 tons of coal annually (approx. 53 percent by weight) to the facility and 

expects this to remain constant going forward. The permit lists total site wide emissions limits for the 

facility, that cover numerous emissions sources and activities, including; the kiln, quarry operations, 

material transfer and storage, and other facilities equipment. The facility also has additional 12-month 

rolling fuel use limits for pipeline quality natural gas and propane of not more than 381,373 MMBtu. The 

cement kiln itself is subject to a multitude of control technologies and monitoring required under 

maximum achievable control technology LLL (the maximum achievable control technology for Portland 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-80-

cement manufacturing). For the purposes of this EA the agencies assume that the 53 percent primary fuel 

stock supplied by the King II mine is an appropriate surrogate for permitted emissions at the Pueblo 

facility. The King II coal feeds the kiln, without which the purpose of the plant would be void and thus it 

is reasonable to delineate the total site emissions required to support the kiln operations as attributable to 

the coal itself. The differences in the fuel compositions used at the Pueblo facility will provide for varying 

emissions profiles. The available literature suggests that on average TDF can provide for lower particulate 

matter emissions on an energy density basis. None of the other criteria pollutants were shown to have a 

statistically significant difference for TDF firing vs. traditional fuels (including coal). The agencies note 

that some of the literature suggests that CO2 emissions from TDF would be reduced by 8-20 percent 

compared to traditional fuels. However, for this analysis we find the range of potential reductions (from 

tire types and computational methods) and equipment and firing practices associated with using TDF in 

the literature to be highly variable and thus too speculative to support any further delineation of emissions 

at the Pueblo facility (TDF 2017). Where the literature suggests a pollutant would be solely attributable to 

coal, that value will be disclosed (e.g., mercury [Hg]). 

Table 3-7. Pueblo Facility King II Emissions (max tons/year)

PM10 PM2.5 CO NOX VOC SO2 CO2e Hg (lbs/yr)

221 217 588 604 52 505 597,148 10-15

The GCC Rio Grande Tijeras plant (Table 3-8) has similar operations to that of the Pueblo facility and is 

covered under NM Title V permit #532. The permit and underlying construction permits provide for all of 

the same source requirements (controls and monitoring) as the Pueblo facility and is publicly available 

from the Albuquerque Environmental Health Department for review.

Unlike the Pueblo facility the Tijeras kiln is fired entirely on coal (a minor amount of natural gas is used 

for startup) and the kilns themselves do not appear to have fuel throughput limits, but rather performance 

based clinker production limits (33.7 tons/hour). Similarly, the permit does not contain explicit limits for 

GHG and mercury emissions, but does provide for mercury monitoring requirements and performance 

based standards. Facility GHG emissions were obtained from the USEPA’s Facility Level GHG Tool 

(FLIGHT) for 2014. The data and methodology (subpart C, equation C-2a) that GCC utilized to report the 

facility’s GHG emissions allowed for back calculating the total coal throughput for the facility and the 

total clinker produced for the reporting year. We then obtained the facilities reported 2014 criteria 

emissions from USEPA’s inventory database to use as correlation parameters and provide for the upper 

level of emissions that the shipped Proposed Action coal would produce from the facility. To estimate the 

Hg emissions, the BLM multiplied the 2014 production data (derived from FLIGHT metrics) by the 

permit listed performance standard of 55 pounds (lbs.) of Hg per MM- tons of clinker produced. All of the 

2014 emissions were corrected to account for the variance between the report year, and Proposed Action

coal use levels.

Table 3-8. Tijeras Facility King II Emissions (max tons/year)

PM10 PM2.5 CO NOX VOC SO2 CO2e Hg (lbs/yr)

135 66 790 772 79 21 167,662 25
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-81-

Cement Production

The chemical reactions involved in the manufacture of clinker inherently produce or liberate CO2 in the 

process. Unfortunately, USEPA’s FLIGHT data only provides speciated data for the Tijeras facility. The 

Pueblo facility is monitored by CEMS (continuous emissions monitoring system) as a single stream and 

would therefore include both the combustion and reaction related emissions. It is unclear if the CDPHE 

permit includes the calcification emissions in the limits (and by extension the emissions shown in Table 

3-9 above), but based on the Tijeras calculations there appears to be a high likelihood that it does. For the 

purposes of disclosure, we are presenting calcification emissions for both facilities relative to the Tijeras

facility given that the chemistry for clinker production is mostly equivalent regardless of where it is 

produced. The total CO2 emitted from the calcification reaction is estimated to be 697,393 tons based on 

the relative production rates that the 181,000 tons of Proposed Action coal shipments (delivered to Pueblo 

and Tijeras) would provide in the maximum year.

General Combustion

This EA assumes that the remaining portion of the maximum year coal to be shipped (879,040 tons) from 

the King II mine is eventually combusted. Approximately 5,100 tons per year is combusted in two 

regional narrow gauge railroads. We assume that the remainder will be combusted in well controlled 

facilities, but potentially anywhere in northern Mexico and in the southwestern U.S. As can be clearly 

seen from the differences in the two GCC Rio Grande facilities detailed above, different plant 

configurations, locations, permitting authorities, age, etc., can have vastly different emissions for a 

relatively similar quantity of the same fuel. Given that the agencies have no way of knowing where King 

II coal will be combusted from year-to-year, or in what quantities (with the exception of coal delivered 

directly to GCC owned cement plants in Tijeras, and Pueblo) we are not providing any other criteria or 

hazardous air pollutant emissions estimates from specific locations in Mexico or the southwestern U.S.

Additionally, there currently is not a reliable method for producing emissions inventories of criteria 

pollutant from rail and residential coal combustion. The available emissions factors from EPA assume 

larger industrial facilities that employ a variety of firing practices and are typically well controlled. It is 

reasonable to assume that the rail and residential unit are simple stoker fired and are not controlled. The 

minor quantities of coal utilized by these sources is not expected to contribute to localized impacts to air 

quality, especially from the rail sources where emissions are spread out along the length of the line 

(tracks) in what is assumed to be a linear or uniform fashion. Further these emissions are temporally 

disperse, such that they would not accumulate for a given unit of time in any one area like stationary 

source emissions could under certain meteorological conditions. However coal analysis data was received 

that allowed for the estimation of mercury emissions for the Durango Silverton and Chama Narrow 

Gauge Rail Roads. The analysis data shows that the Hg emissions from the anticipated coal combustion 

would be 0.28 and 0.12 lbs/yr for each railroad respectively.

We can however produce reasonable estimates of GHG’s from these sources (Table 3-9) given that there 

are far fewer parameters that affect those emissions compared to the criteria and hazardous air pollutants. 

To provide for these estimates the GHG emissions factors published by USEPA for use in their GHG 

reporting regulations were used (USEPA 2014). Additionallly, the estimated calcination CO2 emissions 

for the balance of the coal that is assumed to be combusted in other cement production facilities 

(approximately 880,940 tons per year). For this calculation the derived emissions factor from the Tijeras 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-82-

facility was used (from examination of EPA’s FLIGHT data, metric tons of CO2 per meric tons of clinker 

produced ~ 0.33). This was necessary due to the uncertainy of the fraction of lime contained in other 

facilities feedstocks, where the amount of lime directly affects the ratio of CO2 liberated during 

production. Because the efficiency with which these other facilities can produce clinker from the amount 

of coal consumed, the coal to clinker ratio from the Tijeras facility was used to provide an approximate 

estimate. Again, this was necessary because the agencies do not know how much clinker these other 

facilities produce to allow the derived emissions factor to be applied directly.

Table 3-9. King II Remaining Coal Combustion Emissions (max tons/year)

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

4,795,915 184.3 26. 4,281,535

Direct Air Quality Effects

The region surrounding the Proposed Action alternative area is currently designated as attainment for all 

criteria pollutants. The attainment designation means that no violations of ambient air quality standard 

have been documented in the area. Air quality effects are measured by determining whether the area 

would continue to be in attainment or not. 

A detailed air quality assessment of the mine was recently conducted by APCD to support permitting of 

the King II Mine at currently authorized production rates. According to APCD staff, the mine was not 

required to provide any dispersion modeling to support their application since their allowable emissions 

are so low (pers.com., Mr. Charles Pray, CDPHE Permitting Engineer, March 7,2014, re: 

09LP0202F.FA1).

The King II Mine is primarily a source of PM10 emissions. More so than other pollutants, PM10 is a 

localized pollutant where concentrations can vary considerably. The proximity of any receptor to the mine 

and the area’s topography between the mine and receptor will greatly influence the level of air quality 

impacts associated with PM10. Design Feature 1a describes the measures implemented by GCC to 

minimize direct PM10 emissions from mine facilities; therefore, PM10 impacts would be minor and short 

term.

With respect to potential ozone formation, the mine is not a significant source of precursors (NOX and 

VOC). When compared to the National Emissions Inventory, precursor totals for La Plata County in 2014 

shown in Tables 3.2 and 3.3, the mine’s emissions represent only 0.3 and 0.1 percent of the NOX and 

VOC emissions respectively (excluding biogenic emissions from the NEI). Given that the mine’s 

precursor emissions are so low and that the photochemical reactivity potential of methane in the 

troposphere is considered negligible (40 CFR 51.100 (s)), the mine’s operations are not expected to 

contribute significantly to any regional ozone formation potential. However, the BLM did analyze ozone 

culpability of all of the mines that produce federal minerals in Colorado cumulatively, via the Colorado 

Air Resources Management Modeling study (CARMMS). The CARMMS model, the analysis scenarios, 

and results are all described in the cumulative impacts section below. The CARMMS model was also 

used to assess PM2.5 impacts (including secondary formation) from the mines producing federal minerals 

in Colorado.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-83-

Where a PSD source is located near a Class I airshed (within 30 miles) the AQRVs thresholds set by the 

applicable Class I controlling agency must be assessed to determine if an adverse impact on the area is 

likely to occur. Although the King II Mine is within 30 miles of two Class I areas, it is not a major PSD 

source. The King II mine is classified as minor source of emissions, and according to CDPHE it was not 

required to provide any air modeling to support its permit application. Given that the mine has very low 

emissions of AQRV impacting pollutants and that the primary pollutant of concern (particulate matter) is 

a highly localized pollutant (due to gravitational settling and topological impaction), any potential Class I 

area impacts are expected to be minor, with respect to direct impacts. The CARMMS analysis did 

consider AQRV impacting pollutants, which are discussed in section 4.3 Cumulative Impacts. 

The miscellaneous facility equipment would be the only stationary sources to generate HAP emissions at 

the mine. The total HAP emissions from all sources at the mine is approximately 6.1 tons, and is based on 

the ratio of HAPs to VOC in EPA’s NEI data for Non-Road Diesel Equipment for La Plata County. These 

source types represent the majority of the VOC emissions generated by the mine (see Table 3.5). A 

majority of the mine’s HAP emissions (68 percent) would be exhausted through the mine shaft ventilation 

system (this is true for the equipment’s criteria emissions as well), and as such they are heavily diluted by 

the volume of make up air required to keep the mine’s atmosphere free from methane that could 

accumulate in the underground environment as a result of exposing and removing the coal. Additionally, 

the mine shaft exhaust air has an initial inertial flux (i.e., vertical plume buoyancy, mechanically induced 

via the mine vent shaft fan) at the surface which provides for increased dispersion potential as compared 

to the surface based equipment exhaust. The EPA provides Regional Screening Level (RSL) values

(https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/resair_sl_table_run_may2016.pdf) for 

diesel emissions (as a whole); including a Reference Concentration (RfC), defined as an estimate of a 

daily inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive groups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime (5μg/m3). Given the minor magnitude of these 

emissions (including the rate they could be expected to be emitted, about 0.5 grams per second 

cumulatively across the facility—total HAP grams divided by 3000 operating hours (assumed minimum), 

divided by 3600 seconds per hour), and the overall dispersion expected to occur within the facility prior to 

reaching a fence line, it is highly unlikely ambient air quality would be impacted to a degree that the 

public (for which the nearest potential receptor is about a half-mile away) would experience an elevated 

exposure risk based on EPA’s exposure assessment guidelines. Therefore impacts associated with HAP 

emissions would be negligible and short term. 

According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program (2009), global warming is unequivocal, and the 

global warming that has occurred over the past 50 years is primarily human-caused. Standardized 

protocols designed to measure factors that may contribute to climate change, and to quantify climatic 

impacts, are presently unavailable. As a consequence, impact assessment of specific impacts related to 

anthropogenic activities on global climate change cannot be accurately estimated. Moreover, specific 

levels of significance have not yet been established by regulatory agencies. Therefore, climate change 

analysis for the purpose of this environmental assessment within this air quality section is limited to 

accounting for GHG emissions changes that would contribute incrementally to climate change. 

Qualitative and quantitative evaluations of potential contributing factors are included where appropriate 

and practicable.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-84-

Approximately 10.5 percent of U.S. emissions of methane come from underground coal mining activities 

(USEPA 2010). Based upon the national and state inventories of GHG emissions (CDPHE 2014, USEPA 

2015b), the total CMM emissions in 2009 and 2005 were 70.10 teragrams (Tg) (Tg = one million metric 

tons), and 4.9Tg on a CO2e basis for the U.S. and Colorado, respectively. Estimated total CMM emissions 

from the Proposed Action are approximately 456 metric tons of CO2e (at full authorized production) or 

0.009 percent and 0.00065 percent of the total calculated CO2e emissions of CMM from Colorado and the 

U.S. Based on BLM’s analysis, total annual GHG emissions from the Proposed Action (direct and 

indirect for maximum production levels) are estimated to be 5.2 Tg on a CO2e basis. This represents 

approximately 0.075 percent of the US’s GHG emissions (USEPA 2015b). 

Regardless of the accuracy of emission estimates, predicting the degree of impact of any single emitter of 

GHGs may have on global climate change or on the changes to biotic and abiotic systems that accompany 

climate change, is not possible at this time. As such, the controversy as to what extent GHG emissions 

resulting from continued mining may contribute to global climate change, as well as the accompanying 

changes to natural systems cannot be quantified or predicted. The degree to which any observable 

changes can, or would be, attributable to the Proposed Action cannot be reasonably stated at this time. 

Given the cumulative nature of the GHG and climate change issue, and a lack of project specific impacts, 

please see the cumulative section below for a general description of anticipated changes and impacts

related to climate change.

Methane emissions associated with the King II Mine are anticipated to be very low when compared to 

other Colorado underground coal mines. The geology of the surrounding strata and composition of the 

coal itself produce very little emissions during room and pillar mining. Implementation of the Proposed 

Action is estimated to contribute a maximum of 15,915 tons of directly emitted CO2e annually and 69,506 

tons for all of the recoverable coal estimates within the lease modification area. This is a minor fraction of 

the GHG emissions that will be generated over the same period within the affected environment area. For 

example, the 2014 mobile source NEI data shows that CO2 emissions alone for La Plata County were 

385,343 tons (excluding prescribed and wildland fire). On an annual basis, the mines CO2e emissions are 

approximately 4.1 percent of just the counties CO2 emissions. Given the nature of the climate change 

issue (i.e., it is a cumulative problem) the impacts (disclosed in the cumulative section below) could be 

similar with or without the Proposed Action. As stated below under the No Action Alternative, it is not 

known whether end users of this coal would purchase other coal (i.e., same/similar GHG impacts) for fuel 

or whether alternative fuels would replace the coal used in cement kilns (i.e., natural gas, tires, etc.). This 

action will incrementally contribute GHG emissions to the biosphere, which could contribute to climate 

change.

Indirect Air Quality Effects

Indirect air quality effects from the Proposed Action are generally related to coal transport and 

combustion, and to a lesser extent the CR 120 improvements. The mobile source emissions are a 

continuation of an existing activity, are relatively small and spread out geographically, such that they are 

not anticipated to cause any concerns to local or regional air quality. Several thousand more vehicles 

travel these routes daily and air quality is being maintained. Additionally, mobile source emissions for the 

affected area have been evaluated on a regional scale by the Four Corners Air Quality Group. This 

evaluation and forecast for the Four Corners region, including the direct affected areaand the rail terminal 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-85-

location, found that emissions levels forecast for a 2018 scenario would not exceed the NAAQS (Environ 

2009). Given that the mobile source emissions levels from the Proposed Action are incorporated into the 

2018 scenario, these modeling results support the conclusion there would be minor and long-term indirect 

air quality effects for the Proposed Action, within La Plata and Montezuma counties. 

The primary pollutant of concern for these sources is the fugitive dust they could generate on the 

unimproved portions of the CR 120 (approximately 3.9 miles). However, the planned improvement to the 

road, along with the design features to be implemented in the interim mean that there is little chance that 

these emissions could become a nuisance to area residence. Dust had previously been identified as a 

concern by property owners along CR 120. The BLM performed a screening assessment to estimate 

ambient PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations along CR 120 for the Proposed Action using the emissions 

estimates shown in Table 3-10 (heavy duty, unpaved). The results from the screening tool are maximum 

ambient PM10 or PM2.5 concentration levels estimated within a 0.6-mile (1 km) radius from the centerline 

of CR 120, and include a background concentration that was obtained from area monitoring data. The tool 

produces ground level concentration estimates alone a 500-meter length of roadway where emissions are 

time varied to only occur during the daylight hours (concentrates emissions). As shown in Table 3-10, the 

levels are well within the form of the standard. 

Table 3-10. Particulate matter concentrations estimated for CR 120

Case/Emission level PM10

24-hour

PM2.5

24-hour

PM2.5

Annual

PM10

24-hour

PM2.5

24-hour

PM2.5

Annual

μg/m3 Percent of NAAQS

CR 120 (unpaved w/design features) 112.86 18.17 7.04 75 52 59

Impacts from CR 120 improvements would be minor and short term and are anticipated to be well 

controlled (i.e., no visible dust plumes, or offsite transport). These emissions are well below those 

modelled for haul truck traffic and as such they are not expected to cause any significant impacts.

The combustion related indirect effects from stationary sources are either unknown or are currently 

regulated by agencies with authority to set limits and conditions to provide for compliance with the 

applicable CAA regulations. Our analysis is limited to disclosing emissions and the permits where all the 

compliance obligations for the known sources is contained. The Proposed Action is not expected to 

change daily operations or the compliance obligations of these facilities (or the unknown ones for that 

matter). The Proposed Action would essentially represent a continuation of currently authorized activities. 

Any new activities as a result of this coal being made available are not foreseeable. The monitoring data 

for the known downstream facilities (as reported in AQS Data Mart, USEPA 2017) shows that air quality 

has been, and could be expected to continue to meet the NAAQS and therefore is considered to have 

minor, long-term impacts. 

With respect to the indirect source’s impacts on climate change, the agencies do not possess appropriate 

tools or analytical methods to assess how these emissions could potentially affect the climate at local, 

regional, or global scales. Given the nature of the climate change issue (i.e., it is a cumulative problem) 

the impacts (disclosed in the cumulative section below) could be similar with or without the Proposed 

Actions effects on indirect sources. As stated below under the No Action Alternative, it is not known 

whether end users of this coal would purchase other coal (i.e., same/similar GHG impacts) for fuel or 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-86-

whether alternative fuels would replace the coal used in cement kilns (i.e., natural gas, tires, etc.). These 

indirect sources will incrementally contribute GHG emissions to the biosphere, which could contribute to 

climate change.

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

None. All of the analysis and impacts are based on design features or regulated (i.e., controlled) activities, 

and none of the impacts have been deemed significant enough to require any additional mitigation

3.1.3 Impacts from the No Action Alternative

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, the mine would continue to operate under the current mine plan with a 

maximum permitted production level of 1.3 million tons per year until such time that all of the available 

coal reserves are exhausted. The levels of air emissions from the stationary and mobile sources at the 

mine would be roughly the same as those estimated and analyzed for the Proposed Action, but would end

prior to 2019. It’s likely that all of the indirect sources would continue operating regardless of the 

availability of the King II coal given their economic incentives to do so. The only indirect action that 

would not occur is the CR 120 improvements, due to the connected action nature of the project. These 

indirect sources would continue to incrementally contribute GHG emissions to the biosphere, which could 

contribute to climate change. 

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to climate change would be the same or slightly less as 4.66 

million tons of coal would not be mined from King II. It is not known whether end users of this coal 

would purchase other coal (i.e., same/similar GHG impacts) for fuel or whether alternative fuels would 

replace the coal used in cement kilns (i.e., natural gas, tires, etc.).

3.2 Health and Safety

3.2.1 Affected Environment

In this section, human health and safety are analyzed in terms of public health and safety concerns and in 

terms of the presence/absence of hazardous material and the management of these materials and solid 

waste.

Public Health and Safety

The LPC Office of Emergency Management (OEM) works to identify hazards that may affect life, 

property and the continuity of vital services in La Plata County. The OEM prepares the County 

government to be ready for possible disasters. OEM works to ensure coordination between the various 

response agencies like fire, law enforcement, search and rescue, snow plows and the 911 call center. 

The OEM and the La Plata County Fire Chief’s Association have developed a County-wide All Hazard 

Mitigation Plan (AHMP). The development committee includes representatives from Durango Fire and 

Rescue Authority, Fort Lewis Mesa Fire Protection District, Los Pinos Fire Protection District, Upper 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-87-

Pine River Fire Protection District and the La Plata County Office of Emergency Management. The 

AHMP identifies and profiles the natural and human-caused hazards to which LPC is vulnerable, assesses 

the vulnerability of the more significant hazards (e.g., flood, severe weather and wildfire), and includes 

goals and actions intended to mitigate the effects of these hazards.

There is no permissible public access to the proposed lease modification area or to the King II or King I 

mine sites. The mine facilities and workers are required to meet MSHA safety and training standards. Any

visitors to the mine are also required to be safety trained if they plan on entering active mining areas. The 

mine is inspected quarterly per MSHA and other regulations. Public safety issues related to coal transport 

along CR 120 N are included in the detailed transportation analysis in Section 3.10.

Currently, access to the King II facility is via State Highway 140 to CR 120 and then approximately 6.4 

miles south/west to the mine site. The first 2.5 miles of CR 120 are paved and the road is approximately 

22 feet wide. The last 3.9 miles of CR 120 are gravel and approximately 24 feet wide. GCC’s current and 

proposed traffic accounts for approximately 99 percent of loading by weight on north CR 120 and 

approximately 67 percent by volume (660/983 trips, Refer to the TIA). For this volume and load of traffic 

on north CR 120, the applicable county road classification is “Local, 10 plus units” (LPLUC Sec. 74-

91.c). County standards require a Local, 10 plus units road to be constructed to a minimum 24-foot wide 

paved road plus 3-foot shoulders and a 60-foot ROW. The adopted County code also addresses the need 

for safe road alignment and sight distance (LPLUC Sec 74-91.d). For CR 120 to accommodate the haul 

trucks, in compliance with the adopted La Plata County Land Use Code, Chapter 74, roadway 

improvements are necessary.

Hazardous or Solid Wastes

Since the mine uses no process chemicals, there is no potential for impacts from this source, and further 

analysis is not warranted in this EA. Disposal of all coal and non-coal wastes from the mine site has been 

analyzed in the CDRMS mining and reclamation permit. Specifically, all debris, acid-forming and toxicforming materials constituting a fire hazard are disposed of by a local waste removal company such as 

Waste Management or Baker Sanitation. Grease, lubricants, paints, flammable liquids, etc. are stored in 

the Fuel Storage Building with proper containment and are collected on a regular basis by a certified 

hazardous material collection company such as Safety Kleen. All wastes are disposed of in a manner that 

ensures they are processed or contained in permitted and regulated facilities.

Periodically, surface exploration holes are drilled to assess coal characteristics in advance of mining. Each 

exploration hole, other drill or borehole, well, or other exposed underground opening will be cased, 

sealed, or otherwise managed, as approved by the OSMRE, to prevent any potentially toxic drainage from 

entering ground or surface waters, to minimize disturbance to the prevailing hydrologic balance, and to 

ensure the safety of people, livestock, fish and wildlife, and machinery in the permit area and adjacent 

area.

Surface water quality is protected by materials handling and runoff management to minimize additional 

contributions of sediments to streamflow. Runoff from surface facility areas is directed by berms, ditch 

and culverts to an unlined sediment pond with vertical spillways fitted with oil skimmers. Water captured 

in the runoff control pond is allowed to evaporate and infiltrate to alluvium. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-88-

During normal underground mining operations, shale and sandstone break away from the roof and floor 

of the coal seam. This material is removed from the King II Mine and placed in the existing approved 

mine waste (refuse) storage area at the King I Coal Mine. Contents of the refuse pile, located in the 

vicinity of the closed King I mine portal, include mine waste from the King I and II mines and is 

composed of coal, sandstone, siltstone, and carbonaceous shale rock fragments suspended in a sand, silt, 

and clay matrix (Trautner Geotech, LLC [Trautner], 2015). All mine refuse is contained within a 

constructed waste bank. Historical drainage in this area has been modified and engineered to facilitate 

separation between the refuse pile materials and sources of water. The coal mine waste (refuse) storage 

area has increased approximately 5,000 cubic yards per year. As of July 2016, approximately 174,000 

cubic yards exist. Anticipated refuse production from 2017 through 2022 is approximately 5,000 cubic 

yards per year. The waste bank is currently designed to accommodate up to 1,000,000 cubic yards. Details 

of design and construction are located in the CDRMS permit and are entitled Waste Bank Design 

Summary Report, November 1993, revised December 1997, by Don R. May, P.E. Standard Proctor tests 

and nuclear density tests are being performed regularly by GCC as detailed in Mr. May’s aforementioned 

report to ensure that the waste pile continues to meet the designed compaction requirements. Should 

different types of strata be encountered during mining at the King II Mine, these tests will be repeated to 

ensure that no significant changes in compaction are allowed.

Previous studies have collected data to support the characterization of the King I and II mine materials, 

including:

▪ Mining Permit – Coal, Permit # C-1981-035. Issued to GCC Energy, LLC, issued August 18, 

2012 (CDRMS 2013)

▪ Revised Geotechnical Engineering Study for the King Coal I West Waste Bank Coal Mine Area 

(Trautner 2015)

In 1990, roof, floor, and “A” seam coal samples were collected to support the King I mine permit. These

samples were submitted to Commercial Testing and Engineering Company for analysis. To support the 

King II mine, one roof and floor sample was collected and submitted to Standard Laboratories for 

analysis.

In 2012, Trautner Geotech carried out a field investigation to determine the geotechnical properties of the 

surface and subsurface soil deposits emplaced near the closed portal of the King Coal I mine and provide 

engineering considerations and recommendations to support supplemental permitting investigations, TR20, for submittal to CDRMS. 

Although geotechnical and geochemical analysis was completed for the refuse pile in 2012, that material

has since been relocated and intermixed with other refuse deposits in the current refuse pile location. 

Additional sample collection and analysis of representative materials from the refuse pile was warranted 

to provide evaluation of the current conditions of the refuse pile and support the characterization of the 

potential for the refuse material to generate acidic drainage and mobilize trace metals into receiving areas.

Physical and geochemical characterization of the mine materials was recommended to provide a more 

comprehensive data set to support the existing King I and II mine permits (Minor Revision MR-41, 

specifically) and to facilitate operational decision making, and evaluate long-term closure alternatives. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-89-

The 2016 data collection program, which includes the approved Minor Revision MR-41 followed the 

objectives outlined in the following documents:

▪ Geochemical Sampling and Analysis Plan, King I and II Mines, La Plata County, Colorado (RHS

2016a)

▪ Supplemental Sampling and Analysis Plan, King I and II Mines, La Plata County, Colorado (RHS

2016b)

RHS (2016a) incorporated the sampling and analysis plan that was approved as part of the MR-41 

documents. Upon review of the requirements outlined in MR-41, additional data collection efforts were 

recommended to provide a more comprehensive and defensible dataset for each of the areas included in 

this investigation. Samples collected in 2016 were analyzed for the following characteristics: general soil 

properties, acid base accounting, carbon sources, metals, and leachate analysis.

Results from the 2016 and historical sampling and analysis programs highlight the lithologic variability in 

the roof, coal, and floor materials, with wide ranging values in pH and metal constituents. The results of 

the 2016 sampling are detailed in the Geotechnical Materials Analysis, King I & II Mines (RHS 2016c).

Past sampling has documented “reportable” levels of mercury and lead in the roof and floor material 

samples that GCC has reported and has published these results in the Toxics Release Inventory, in 

accordance with EPA’s Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. While the roof and 

floor material samples include these toxics, there is no indication that they are leaching or running off-site 

from the spoils pile. Leachate analysis indicates very low potential for metal contaminants to be 

mobilized through the dissolution of soluble metal salts.

As part of each agencies’ regulatory oversight responsibilities, OSMRE and CDRMS regularly review 

GCC’s monitoring plan and analytical results to ensure that performance standards and regulations are 

being met to protect water quality and public health.

Other hazardous materials used include diesel fuel and roof bolting resins containing styrene. The resin is 

a two-part epoxy which, when installed to support roof bolts, is mixed and becomes solid (like regular 

epoxy). This material is not required to be reported as part of the mine’s Toxics Release Inventory.

3.2.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

There would be no substantive change to mine operations associated with the lease modification; 

therefore, public health and safety would be similar to baseline conditions described above and would 

have negligible impacts. Potential impacts to human health related to air quality are discussed in Section 

3.1.2. Because emissions associated with the Proposed Action do not result in any NAAQS exceedances, 

potential impacts to human health are expecteded to be low and long term.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-90-

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

The following health and safety measures are proposed as part of GCC proposed mine permit revision. 

GCC’s has developed contingency plans and measures to be employed to ensure that all debris, acidforming and toxic-forming materials, and materials constituting a fire hazard are disposed of in 

accordance with 30 CFR § 817.89 and 30 CFR § 817.102. Acid- or toxic-forming materials will be 

handled and disposed of in accordance with 30 CFR § 816.41(b)(f), and 30 CFR § 816.102(e). As a result 

of these measures, potential health and safety impacts are expected to remain negligible for the life of the 

mine.

3.2.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

With respect to mining activities, direct and indirect impacts under the No Action Alternative will be 

similar to those described under the Proposed Action Alternative except that coal production and 

operations would sharply decline around 2019 and site reclamation activities would begin.

Health and safety associated with coal transport along CR 120 N would improve sometime after 2019 

when coal reserves are depleted within the existing lease area. At, and leading up that time, it is expected 

that loaded coal truck trips along CR 120 N will significantly diminish (refer to Section 3.10.).

3.3 Geology and Minerals

3.3.1 Affected Environment

The affected area for geology and minerals is the existing and proposed coal lease held by GCC. This 

affected area is located at the northwest edge of the San Juan Basin within northwestern New Mexico and 

southwestern Colorado (NKC 1999). The sedimentary strata of the basin were deposited at the margins of 

a large sea occupying central North America during the late Cretaceous Epoch. During this time,

extensive deposition of coal took place during the advance and retreat of the shorelines of the sea as it 

retreated to the northeast and eventually disappeared. This depositional environment resulted in an 

irregular wedge of non-marine sediments in the southwestern area of the basin intermingling with marine 

deposited sediments to the northeast.

Locally, the exposed sedimentary rocks of the late Cretaceous dip to the south and southeast and are 

deeply eroded to the north. The uppermost exposed formation is the Cliff House Formation, the upper 

member of the Mesa Verde Group. Of marine origin, it contains hard, calcareous sandstone mixed with 

fine sandstones, mudstones, and silty shale. Eroded at the top of the formation, the average thickness is 

350 feet in the area.

Underlying the Cliff House sandstone is the Menefee Formation, the middle member of the Mesa Verde 

Group, which is made up of a complex of sandstones, black shales, and coal beds (as many as seven 

identified by the USGS). Locally, the average thickness is 300 feet. Below the Menefee Formation is the 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-91-

Point Lookout Formation, the lowest member of the Mesa Verde Group. It contains two distinct 

sandstone layers, the upper massive (found at the entrance to Mesa Verde National Park to the west) and 

the lower thin beds. Mancos Shale, a thick (2,000 feet) marine shale layer, underlies the Point Lookout 

sandstone and is found exposed locally approximately four miles north of the mine. Table 3-11 provides a 

description of the geologic resources within the proposed coal lease modification area.

Table 3-11. Stratigraphy of Coal Lease Modification Area

Geologic Unit Geologic 

Period Description

Mesa Verde 

Group

Cliff House 

Formation

Cretaceous Marine sandstone of irregular to lenticular ledges 

averaging 350 feet. Uppermost exposed stratum in coal 

lease modification area.

Menefee 

Formation

Complex of cross-bedded sandstone, shales, and coal 

beds. Characterized by irregular bedding and rapid lateral 

changes in lithology.

Point Lookout 

Formation

Upper member massive medium-grained sandstone 100 

feet thick in project area.

Lower member thin beds of sandstone, 300 feet thick in 

project area. 

Mancos Shale Marine shales to 2000 feet thick. Not found within the site 

but outcrops adjacent to the coal lease modification area.

The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS 2015) identifies the following as potential geologic hazards in 

Colorado: abandoned mine lands, avalanches, collapsible soils, corrosive soils, debris flows-fans, 

earthquakes, erosion, fires, floods, heaving bedrock, landslides, mudslides, naturally degraded waters, 

rockfall, radon, swelling soils, and ground subsidence (natural and mine). Faults are known within the 

local area (1-mile northeast of Hesperus, a fault with displacement of 33 feet is known), though none have 

been encountered in exploration drilling at the King II Mine. In 2006, the Colorado Geologic Society

(CGS 2006) estimated the coal resource in the San Juan Basin to be 9.61 billion tons of coal. The lease 

modification would remove 0.05 percent of the coal resource, which would have a minor affect on the 

resource in the project area.

Subsidence

Subsidence is the gradual lowering of the ground surface after coal and support pillars are removed in a 

completed mining panel. After coal recovery, fracturing and settling of the overlying overburden may 

yield surface expressions of subsidence in the form of subsidence cracks and a lowering of the ground 

surface. At the King II Mine, the coal seam is overlain by a thick, durable sandstone layer that fractures 

into large blocks, minimizing void spaces. The nature of the overburden reduces the risk for surface earth 

movement after underground mining than would result from a less durable stratum such as siltstone or 

shale. Prior coal mining at the GCC King I Mine revealed minor subsidence over 70 years of mining. At 

the King I Mine, surface expressions of subsidence averaged between 50 and 100 feet in length, less than 

1 foot in depth, and 0.25 to 0.5 feet in width. Monitoring of these features by GCC contractors and 

CDRMS inspections determined that they are self-healing within two seasons and have not expanded in 

size. Fewer than six of these subsidence features have been identified. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-92-

Fluid Minerals

The King II Mine current and proposed lease area is located within the Paradox Basin/Gothic Shale Gas 

Play Area as designated in the Reasonable Foreseeable Development analysis in support of the TRFO 

RMP (USDI/BLM 2015a). There are no leases for fluid minerals in the current GCC lease area or within 

the proposed lease modification area. 

Mapping by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) (COGCC 2014) shows two 

plugged and/or abandoned oil and gas wells in the locality of the proposed coal lease modification area. 

One plugged and abandoned well is located immediately north of the King II Mine surface facilities in 

Section 36, T35N, R12W. The abandoned well is located in Section 35, T35N, R12W, approximately 0.5

mile west of the King II Mine surface facilities. There have been no oil and gas wells drilled and/or 

abandoned in the proposed coal lease modification area.

Future leasing of the fluid minerals beneath the coal resources leased by GCC is possible, but would be 

subject to site-specific NEPA analysis and conditions of the fluid mineral lease with consideration for 

prior removal of coal resource.

3.3.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The potential effects to geology and minerals in the affected area from the Proposed Action Alternative 

would be related to increased risk of geologic hazards caused by subsidence or rockfall. Subsidence is the 

gradual lowering of the surface after the large rectangular blocks/pillars of coal are removed underground 

during retreat mining. After coal recovery, fracturing and settling of the overlying overburden may yield 

surface expressions of subsidence in the form of subsidence cracks. Rockfall would result from loosening 

of bedrock by freeze/thaw action or heavy precipitation, resulting in bedrock falling from in situ strata. 

In the King II Mine, the mined Upper Menefee coal seam is overlain by the massive Cliff House 

sandstone. The thickness and nature of this stratum provides a great deal of ground stability and generally 

limits subsidence from reaching the surface after pillars are extracted (GCC 2006). 

Data field measurements of subsidence cracks in the Mesa Verde Formation by Dunrud (1976) indicate 

subsidence cracks may develop through overburden thicknesses of up to 800 feet under unfavorable 

conditions. While unfavorable conditions cannot be defined exactly, they may include zones of weathered 

coal and overburden. Overburden thicknesses over 800 feet have been classified as having a negligible 

risk of surface fracturing developing. This is a conservative upper limit under normal conditions. 

Roof rocks primarily consisting of strong, thick sandstones of the Mesa Verde Group would cave into the 

mine in larger blocks than would shale roof rocks and would reduce the height of caving above the mine 

workings. These sandstones would generally reduce the amount of subsidence compared to shale. 

Sandstones at the surface would have larger displacements and may form cracks up to 1 foot wide and 25 

to 50 feet deep on steep slopes. Formation of joints and fractures on steep slopes may contribute to slope 

instability and susceptibility to landslides and rockfalls. The current mine plan for the King II Mine does 

not include mining under steep slopes or daylighting along the steep drainages. Implementation of the 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-93-

Proposed Action would result in the removal of an estimated 4.66 million tons of coal at an average 

annual rate of production of approximately 836,126 tons from 2017 to 2023 (refer to Table 2.3). The 

removal of 4.66 million tons of coal from the subsurface would have a minor effect on the resource in the 

project area.

There would be negligible impacts to area geologic resources associated with CR 120 road improvements.

Road improvements would benefit oil and gas operators potentially accessing fluid mineral development 

areas from CR 120. There would be no subsidence impacts to CR 120 as none of the underground 

operations are beneath CR 120. 

Subsidence Impacts

The direct effects to geology and minerals are measured by the risk and extent of subsidence to occur in 

the locations and allowable methods for the proposed lease modification area and mine plan. The risk and 

extent of subsidence would depend upon many factors, including mine plans, coal seam thickness, 

geologic strata, and overburden depth. The overburden range for the coal lease modification area is from 

100 feet to 300 feet (GCC 2006; NKC 1999). Assuming a coal seam removal thickness of 6 to 10 feet, 

surface lowering after retreat mining could be measurable and result in detectable surface subsidence 

impacts. Based on subsidence monitoring at the King I Mine 1 mile northeast, with similar overburden 

thickness, mining the same seam, surface subsidence features were rarely encountered. Those observed 

averaged 1-foot-wide/deep and 100 feet in length. The features were self-healing and not discernable after 

2 calendar years. Accordingly, direct impacts associated with subsidence are expected to be minor and 

short to long term.

As described above, the thick Cliff House sandstone provides a great deal of ground stability and 

generally prevents subsidence from reaching the surface after pillars are extracted during mining. 

Nonetheless, it is possible that subsidence can occur post mining. To determine potential impacts from 

subsidence, the OSMRE requires an inventory of structures, renewal resource lands and the 

characterization of a “worst possible consequence of subsidence.” Based on ground surveys and review of 

publicly available site-specific aerial photography, the only structures and renewable resource lands

observable are, a historic homestead in Alkali Gulch, barbed wire stock fences, stock ponds, and a twotrack road system along the ridges within the permit area.

The two-track road system is the main “structure” above the existing and proposed lease modification

area which could be damaged because of subsidence. If a surface subsidence crack was to intersect the 

road, it is possible that some repair of the road would be required to allow its continued use. This road is 

used primarily by the UMU for access to rangelands, hunting, and firewood cutting. The historic 

homestead is on an edge of the lease boundary and at the toe of steep slopes associated with Alkali Gulch. 

There are no mining panels beneath this part of the lease and therefore no impacts from subsidence would 

occur to the homestead structure.

If subsidence cracks damage any barbed wire fence within the permit area (a fencepost could be dislodged 

or strands of barbed wire could stretch and break or sag), GCC will repair said fences without charge to 

the UMU Tribe, or will reimburse the UMU Tribe at reasonable costs for any necessary repairs. Potential 

impacts to structures from subsidence would be negligible.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-94-

Subsidence from mining could cause temporary minor alterations to surface water hydrology by altering 

surface water drainage patterns. This is discussed further in Water Resources (Section 3.7). Because there 

is little connection between groundwater flow regimes and surface water hydrology within the affected 

area, no indirect impacts to geology and minerals are anticipated for the Proposed Action.

Fluid Minerals Impacts

Potential impacts to fluid minerals for the Proposed Action would be dependent on the lease conditions 

and are unknown at this time. Further, any future fluid mineral development in the area would be subject 

to leasing and project-specific NEPA analysis. 

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

The Proposed Action could result in negligible short to long-term impacts to the surface resources from 

subsidence. These potential impacts are further mitigated by Design Feature 3 (risk of subsidence from 

underground mining to adjacent surface property by restricting mining to not within 300 feet of an 

occupied dwelling). Therefore, even though there is a risk of subsidence causing small, temporary surface 

damage, it is mitigated by Design Feature 3 to reduce the likelihood of this surface damage causing harm 

to residences or associated property.

3.3.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no lease modification or mining within the proposed 

950.55 acres in the project area. An estimated 4.66 million tons of coal would remain in the ground and 

GCC would seek to renegotiate the RIA to terminate after Phase 3. Therefore, there would be no new 

impacts to geological and mineral resources.

3.4 Paleontological Resources

3.4.1 Affected Environment

The OSMRE does not have its own paleontological resource standards and uses the BLM’s Potential 

Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) to provide an assessment method to determine the potential for fossils 

in geologic units (BLM 2008). 

The PFYC consists of five classes. Class 1 indicates very low potential and Class 5 indicates high 

potential for significant paleontological resources. Paleontological resources are associated with geologic 

units. Thus, class rankings are generally assigned to geologic formations or members at the surface.

From youngest to oldest, the following is a list of major formations or units that may be found in the 

proposed project area. Fossils that have been associated elsewhere with these units are noted. The PFYC 

rating or range of ratings is also noted.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-95-

▪ Cliff House Sandstone (PFYC ranges from 3 to 4.) – Marine invertebrates are relatively 

common (i.e., ammonites, crustaceans, clams, oysters, snails, starfish, sea urchins, shark teeth).

Discovery of individual vertebrates such as turtles, mosasaur, plesiosaur have occurred very 

locally.

▪ Menefee (PFYC 4) – Leaf impressions, palm fronds, conifers, reptile bones, fossil tree trunks.

▪ Point Lookout Sandstone (PFYC 3) – Worms, crustaceans, clams, ammonites, various animal 

tracks, and driftwood.

▪ Mancos Shale (PFYC 3) - Oysters, fish scales, ammonites, clams, shark teeth, snails, worms, 

many invertebrate fossils, scaphites.

Descriptions for Classes 3 and 4 are as follows: 

Class 3 – Moderate or Unknown. Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies in 

significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence; or sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential.

Class 4 – High. Geologic units containing a high occurrence of significant fossils. Vertebrate fossils or 

scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils are known to occur and have been documented, but 

may vary in occurrence and predictability. Surface-disturbing activities may adversely affect 

paleontological resources in many cases.

Online research indicates that invertebrate fossils and shark teeth have been found in nearby Mesa Verde 

National Park (approximately 15 miles to the west). Specifically, they were identified in the Cliff House 

Sandstone, Point Lookout Sandstone, and the Mancos Shale. There is no mention of fossils located in the 

Menefee Formation (NPS 2005).

No paleontological resources were found during surface environmental (cultural and biological) surveys 

completed across the proposed lease modification surface area. A database search for paleontological sites 

on the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation database, COMPASS was conducted on 

March 17, 2017; no known sites were found in the project area which includes along CR 120 (to date).

3.4.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Surface disturbance and drilling activities can expose new fossil localities and provide additional 

information for scientific research. There is a low potential that potential future surface disturbance at the 

King II Mine from exploration drilling activities, access, or other ground-disturbing activities may 

encounter fossil resources. 

Effects to paleontological resources were previously analyzed in the EIS for the TRFO RMP for activities 

including coal leasing (USDA/USDI 2013), which states “actions authorized by this LRMP/FEIS [Land 

Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement] should have negligible to minor 

impacts to paleontological resources, as the PRPA [Paleontology Resources Preservation Act of 2009] 

and related regulations, handbooks, and policy guidance provide for the identification, avoidance, or 

collection and documentation of paleontological resources prior to any ground-disturbing activities.”
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-96-

Ground disturbance associated with phased road improvements of CR 120 N would be completed almost 

entirely within the previously disturbed CR ROW. There are no paleontological resource protections 

provisions in the LPC Land Use Code of Regulations. With that said, paleontological resources are not 

expected to be encountered during CR 120 road improvements. CDOT will sometimes require a 

paleontological survey or monitor during construction within a CDOT ROW—depending upon the 

potential to encounter paleontological resources in a project area. This assessment will be made by CDOT 

at the time they receive an application from GCC to improve the SH 140 intersection. Should 

paleontological resources be discovered in the course of compliance surveys, these discoveries would be 

considered a long-term, beneficial impact based on the scientific information yielded by the discovery.

Based on the scarcity of known paleontological resources in the area, and along the previously disturbed 

CR 120 ROW, no impacts to paleontological resources are expected as a result of the Proposed Action.

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

If paleontological resources are discovered during mining operations, GCC shall immediately notify the 

BLM and OSMRE and shall not disturb such discovered resources until the agencies issue specific 

instructions. Within 5 working days after notification, the agencies shall evaluate any paleontological 

resources discovered and shall determine whether any action may be required to protect or to preserve 

such discoveries. Should paleontological resources be encountered during the course of CR 120 or SH 

140 intersection road improvements, LPC or CDOT will be consulted as appropriate. With these 

mitigation measures, there would be no impacts to paleontological resources from the Proposed Action.

3.4.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no lease modification or mining of the proposed 950.55 

acres in the project area. No additional surface/subsurface disturbance would occur beyond that already 

permitted. Therefore, there would be no additional impacts to paleontological resources from new leasing 

or mining. There have been no paleontological discoveries associated with the road improvements that 

have already been constructed following the approval of the LPC LUP. 

3.5 Soils

3.5.1 Affected Environment

The soil resources that could be affected by the Proposed Action are located within the existing and 

proposed coal lease areas held by GCC, as well as the area along CR 120 N proposed for road 

improvements. 

Soil survey information for the existing and proposed lease boundary areas was obtained from the NRCS 

and is summarized below in Table 3-12 (NRCS 2017). An NRCS report, including a detailed description 

of each soil type and associated soil maps, is included in Appendix 9 of the PAP (GCC, 2017). A soils 

map is also included as Map A-6 in Appendix A. There are 10 mapped soil types within the existing and 

proposed lease boundary. Soils along CR 120 are similar to those mapped within the existing and 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-97-

proposed lease boundary, although a degree of disturbance and soil mixing has occurred in association 

with the original construction and ongoing maintenance of CR 120.

Table 3-12. Mapped soil types within the existing and proposed lease boundary

Map Unit 

Symbol Map Unit Name Description Limitations and Productivity

3 Weminuche like 

loam, 12 to 45 

percent slopes

Colluvium derived from sandstone and shale. 

Usually found on mountain slopes.

Deep soil. Not prime 

farmland or hydric.

7 ArchuletaSanchez, stony, 

complex, 12 to 65 

percent slopes

Colluvium over residuum weathered from 

sandstone and shale. The complex is 

comprised of 45 percent Archuleta loam and 

30 percent Sanchez very stony sandy clay 

loam. Remaining constituents are clays, loams, 

and rock. Usually found on dip slopes.

Deep soil. Not prime 

farmland or hydric.

30 Fortwingate-Rock 

outcrop complex, 

6 to 25 percent 

slopes

Slope alluvium derived from sandstone and/or 

loess; slope alluvium derived from sandstone 

and/or loess. Typically found on mountain 

slopes.

Not prime farmland or 

hydric. Very low 

available water storage 

in profile.

39 Hesperus loam, 3 

to 12 percent 

slopes

Medium-textured alluvium derived from 

mixed sources. Found in alluvial fans and 

valleys.

Deep soil. Not prime 

farmland or hydric. 

Very high available 

water storage in 

profile.

42 Lazear-Rock 

outcrop complex,

12 to 65 percent 

slopes

Northeast, south, and southwest facing 

drainage side slopes within the project area.

This map unit comprises the Lazear series and 

exposed rock outcrops (in this area, sandstone 

and shales). The Lazear series is described as a 

loamy, mixed (calcareous), mesic Lithic Ustic 

Torriorthent. This series is shallow and welldrained, formed in residuum and alluvium 

derived from sandstone.

Not prime farmland or 

hydric. Very high 

runoff class. Low 

available water in 

profile.

47 Nutrioso loam Medium-textured alluvium derived from 

mixed sources. Found on alluvial fans, valleys.

Deep soil. Not prime 

farmland or hydric. 

High available water 

storage in profile.

56 Pulpit loam, 3 to 

12 percent slopes

Eolian deposits over residuum weathered from 

sandstone. Well-drained sandy to clay or silty 

clay loam derived from loess. Typical profile 

of loam to clay loam and silty clay loam to 

fine sandy loam, 0 to 88.9 cm (0–35 inches).

Not prime farmland or 

hydric.

69 Umbarg loam Moderately fine-textured alluvium. Found 

within the level colluvial deposits between the 

bordering side slopes of the drainage basins.

Fine-loamy, mixed mesic Cumulic 

Haplustolls. Typically forms in alluvium on 

Prime farmland if 

irrigated. Not hydric. 

No lands above the 

existing King II lease 

or proposed lease 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-98-

Map Unit 

Symbol Map Unit Name Description Limitations and Productivity

fans and upland valley bottoms. Deep and 

moderately well drained.

modification area are 

irrigated or farmed. 

71 Valto-Rock 

outcrop complex, 

12 to 65 percent 

slopes

Slope alluvium and/or residuum weathered 

from sandstone. Found on breaks, ridges, 

mountain slopes.

Not prime farmland or 

hydric. Very high 

runoff class.

79 Zau stony loam, 3 

to 9 percent slopes

Residuum weathered from sandstone and 

shale. Found on mesas, mountain slopes.

Not prime farmland or 

hydric. High runoff 

class.

80 Zau stony loam, 9 

to 25 percent 

slopes

Residuum weathered from sandstone and 

shale. Found on mesas, mountain slopes.

Not prime farmland or 

hydric. High runoff 

class.

Source: NRCS 2017.

3.5.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The lease modification itself would not include any direct or indirect impacts to project area soil 

resources. However, modifying the lease would commit an additional 950.55 acres for potential future 

mining, which could include impacts to soil resources. Future mining efforts would employ underground 

mining to access coal reserves. Expansion of underground mining could result in soil cracking related to 

subsidence, which is discussed in detail in Section 3.4 Geology and Minerals. Surface soil cracks in the 

project area would be expected to fill naturally by sloughing of surrounding surface soils. Therefore,

potential impact to soils caused by subsidence from underground mining would be negligible to minor. 

Impacts from subsidence would be expected to persist for the duration of mining operations. 

Construction and mining activities—including coal transport and improvements to CR 120 N—would 

require the presence and operation of vehicles and heavy equipment, which could result in accidental 

spills or leaks of petroleum products. Spills and leaks have the potential to impact surface soils; however, 

the risk of soil contamination would be mitigated by best management practices (BMPs) such as routine 

maintenance. Any spills or releases would be immediately contained, recovered and disposed of in 

accordance with the mine’s waste management procedures (refer to Section 3.3). While measures are in 

place to minimize impacts to soils from the release of hazardous materials, should a spill or leak occur, 

potential impacts could range from negligible to moderate, depending upon the size and duration of the 

release, and would persist for the duration of mining operations.

Installation of monitoring well clusters proposed in GCC’s permit revision application to OSMRE (GCC 

2017) has already been approved as TR-26 under CDRMS Permit #C-1981-035. Each well location was 

subject to environmental clearance surveys and post development reclamation. No new roads were 

constructed for access to the monitoring well sites. There may be minor impacts associated with 

compaction from future overland vehicular/pedestrian traffic to monitor the wells into the future. There is 

also the potential for other future minor disturbance above the existing and proposed lease modification 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-99-

areas associated with exploration or core drilling needs. These activities typically require overland travel 

by a drill rig, minor ground surface level and limited vegetation clearing. Disturbance is usually confined 

to a 50 ft. x 50 ft. work area. Overall, no more than 5.0 acres of surface disturbance are anticipated as a 

result of the mine permit revision. These disturbances would have minor, short-term impacts to soil 

resources. Topsoil, if present, is salvaged and replaced about the completion of the activity. Further 

reclamation (i.e., seeding, mulching, etc.) is completed in conformance with the Reclamation Plan.

The proposed improvements along CR 120 N are expected to result in soil disturbance, mixing, and 

compaction over an estimated 4.7 acres; potentially resulting in reduced soil productivity and fertility 

adjacent to the County road. In addition, surface soil disturbance could increase the potential for erosion 

in disturbed areas. However, roadside soils currently exist in a disturbed condition due to periodic and 

ongoing road construction and maintenance. As such, impacts to soils along CR 120 from improvements 

are expected to be negligible to moderate and short term.

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

Any surface-disturbing activities associated with the proposed lease modification, including work along 

CR 120 N, would utilize erosion control and BMPs to minimize soil erosion to the extent possible. The 

King II Mine holds a stormwater permit with the CDPHE, which details the mine’s efforts to decrease or 

eliminate the risk of erosion during storm events. CDRMS and the OSMRE require containment for 

stormwater and other potential run off as part of the mine plan. Disturbed areas would be reclaimed in 

accordance with the Reclamation Plan General Requirements as described in the PAP, which is publicly 

available from the OSMRE. Implementation of an effective stormwater management plan would 

serve to limit soil impacts to those that are negligible or minor.

3.5.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, no surface soil disturbance would be expected outside of the existing 

lease and permit area. Accordingly, the potential for erosion, soil mixing and compaction, and soil 

contamination from spills would continue at existing levels. Within the existing lease area, the risk for 

soil impacts related to subsidence would also continue at existing levels.

3.6 Water Resources

3.6.1 Affected Environment

The surface and groundwater resources that could be affected by the Proposed Action include the Hay 

Gulch and La Plata River watershed. Maps of surface water resources are included in Appendix A, Map 

A-3, and are referenced below with the description of the affected resources.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-100-

Surface Water

Map A-3, Surface Water Resources, shows surface water in the existing and proposed lease modification 

and is included in Appendix A. There are several ponds and multiple ephemeral washes and catchments 

totaling less than one acre of potential wetlands on the surface of the proposed modification and existing 

lease area (USFWS/NWI 2015). Ponds are utilized by livestock and wildlife during periods of water 

availability after snow melt and rain events. Of these hydrologic features, only the unnamed wash that is 

immediately adjacent to the King II surface facilities has been assessed by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) to determine whether it is jurisdictional. In a letter sent by the USACE to GCC dated

May 4, 2015, the USACE concluded that the subject drainage was not a jurisdictional water of the U.S. In 

addition, there are seven ephemeral washes that cross CR 120 N between King II and SH 140. These 

ephemeral washes, and the wetland and washes described above, have not been assessed to determine 

whether they are under the jurisdiction of the USACE as no past or current mining activities have 

necessitated impacting these features or acquiring a Clean Water Act permit.

A description of the flow system that supports surface water in the mine lease area is included to define 

the affected area for surface water resources and is shown in Map A-8, “A” Coal Seam Outcrop and 

Upper Surface Contour Map. The following quaternary geologic deposits are unconsolidated and found 

along the bottoms of ephemeral drainages in the area of the Proposed Action. Generally, these deposits 

can be considered one unconsolidated flow system, and they comprise the affected area for surface water 

resources for the Proposed Action.

Hay Gulch Alluvium

The Hay Gulch alluvium is composed of quaternary deposits of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Based on 

available drilling and well completion data, the alluvium is on the order of 20 to 80 feet deep. This 

thickness will vary and generally thin towards the side slopes and be thicker in the original Hay Gulch 

paleo-channel. The width is approximately 1,000 feet. The Hay Gulch Alluvium is located south and 

downgradient of King II operations. 

Water quality in the Hay Gulch Alluvium has been monitored using two wells in the vicinity of King II 

since January 2005. The UMU Tribe well (CDWR Permit #210372) is upgradient from the mine. The 

National King Coal, LLC well (CDWR Permit #262656) is located downgradient from the mine. These 

wells show expected seasonal variation in both depths to water measurements and water quality field and 

analytical results. Quarterly depth to water measurements conducted by GCC staff indicate water levels in 

2014 averaging 7.25 feet below ground surface at the upgradient well and 4.83 feet below ground surface 

at the downgradient well. This demonstrates that the Hay Gulch Alluvium maintains a substantial degree 

of saturation. A summary water quality data for each well for the period of record are included here as 

Tables 5 and 6 included in Appendix C.

Water quality trend analysis of selected analytes is performed annually by CDS Environmental Services, 

LLC (CDS) and documented in the GCC Energy Annual Hydrology Report 2014 (GCC 2014). The 

results of this annual water quality monitoring are publically available on the La Plata County Planning 

Department webpage at: http://lpccds.org/planning/gcc_energy_project/. The observations indicate that 

the Hay Gulch alluvium receives water from two very different water sources, local precipitation 

infiltration and La Plata River water delivered seasonally by the Hay Gulch Irrigation Ditch. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-101-

Approximately 10 years of data collection shows high variability over time at both wells. The upgradient 

well showed linear increase in calcium, manganese, and magnesium. Total dissolved solids (TDS) were 

found to be stable, with a reduction in sodium and iron levels over time. The downgradient monitoring 

well showed no increasing analyte trends but rather decreasing trends over the same time period, 

including decrease in TDS and manganese. 

East Alkali Gulch and West Roberts Canyon Alluvium/Colluvium

East Alkali Gulch drains from the northeast to southwest, and is west and north of current and proposed 

King II underground mining and bisects the mined “A” coal seam. The “A” seam outcrops in East Alkali 

Gulch as the western and northern mining boundaries to the King II Mine. West Roberts Canyon also 

follows a northeast/southwest drainage direction, but borders the King II Mine to the east. In particular, 

West Roberts Canyon is immediately adjacent to the existing northeastern most area of currently mined 

sections at King II and portions of the proposed new lease modification areas. West Roberts Canyon is 

similar to East Alkali Gulch with respect to “A” seam outcropping on all flanks and presents a boundary 

to underground mining to the east of King II. Geologic mapping conducted by a contractor for GCC and 

as presented in Map A-8, “A” Coal Seam Outcrop and Upper Surface Contour Map, in Appendix A, 

shows that these two drainages over the middle and lower portions of the Menefee Formation represent 

likely recharge areas that contribute to the water documented in wells and boreholes completed into the 

lower Menefee Formation. It is expected that the subsurface materials present in these drainages are 

composed of unconsolidated quaternary gravels, sands, silts and clays of derived from adjacent sandstone, 

siltstone, shale and coal outcropping.Both drainages are tributary to the Hay Gulch, therefore the alluvial 

andcolluvial materials of the respective ephemeral drainages are conceivably tributary to the Hay Gulch 

Alluvium depending on localized potential infiltration into the Menefee Formation. 

Springs and Seeps

Groundwater can manifest at surface discharge as springs or seeps. The origin of this groundwater can be 

consolidated bedrock or unconsolidated alluvium and represents a discharge zone in the hydrologic 

system. Very limited presence of springs and seeps in the King II area supports interpretation of 

unsaturated Cliff House Formation overburden and the Upper Menefee Formation that includes the mined 

“A” seam. Several previously documented seeps were located in the Hay Gulch Alluvium adjacent to CR 

120 near the King I and II mines (USGS 1985). The discharge from these seeps does not sustain flow to 

create surface water flow, but rather infiltrates into the Hay Gulch Alluvium.

In December 2015 GCC conducted a spring and seep survey for specific areas surrounding the King II 

Mine. A spring and seep survey is a field reconnaissance to locate and inventory spring and seep 

conditions including flow rate, field water quality parameters, and to collect a water quality sample for 

submittal to an accredited analytical laboratory. This type of study characterizes groundwater discharge at 

the surface before it either enters back into another groundwater system, into surface water, or 

evaporation into the atmosphere. The survey was conducted by Resource Hydrogeologic Services, Inc. 

(RHS) with the results included in the King I & II Coal Mine Area Hydrologic Study (RHS 2016).

While no springs or seeps were known to exist in this area, a reasonable expectation was that if springs or 

seeps relevant to the hydrologic characterization of the study area are to exist they would manifest either 

at the Cliff House/Menefee contact outcrop or at the “A” seam outcrop. As a result of field 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-102-

reconnaissance, one seep was located and documented as SEEP-1 in an unnamed drainage approximately 

2 miles northwest of the King II Mine surface facilities. SEEP-1 appears to be seasonally supported by a 

small catchment basin that retains some water after seasonal snowmelt. SEEP-1 monitoring will continue 

quarterly as directed by the OSMRE and CDRMS regulatory authorites.

Groundwater

As shown on the Coal Seam Map in Appendix A, the proposed coal lease modification is located below 

and adjacent to a mesa bounded on the northwest and southeast by deeply incised ephemeral drainages. 

The proposed mining in the project area would not extend into or below these bounding drainages. Five 

monitoring well clusters were installed during early 2017 to reinforce the existing chararcterization of the 

geology and hydrology flow regime. The locations of the five monitoring well clusters, as well as alluvial 

monitoring wells, are illustrated on Map A-8 in Appendix A.

The affected area for groundwater resources includes those geologic strata above and below the existing 

and proposed mine lease area as considered within the hydrologic balance for the mine permit. The status 

of groundwater resources within the King II Mine lease is described for each of the geologic strata. These 

geologic groups are described starting with the geology closest to the surface in the proposed project area.

Mesa Verde Group

The strata overlying and underlying (listed from top to bottom) the coal seam at King II Mine are the Cliff 

House Sandstone Formation, the Menefee Formation (containing the “A” coal seam to be mined), and the 

Point Lookout Sandstone Formation. 

Cliff House Sandstone Formation

The Cliff House Sandstone immediately overlies the Menefee Formation and is a fine grained massive 

sandstone layer approximately 250 to 300 feet thick near the King II Mine. The Cliff House Formation is

the bedrock layer that manifests as the ridges and mesa tops in the project area. Previous exploration 

drilling of approximately 30 boreholes for the King II Mine coal delineation that penetrate the entire Cliff 

House Formation did not intercept any water-bearing intervals according to GCC Energy contract 

geologist Steve Korte (pers. comm., July 30, 2015). 

Domestic water well completion records for wells penetrating the Cliff House Formation near the Mine

also indicate lack of water bearing-intervals within the length of the borehole in that formation. In 

particular, the subset of relevant domestic water wells that were investigated for the study documented in 

the report titled Summary of Analytical Activities in Response to Neighborhood Comments in 

Conjunction with a Permit Expansion of GCC Energy, LLC King II Coal Mine (CDS 2013) documents 

drilling depths that extend past the Cliff House Formation and into the lower Menefee Formation in order 

to intercept sustainable water-producing intervals. These wells are located immediately southwest of the 

King II Mine at an approximate distance of 1 mile. General data taken from CDWR Well Construction 

and Test Reports publicly available at http://www.dwr.state.co.us/wellpermitsearch/ were compiled for 

the previously mentioned 2013 CDS report and is presented as Table 5 in Appendix C with corresponding 

location Map 1 (Appendix C). This data shows Well IDs 8, 9, 10, 12, and 18 with borehole penetrations 

beyond the approximate 300-foot maximum depth of the Cliff House Formation in this area. The wells 

were completed such that the Cliff House Formation is open on the backside of the well casing as 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-103-

comingled with the lower water producing intervals to maximize well yield and provide a cost effective 

installation. While in theory this construction practice may allow minor amounts of Cliff House 

Formation water to enter and contribute to the well if it was present, the reality is that this practice saves 

substantial time and materials when compared to grouting and sealing non-producing intervals on the 

backside of the casing, thus reducing the cost of the well installation.

Mining operations at King II Mine have occasionally encountered minor seeps as released from 

unsubstantial perched water-bearing intervals from the base of the Cliff House Formation when it presents 

as roof material after the “A” seam has been mined. In these cases, the total volume of water released 

from seep was on the order of 1 to 10 gallons, lasting a few minutes according to GCC King II Manager 

of Coal Services, Tom Bird (pers. comm., March 15, 2015). Additionally, BLM mine inspectors have 

filed quarterly inspection reports since mining operations first entered the COC 62920 lease in the King II 

Mine with development of the North Mains in October 2008 that do not document presence of water. 

With respect to water in King II Mine, the reports do not document encountering water inflow or a need 

for water management within King II Mine (pers. comm., Desty Dyer, BLM Mine Inspector, March 15, 

2015). BLM monthly mine monitoring reports are available from the BLM.

Installation of cluster wells MW-1 through MW-5 verify the historical observations discussed above, and 

reinforce the understanding of the hydrologic balance of the King II lease and adjacent area. MW-1-C is 

upgradient and in the headwater of Alkali Gulch northeast of the lease area. Water was not encountered 

during drilling MW-1-C, but intercepted fracture weeps in the borehole provide an indication of recharge 

conditions to the flow system. MW-2-C was dry during and after drilling, which verifies dry conditions 

experienced during mining operations, and affirms there is no hydrologic communication between the 

underground operations and Hay Gulch alluvium. MW-5-C was installed at the request of the UMU.

Although the location is not part of the SMCRA monitoring program, observations during drilling are 

used to inform the understanding of the area hydrology. MW-5-C is upgradient of the lease area, and dry 

during well installation. Downgradient wells MW-3-C and MW-4-C were installed between the 

underground mine workings and an adjacent neighborhood where residents have water supply wells.

These two locations affirm that as the formation dips to the southwest, conditions in the Cliff House 

Sandstone becomes saturated beyond the existing lease area. Additional summary information for the 

Cliff House monitoring wells is provided in Appendix C.

Menefee Formation

The Menefee Formation is composed of alternating beds of fine-grained non-marine sandstone, shale, and 

coal and is over 250 feet thick. The mined “A” seam is in the uppermost portion of the Menefee 

Formation. The “A” seam mined at the adjacent King I Mine has been historically documented as dry, as 

well as during the exploratory drilling onsite at King II and at the Shalako Mine to the northeast. King II 

mining operations are conducted without need for groundwater discharge by dewatering systems or 

natural drainage exiting the mine. The “A” seam is exposed by outcrop throughout the ephemeral 

drainages surrounding the King II Mine, supporting the dry nature of the “A” seam as any paleo 

groundwater discharge would have occurred over geologic time through a combination of seeps at the 

outcrop and continued subsurface flow downgradient to the south. In the decade of active mining at King 

II, no water drainage from the Cliff House Formation to the Menefee Formation has been observed in the 

mined areas in any volume that would prompt alteration of GCC’s mining operations. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-104-

Despite the dry nature of the “A” seam and the upper Menefee Formation, the lower portion of the 

Menefee Formation behaves as an aquifer, supplying several wells investigated in the Summary of 

Analytical Activities in Response to Neighborhood Comments in Conjunction with a Permit Expansion of 

GCC Energy, LLC King II Coal Mine (CDS 2013). Regionally, the Menefee Formation has been 

documented as a productive aquifer (USGS 1985). A sequence of low permeability shale and siltstones 

immediately below the “A” seam appear to confine the lower Menefee Formation aquifer from the upper 

Menefee Formation. This sequence thatconfines the lower aquifer effectively confines any fluids 

potentially introduced into the mined areas from above. According to data presented in the 

aforementioned 1985 USGS report, A.T. Massey Coal Company completed two successful dualcompletion wells in the Menefee Formation near the King I Mine. At each well, the measured water 

levels in the respective completion intervals demonstrated an upward hydraulic gradient. This suggests 

that any potential leakage across the confining Menefee shale and siltstone sequence would be in the 

upward direction rather than the downward direction.

Installation of cluster wells MW-1 through MW-5 verify the historical observations discussed above, and 

reinforce the understanding of the hydrologic balance of the King II lease and adjacent area. Wells in the 

Menefee Formation are screened at two intervals: (1) the coal in the upper Menefee “A” coal seam, which 

uses “A” as an identifier, and (2) the zone below the “A” coal seam, which uses the identifier “MI” to 

represent the Menefee interburden. MW-1-A and MW-1-MI are upgradient and in headwater of Alkali 

Gulch northeast of the lease area. Water was not encountered during drilling MW-1-A or MW-1-MI, but 

intercepted fracture weeps in the borehole provide an indication of recharge conditions to the flow 

system. MW-2-A and MW-2-MI were dry during and after drilling, which verifies dry conditions 

experienced during mining operations, and affirms there is no hydrologic communication between the 

underground operations and Hay Gulch alluvium. MW-5-A and MW-5-MI were installed at the request of 

the UMU. Although the locations are not part of the SMCRA monitoring program, observations during 

drilling are used to inform the understanding of the area hydrology. MW-5-A is upgradient of the lease 

area, and dry during and after well installation. MW-5-MI was wet and affirms that water begins to 

concentrate below the mined “A” coal seam as the formation dips to the southwest. Downgradient wells 

MW-3-A, MW-3-MI, MW-4-A, and MW-4-MI were installed between the underground mine workings 

and an adjacent neighborhood where residents have water supply wells. These four locations affirm that 

as the formation dips to the southwest, conditions in the Menefee Formation becomes saturated.

Additional summary information for the Menefee “A” coal seam wells and Menefee Interburden 

monitoring wells is provided in Appendix C.

Point Lookout Sandstone Formation

The Point Lookout Sandstone is a fine to medium-grained marine sandstone with some shale interbeds 

estimated at more than 250 feet stratigraphically below the “A” seam at King II. The thickness of this 

formation can be greater than 250 feet thick. This unit is not widely used as a source of domestic water 

due to low yields and high dissolved solid content of the water. While no reliable discrete Point Lookout 

Formation wells have been identified in the King II Mine area, approximate 250 feet of low permeability 

shales and siltstones of the lower Menefee Formation with a potential upward hydraulic gradient are 

expected to naturally isolate this formation from mining impacts.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-105-

In the absence of measurable water levels at wells or boreholes discretely penetrating either the Cliff 

House or upper Menefee Formations in the immediate vicinity of King II, a potential groundwater flow 

direction or gradient cannot be determined. It could only be assumed that if groundwater was present or 

introduced to the bedrock units that the flow direction would be in the direction down-dip to the 

southwest and would likely flow preferentially through the most permeable available fracture networks. 

The dip of these bedrock units is approximately 2 to 3 degrees to the south-southwest based on extensive 

and current exploratory borehole delineation and mine mapping conducted by GCC as part of standard 

operations. This unsaturated flow system would continue down-dip until eventually reaching a depth 

below ground surface that equals the potentiometric surface, thus transitioning to a fully saturated 

confined aquifer system generally to the south and away from King II. 

A lack of measurable water level in deeper exploratory boreholes at and near King II indicate that the first 

saturated water-bearing interval is greater than 125 feet below the mined “A” coal seam. This is based on 

past GCC exploratory borehole drilling programs in 1998, 2013 and 2015 of over 30 holes to 

approximately 125 feet below the “A” seam without yielding measurable groundwater inflow. 

Documentation of these results is provided in a memorandum by Steve Korte, consulting exploration 

geologist on-site during each of these drilling programs and is on file with the BLM, the OSMRE, and 

CDRMS. The memorandum explains a drilling methodology where no water is added during air rotary 

drilling through the Cliff House Formation. Immediately upon intercepting the “A” seam, coring 

operations begin, and a fresh water mist is added to improve the drilling penetration and hole stability. 

While this drilling make-up water does remain in some holes prior to abandonment, field experience 

indicates that this is because low permeability conditions reduce or prevent infiltration beyond the 

borehole rather than formation water entering the borehole.

As discussed previously in this section, a subset of adjacent domestic water wells were investigated and 

documented in the report titled Summary of Analytical Activities in Response to Neighborhood 

Comments in Conjunction with a Permit Expansion of GCC Energy, LLC King II Coal Mine (CDS 

2013). Well selection for this study was based on concerns expressed by landowners on the west side of 

the King II to GCC. Additionally, the #2 downgradient King II quarterly compliance sample was included 

for comparison. Water samples were collected from these wells through their respective permanent 

pumping systems for field parameter and laboratory analysis. A summary of these results are presented in 

Table 4 in Appendix C. CDS concluded that the chemical analysis of these wells suggests the produced 

water from each well originates from different sources, whether that be a single source or mixture of 

sources due to comingled well completion design. Most of these wells are comingled completions, but 

surprisingly three wells investigated that are on the order of 750 feet from each other—Well IDs 8, 9, and 

10—have very different chemical signatures. These wells have almost identical completion designs and 

depths into either the lower Menefee Formation or Point Lookout Sandstone Formation, which 

demonstrates the variability of the groundwater quality in these formations even within relatively short 

horizontal distances. Unfortunately, the CDWR Well Construction and Test Reports on file for these 

wells does not contain enough detailed Geologic Log information to confirm which formation these wells 

are completed in or make any accurate correlation to the detailed exploratory borehole records on file 

with GCC.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-106-

3.6.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The affected area for water resources includes the Hay Gulch and La Plata River watershed as connected 

to the existing and proposed lease modification areas for the King II Mine explained in Section 3.4. Direct 

and indirect effects to water resources are measured in terms of changes to water quality, water quantity, 

and the hydrologic balance of the affected area as determined by the OSMRE and CDRMS in the data 

from monitoring wells and their assessments of the CHIA and PHC for the King II Mine Plan. 

Surface water resources would not be directly affected by the Proposed Action because there would be no 

surface-disturbing activities conducted within any ephemeral or intermittent drainages associated with the 

proposed lease modification area. Additionally, with the exception of “SEEP 1”, no persistent surface 

water flow is present in the lease modification area. Future possible ground-disturbing activities in the 

lease or lease modification areas would avoid this seep area. 

Surface water is limited to the Hay Gulch Irrigation Ditch, which runs through Hay Gulch. GCC has 

monitored Hay Gulch Ditch water quality at the driveway entrance to King II from CR 120 since 2005. In 

March 2016, GCC added an additional Hay Gulch Irrigation Ditch monitoring location upstream from 

King II and King I to allow data collection outside any potential impacts from GCC site operations. The 

new monitoring site allows comparison of water quality and flow rate between the site downstream from 

King I and II and the site upstream from King I and II. No difference in water quality between the two 

monitoring sites has been observed in 1 year of observations that cannot be explained by normal usage of 

the irrigation ditch for flood irrigation which will vary flow and thus some constituent concentrations.

There would be negligible to minor short-term impacts to area surface water quality associated with road 

improvements along CR 120 N. The ground disturbance of approximately 4.7 acres during construction 

activities along the CR ROW may have minor short-term impacts associated with stormwater run-off and 

erosion entering drainage courses that cross the CR. These minor reductions in water quality would be 

mitigated by adherence to the LPC and CDOT required stormwater management BMPs. 

Indirect effects to surface water resources associated with the Proposed Action would be from 

stormwater, subsidence, or groundwater emerging to the surface. Another indirect impact to surface water 

quality is the combustion of King II coal at cement plants in the southwestern U.S. and Mexico and by 

regional narrow-gauge railroads to receiving waters (where present). This potential indirect impact is 

described in further detail in the Biological Assessment included in Appendix D and in Sections 3.1 Air 

Quality and Climate and 3.10 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species. The King II Mine holds a 

stormwater permit with the CDPHE. CDRMS and the OSMRE require containment for stormwater and 

other potential run off as part of the mine plan. These agencies frequently inspect the integrity and 

sufficiency of these containment structures as well as monitor water quality and quantity. 

Characterization and assessment of the PHC for the permit application package is required by the 

operator. The regulatory authorities for the King II mine permit, OSMRE and CDRMS, review and 

approve the PHC for the mine plan and prepared a CHIA for the water resources. Design Feature 2 

provides a mechanism to address concerns raised by adjacent landowners that their surface water is being 

adversely affected by King II Mine operations by increasing the number of monitoring wells and 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-107-

improving the data supporting the CHIA and PHC. With these results, the regulatory agencies would be 

better able to adjust the mine plan to ensure that water resources are protected. The Proposed Action 

would have the same effects to water resources as baseline conditions. However, with the implementation 

of Design Feature 2, the likelihood of detrimental effects to water resources would be reduced with the 

installation of additional groundwater monitors and a better understanding of the hydrologic balance in 

the area. This would also allow the OSMRE and CDRMS to update the CHIA and PHC and adjust the 

Mine Plan to better manage potential risks to water resources. 

The proposed coal lease modification area is located below and adjacent to a mesa bounded on the 

northwest and southeast by deeply incised ephemeral drainages. The mining in the Proposed Action 

would not extend into (daylight) or below the bounding drainages, therefore any potential impacts to 

groundwater would be limited to impacts from mining under the footprint of the mesa and any connecting 

strata below. 

CDRMS (1997, 2006) addressed the affected environment in the PHC and CHIA for the Hay Gulch 

mining area. It was concluded that there are two potentially affected groundwater systems within and 

adjacent to the mining operation: the Menefee Formation (where mining occurs) and the Hay Gulch 

alluvial system. The conclusions regarding the interaction of the King II Mine with groundwater systems 

by CDRMS were as follows: 

▪ As the mine does not discharge water, there is no potential for impacts to the quality of water in 

receiving drainages or underlying alluvium from mine discharge. 

▪ A large capacity underground water storage sump was designed and sited in a sealed “A” seam 

gob. Some underground improvements to the gob were conducted to hold the water but given 

concerns with introducing water into otherwise dry mine workings, GCC has abandoned plans to 

utilize this underground water storage sump. As a result, no direct or indirect impacts will occur 

to groundwater.

Concerns regarding impacts of the Proposed Action to groundwater quantity and quality of adjacent 

domestic water wells were raised by adjacent landowners. GCC contracted CDS and Norwest Corporation 

to investigate these concerns. A report of the results is summarized below (CDS 2013). The results of the 

hydrologic investigation concluded that there was no potential for the mine to affect the adjacent 

residential water wells for the following reasons (CDS 2013);

▪ As of 2013, based on 6 years of underground operations at the King II Mine, the miners, 

management, federal and state inspectors have observed that the mined “A” seam is dry. 

Therefore, no fluid transport mechanism exists to allow migration of potential contaminants from 

the mine. Specifically, this refers to the incapacity for advection, the process by which solutes are 

transported by the motion of flowing groundwater.

▪ No dewatering systems are employed at the mine so there is no direct impact on local or regional 

groundwater levels.

▪ The adjacent residential wells are completed in multiple comingled coal/shale water producing 

zones where coal fines, methane, hydrogen sulfide, and bio-sludge are generated. These 

constituents are often found in domestic well water completed in such zones.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-108-

▪ The “A” coal seam mined at the King II Mine is projected to be positioned stratigraphically above 

the zones of completion of two of the adjacent domestic water wells and within the zones of 

completion for five of the adjacent residential wells investigated. While some of the domestic 

water wells may have completion intervals that expose the “A” coal seam mined at the King II 

operation, no data exists to determine if the “A” seam is water bearing at these locations. 

In January 2016, GCC contracted Resource Hydrogeologic Services Inc. to compile and interpret all 

available hydrologic data for the Hay Gulch mining area (RHS 2016). The conclusions of this study 

indicate that because King I and King II Mines have historically been dry, hydrologic data relating to 

background and to operations was somewhat sparse. Water quality data has been taken from domestic 

wells at some distance from the permit areas. Alluvial groundwater monitoring data exhibits spatial 

variability that has not yet been explained, although climatological variation may be implicated, and some 

new monitoring points upstream of King I mine were warranted. Since the preparation of this study, GCC 

installed a Hay Gulch alluvial monitoring well (refer to Map A-8) upgradient of King I in December 2016 

and has started hydrologic data collection for groundwater level, field parameters, and laboratory analysis 

(primarily major ions and trace metals) at that site. 

The 2016 RHS study also indicates that evaluation of available bedrock hydraulic data, including publicly

available information from DWR Well Construction and Test Reports and GCC borehole data has 

determined that bedrock groundwater occurrence in the Hay Gulch area is controlled by drainage erosion 

of the Cliff House and upper Menefee Formations. The groundwater discharge areas created by the 

erosion of Hay Gulch, East Alkali Gulch, and the various reaches of Roberts Canyon, combined with the 

limited infiltration potential of the region, have apparently prevented any substantial groundwater 

accumulation and thus a dry trend from surface through the substantially drilled and mined upper 

Menefee coal seams. Domestic water wells to the south and southwest of the King I and II mines do 

present Cliff House groundwater in perched water bearing intervals, but DWR well reports indicated that 

it is not in large quantities as the wells are completed in the underlying lower Menefee or upper Point 

Lookout aquifer. Demonstration of confined conditions in this aquifer by quantification of the hydrostatic 

pressure has been presented as evidence for a substantial confining layer below the upper Menefee coal 

sequence, specifically relevant as the King I and II mine floor. Additional quantitative basis for the 

recognition of this Menefee confining layer has been presented with regional hydraulic testing results 

characterizing the interval as consistent with low permeability geologic materials. Information that is 

being collected during the installation of bedrock cluster monitoring wells currently ongoing at King II, as 

well as the data that will be generated from them through routine monitoring will assist with further 

hydrogeologic characterization. 

The Proposed Action would not adversely affect the hydrologic balance in the affected area because:

▪ No considerable groundwater from bedrock sources has been observed as input or flow-through 

to the mine. 

▪ No water is used during mining processes in quantities other than the minimum required for dust 

suppression; therefore, no water can be expected as output into the unsaturated bedrock. 

▪ There is no alluvial groundwater withdrawn for mining operations or otherwise intercepted by 

mining operations or facilities. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-109-

▪ The surface water from the Hay Gulch Irrigation Ditch utilized for mine dust suppression 

operations is recaptured ahead of potential infiltration to the unsaturated bedrock exposed 

underground. This water source is also monitored and tested quarterly for water quality by GCC. 

▪ Mining operation at the King II Mine does not discharge any water used at the mine into the 

surface water drainages so no surface water impact to the hydrologic balance could be expected.

To better support these conclusions and improve the PHC and CHIA for the King II Mine plan, Design 

Feature 2 includes a measure to implement a set of new monitoring wells in and around the lease area, 

which were installed in March 2017 and initial results previously discussed. A detailed explanation of the 

monitoring well approach and plan is included in Appendix C. In addition, to reduce potential risk to 

groundwater, Design Feature 2 also includes a measure that closed the existing underground water storage 

reservoir and has replaced it with an expanded, surface reservoir at GCC’s water source, the Huntington 

Ditch. 

Therefore, the Proposed Action would have the same direct effects to groundwater resources as the 

baseline. The Proposed Action would have a lower likelihood of significant detrimental effects to 

groundwater resources than the baseline because additional monitoring data will improve risk evaluation 

and monitoring and result in a more protective mine plan.

Indirect effects to groundwater resources would be related to interchange between surface and 

groundwater systems through seeps and springs or stormwater infiltrating into the groundwater system 

through surface fractures caused by various types of subsidence. To better document potential indirect 

effects to the groundwater system, Design Feature 2 included a spring and seep investigation for the King 

II Mine area to identify potential sources for groundwater infiltration. With Design Features 2 and 3, the 

Proposed Action would have the same indirect effects to groundwater resources as the baseline with 

reduced likelihood of significant detrimental effects to groundwater resources including adjacent water 

wells by improving groundwater monitoring and identifying potential infiltration sources. 

Additional results of the spring and seep investigation conducted by Resource Hydrologic Services are 

currently being interpreted (RHS 2017) and will be submitted to the agencies when finalized. The 

summary results of the investigation were that only one seep was found in the affected area, which is 

approximately 3 miles north-northeast of the King II portal. The field investigation concentrated on the 

outcropping Cliff House and Menefee Formation geologic contact as well as the “A” coal seam outcrop, 

as the presence of springs or seeps in this stratigraphic horizon would be most relevant to potential mining 

impacts. Drainage bottoms below the outcrops were also investigated without any springs, seeps or 

surface water identified. The total distance hiked in and around the affected area was approximately 26 

miles, repeated each quarter beginning in December 2015 and ending September 2016. The discovered 

seep flow is on the order of 1 gallon per hour and manifests as an area of approximately 10 feet by 20 feet 

of wet soil requiring a small hand-dug test pit for sample collection. Quarterly water quality samples were 

submitted for laboratory analysis primarily for major ions and trace metals since December 2015 and 

monthly field parameters (flow rate, temperature, pH, specific conductance, oxygen reduction potential) 

have been collected since March 2016. Seep location and chemical analysis suggest the source of the 

water is the Cliff House Formation given relatively higher sulfate ion concentration likely due to 

oxidation of pyrite present in the Cliff House. The sulfate concentration and resulting TDS generally 

exceed recommendations for livestock consumption. The seep monitoring will continue on a quarterly 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-110-

basis as part of the GCC King II hydrologic monitoring program to observe any significant changes to 

flow rate or water quality over time. 

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

Groundwater monitoring will be conducted at three alluvial wells, “Wiltse Well Monitoring Station”, 

“Up-Gradient Monitoring Station”, and “Down-Gradient Monitoring Station”. Surface water monitoring 

will be conducted at “Hay Gulch Ditch, Upgradient Monitoring Station” and “Hay Gulch Ditch, 

Downgradient Monitoring Station.” All water-monitoring locations are shown on “Map King II-004” in 

the CDRMS mine permit, and illustrated on Map A-8.

In addition to the aforementioned alluvial monitoring wells, four groundwater monitoring well clusters, 

MW-1 thru MW-4 also shown on Map King II-004 in the CDRMS permit and on Map A-8 are monitored 

to assess impacts to the groundwater flow system . All of these monitoring well clusters were installed in 

late Spring 2017.

Additional surface water monitoring will also continue based on the results of a “spring and seep” survey 

of the southern edge of East Alkali Gulch. The “A” coal seam outcrop of the Menefee formation will be 

monitored as well as the contact between the Menefee formation and Cliffhouse Sandstone formation.

Two new hydrologic monitoring locations were added in 2016 and are provided (with justification) in the 

list below: 

▪ Hay Gulch Ditch Upgradient – Added to supplement Hay Gulch Ditch monitoring with a location 

sufficiently upstream of both King II and King I operations 

▪ SEEP-1 – Added during the 1-year (four quarter) King II spring and seep survey project as it is 

the only spring/seep that was located during the survey 

All of the surface and groundwater monitoring described above is for the purpose of monitoring area 

water quality and to better understand where and if water is present. This information helps OSMRE and 

CDRMS to monitor potential impacts to water resources from implementation of the mine permits.

3.6.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The effects to water resources from the No Action Alternative would be similar to those described under

the Proposed Action Alternative but would be lesser in extent and duration as the lease modification 

would not be approved and improvements to CR 120 N would be completed past Phase 3. 

3.7 Vegetation

3.7.1 Affected Environment

Vegetation communities that could be impacted by the Proposed Action are those within the existing and 

proposed lease modification areas held by GCC, as well as the area along CR 120 N where road 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-111-

improvements are proposed. The vegetation resource study area includes approximately 2,370 acres and 

encompasses the existing and proposed lease modification areas (approximately 1,311.69 and 950.55 

acres, respectively), as well as a 50-foot-wide buffer on either side of CR 120 N where road 

improvements are proposed (approximately 109 acres). The vegetation study area is entirely contained 

within the Western Range and Irrigated Land Resource Region of the Southwestern Plateaus, Mesas, and 

Foothills Major Land Resource Area (USDA/NRCS 2006). The study area contains moderately rugged 

terrain consisting primarily of mesas drained by Hay Gulch; elevations vary from approximately 7,200 

feet to 7,900 feet above mean sea level (USGS 2013a, USGS 2013b, USGS 2013c). Vegetation analysis 

has been completed in portions of the Study Area, as summarized in the following baseline reports: 

▪ Preliminary Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2014-0025, GCC Energy Proposed 

Exploration License Application COC 76563 (USDI/BLM 2015b)

▪ Natural Resource Surveys at 2012-2013 Coal Exploration Drill Sites; Memorandum to GCC 

Energy, LLC. (Ecosphere 2016)

▪ Technical memorandum: Natural Resources Survey of Nine Proposed Drill Holes on State Land 

for the King II Mine, La Plata County, Colorado (SWCA 2014)

General Vegetation

Table 3-13 shows the land cover types in the vegetation study area, as mapped by the National GAP 

analysis program (USGS 2004). For the purposes of this analysis, land cover types are considered 

dominant when their acreages account for more than one percent of the vegetation study area. Dominant

plant communities in the vegetation study area include Southern Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine 

woodland, Rocky Mountain Gambel oak-mixed montane shrubland, Colorado Plateau piñon-juniper 

woodland, agriculture, and Rocky Mountain montane dry-mesic mixed conifer forest and woodland

(USGS 2004); these dominant cover types are discussed in greater detail below. Vegetation communities 

are shown on Map A-9 in Appendix A. 

Table 3-13. Land Cover Types in the Vegetation Study Area

Land Cover Type

Area within Vegetation 

Study Area 

(acres)

Proportion of 

Vegetation Study Area 

(percent)

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 1,178 50

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland

903 38

Colorado Plateau Piñon-Juniper Woodland 140 6

Agriculture 47 2

Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland

47 2

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland

24 1

Rocky Mountain Montane Mesic Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland

19 1
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-112-

Land Cover Type

Area within Vegetation 

Study Area 

(acres)

Proportion of 

Vegetation Study Area 

(percent)

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 9 0

Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine 

Grassland

2 0

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe 1 0

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 1 0

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 0 0

Total: 2,370 100

Source: National GAP Analysis Program, USGS 2004.

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland

The southern Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine woodland community is generally observed at the higher 

elevations and cooler sites—such as drainages—within the vegetation study area. This series generally 

occurs on soils with good aeration and drainage, coarse textures, circumneutral to slightly acid pH, an 

abundance of mineral material, rockiness, and periods of drought during the growing season (USGS 

undated). The vegetation community is typically dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), with

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), piñon pine (Pinus edulis), and juniper (Juniperus spp.) also present. 

Understory species commonly include Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.),

snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), slender wheatgrass (Elymus 

trachycaulus), Oregon grape (Mahonia repens), and buckwheat species (Eriogonum sp.). The ponderosa 

pine woodland community accounts for approximately 1,178 acres (50 percent) of the vegetation study 

area, making it the most abundant vegetation community present. 

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak – Mixed Montane Shrubland

The Rocky Mountain Gambel oak-mixed montane shrublands vegetative community accounts for 

approximately 903 acres (38 percent) of the vegetation study area. This community occurs mostly on 

rolling hills and above drainages in the vegetation study area. Vegetation within this series is typically 

dominated by Gambel oak with occurrences of serviceberry, big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), 

alderleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and 

snowberry (USDI/BLM 2015b; USGS undated). Herbaceous vegetation includes species such as blue 

grama (Bouteloua gracilis), Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and 

western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). Soils in this community range from calcerous, heavy, finegrained loams to sandy loams, gravelly loams, clay loams, deep alluvial sand, or coarse gravel (USGS 

undated). 

Colorado Plateau Piñon – Juniper Woodland

The Colorado Plateau piñon-juniper woodland community occurs on warm, dry sites (i.e., south-facing 

slopes and lower elevations) in the vegetation study area. Soils may vary in texture from stony, cobbly, 

gravelly sandy loams to clay loam or clay (USGS undated). This vegetation community is dominated by

piñon pine and Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) with understory species such as Gambel
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-113-

oak, Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), lupine (Lupinus sp.), brome (Bromus sp.), sweetclover 

(Melilotus officinalis), black sagebrush (Artemisia nova), rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), and Utah 

serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis). These areas also contain a minor component of alderleaf mountain 

mahogany, beardtongue (Penstemon sp.), Bigelow sage (Artemisia bigelovii), cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum), mullein (Verbascum sp.), and wild crab apple (Peraphyllum ramosissimum) (USDI/BLM 

2015b; Ecosphere 2016; USGS undated). Colorado Plateau piñon-juniper woodlands make up 

approximately 140 acres (6 percent) of the vegetation study area. 

Agricultural

Agricultural lands account for approximately 47 acres (2 percent) of the vegetation study area.

Agricultural lands—including hay meadows and open pastures—dominate the bottom of Hay Gulch, 

where they are supported by the Hay Gulch Irrigation Ditch. Scattered patches of willow (Salix sp.), 

cottonwood (Populus sp.), and alder (Alnus sp.) occur along the Hay Gulch Irrigation Ditch. 

Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland

The Rocky Mountain montane dry-mesic mixed conifer forest and woodland community occurs on westand northwest-facing slopes in the existing lease and proposed lease modification areas. Dominant species 

include Douglas-fir, white fir (Abies concolor), and ponderosa pine (USGS undated). Understory species 

such as Arizona fescue, squirreltail, slender wheatgrass, Oregon grape, and snowberry are common. The 

Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland accounts for approximately 

47 acres (2 percent) of the vegetation study area. Species composition in this vegetation community is 

highly variable based on specific-site conditions such as slope, aspect, and rainfall.

Forest Management

Timber resources in the project area include species such as piñon pine, ponderosa pine, juniper, and 

Gambel oak. These resources may occur in the forested vegetation communities as shown on Map A-9 in 

Appendix A. Project area forest resources are managed by the UMU Tribe; although there is no published 

forest or natural resources management plan developed for the area.

Invasive, Non-Native Species

Four invasive, non-native weed species have been observed within previously disturbed portions of the 

project area (USDI/BLM 2015b; SWCA 2014). Three of the weed species observed—Musk thistle 

(Carduus nutans), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and redstem stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium)—are 

State of Colorado-listed and BLM-listed Class B species, which are managed for containment at the local 

government level. Common mullein (Verbascum thapsus) is a State of Colorado-listed Class C weed 

species. List C weed species are widespread and common within the state; however, they may be subject 

to control requirements if they pose a risk to agricultural lands. GCC is required to manage invasive 

species in accordance with state and local regulations. Noxious weed management efforts are described in 

detail in the PAP and include annual monitoring and any combination of control measures such as 

cultural, mechanical, biological, or chemical controls as developed in conjunction with local weed control 

district and/or the Colorado State Department of Agriculture. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-114-

Wetlands and Riparian Zones

Wetland mapping indicates the presence of less than one acre of potential wetlands scattered across the 

surface of the proposed modification and existing lease area, as shown on Map A-3 in Appendix A, 

Surface Water Resources (USFWS/NWI 2015). Potential wetlands are generally associated with manmade ponds and intermittent streams that may support wetland vegetation. Common wetland and riparian

plant species that are expected to occur in the study area, especially in Alkali Gulch and Hay Gulch,

include narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), water birch 

(Betula occidentalis), duckweed (Lemna spp.), rushes (Eleocharis and Juncus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), 

bentgrass (Agrostis spp.), and broad leafcattail (Typha latifolia). Within the existing lease and lease 

modification areas, several impoundments along unnamed intermittent drainages have been constructed to 

create small, seasonal ponds that may support wetlands. Alkali Gulch, located near the western boundary 

of the project area, contains an intermittent drainage and associated freshwater emergent wetland. The 

Hay Gulch Irrigation ditch runs roughly parallel to CR 120 and is mapped as an intermittent/seasonally 

flooded drainage (Cowardin classification R4SBC) and, in places, supports a freshwater forested/shrub 

wetland (Cowardin classification PSSA). There are scattered freshwater emergent wetlands and ponds in 

the agricultural lands at the bottom of Hay Gulch. Table 3-14 includes the Cowardin classifications of 

wetlands mapped in the project area and vicinity.

Table 3-14. Cowardin classifications of mapped wetlands in the project area and vicinity

Wetland Type Cowardin Classification(s)

Riverine R3UBH, R4SBA, R4SBC, R4SBCx, R5UBH, and 

R5UBFx

Freshwater emergent wetland PEM1A, PEM1C

Freshwater pond PABFh, PUSAh, PUSCh, and PUBFx

Freshwater forested/shrub wetland PSSA

Source: USFWS/NWI 2015.

3.7.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

General Vegetation

The lease modification would add an additional 950.55 acres to the potential underground mining area at 

the King II Mine. While the lease modification would not directly impact vegetation resources in the 

project area, the mine plan revision would have a direct impact to vegetation associated with surface 

disturbing activities. In addition, parts of the Proposed Action—including improvements to CR 120 N—

are expected to result in long-term vegetation disturbance in the project area.

The potential for future exploration drilling in the lease modification area would likely require vegetation 

removal at exploration drill sites, as well as along any new access routes to the drill sites. Effects from 

potential future exploration drilling would be subject to analysis, including biological and cultural 

clearances, by the OSMRE and CDRMS. There is also the potential for other future minor disturbance 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-115-

above the existing and proposed lease modification areas associated with exploration or core drilling 

needs. These activities typically require overland travel by a drill rig, minor ground surface level and 

limited vegetation clearing. Disturbance is usually confined to a 50 ft. x 50 ft. work area. Overall, no 

more than 5.0 acres of surface disturbance are anticipated as a result of the mine permit revision. These 

disturbances would have minor impacts to vegetation resources. Further, reclamation (i.e., seeding, 

mulching, etc.) is completed in conformance with the Reclamation Plan post-disturbance. Site 

reclamation would be expected to recover disturbed areas within 5 years, therefore these impacts are 

considered short term.

Subsidence resulting from future underground mining activities may impact small areas of vegetation 

through erosion, rock fall, and minor landslides that can damage, cover, and possibly result in the loss of 

vegetation. In most cases, any loss of vegetation would be difficult to detect or notice without prior 

knowledge of the area prior to subsidence. Vegetation communities are not expected to change on a 

landscape scale due to subsidence. Accordingly, the potential impacts to vegetation from subsidence are 

expected to be negligible and long term.

Construction and road improvements to CR 120 N would impact an estimated 4.7 acres of vegetation, 

consisting predominately of agricultural land and Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland habitat with pockets of Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Inter-Mountain Basins 

Semi-Desert Grassland habitats. Vegetation trampling and removal would occur adjacent to the existing 

road. The expected increases in mining-related traffic associated with the Proposed Action would likely 

result in increased dust deposition on roadside plants; however, paving portions of CR 120 N would 

reduce the amount of airborne dust. Any reductions in soil fertility or productivity that may result from 

the Proposed Action have the potential to reduce vegetative cover in affected areas; however, this impact 

would be minimized by immediate containment, recovery, and disposal of contaminated soils in 

accordance with the mines waste management procedures (refer to Section 3.3). Impacts to vegetation 

along CR 120 would be minor and long term, as most native vegetation has already been altered along the 

CR ROW.

Forest Management

No changes in UMU forest management are expected to result from the Proposed Action; nor is removal 

of any marketable timber anticipated in the lease modification area. There is a possibility that a small 

number of trees on private property may require trimming or removal associated with the CR 120 N 

improvements. However, these potential minor impacts will not be known until final design plans are 

approved by LPC.

Invasive, Non-Native Species

The proposed lease modification would not directly result in surface disturbance. The potential for the 

introduction and spread of invasive, non-native species from future surface-disturbing activities related to 

underground mining would be an indirect impact caused by surface clearing and disturbance of area soils.

This impact would be minor and would persist for the duration of mining activities. Impacts would be 

minimized by following the Reclamation Plan General Requirements as described in the PAP. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-116-

Surface disturbance, and a resulting increase in the potential for the spreading of noxious weeds, is 

expected along CR 120 N where improvements are proposed. GCC would minimize this impact by 

reseeding and/or implementing weed control measures along the improved portions of CR 120 N—as 

specified in Design Feature 5. Accordingly, potential impacts from the introduction of invasive weeds to 

the project area would be minor and short term.

Wetlands and Riparian Zones

Potential impacts to wetland and riparian vegetation would be similar to those described above for general 

vegetation. No direct impacts to wetland or riparian vegetation within the existing or proposed lease 

modification areas are expected as a result of the Proposed Action. Site-specific clearances and, if 

necessary, permitting for crossing potentially jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the U.S. would be 

completed under the purview of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers prior to commencing any site-specific 

road improvements in areas with potentially jurisdictional wetlands or waters of the U.S. present. Any 

potential impacts to riparian areas would likely be authorized under Nationwide Permit #14, Access 

Roads.

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

Disturbed vegetation would be reclaimed in accordance with the Reclamation Plan General Requirements 

as described in the PAP, which is publicly available from the OSMRE. In addition, vegetation impacts 

resulting from spills or leaks would be minimized by following the mines waste management procedures 

(refer to Section 3.3). GCC would minimize the potential for the introduction or spread of invasive, nonnative plant species as specified in Design Feature 5. Impacts to wetland or riparian vegetation would be 

subject to site-specific analysis and permitting in association with potentially jurisdictional wetlands or 

other waters of the U.S. Residual impacts to vegetation following these measures would be negligible to 

minor.

3.7.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, similar direct and indirect impacts are expected to the existing 

vegetation resources in the project area. Current conditions would continue, and vegetation would 

continue to be modified through the current land use activities. These impacts would be negligible to 

minor and last until coal reserves were depleted.

3.8 Wildlife (Aquatic and Terrestrial)

3.8.1 Affected Environment

The Project Area contains the following habitat/landscape features; rolling piñon-juniper woodlands 

along the edges of Hay Gulch Canyon; bottomlands are characterized by irrigated and non-irrigated 

pasture lands; there are small areas (less than 0.25 acre) of riparian vegetation along edges of irrigation 

channels and along Hay Gulch and Alkali Gulch; north of the mine (1 to 5 miles away) are deep, steep 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-117-

canyons that contain patches of Ponderosa pine and mature spruce-fir woodlands; micro-habitats 

including fruit trees, ornamentals, and exotic trees and shrubs are present at some of the residences along 

CR 120 N. The following sections describe wildlife with potential to occur in the vicinity of the King II 

Mine and along CR 120 N in the project area.

Aquatic Species

Aquatic resources in the project area are very limited, with less than approximately one acre of potential 

wetland habitats mapped (USFWS/NWI 2015). Based on the limited availability of aquatic habitats, 

aquatic wildlife are expected to occur infrequently in the project area. Reptiles and amphibians such as 

bullsnake (Pituophis catenifer), variable skink (Eumeces gaigeae), and western chorus frog (Pseudacris 

triseriata) could potentially use pond margins and edge habitats along intermittent stream in the project 

area.

Game Species

Game species that could potentially utilize project area habitats include elk (Cervus elaphus), mule deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus), black bear (Ursus americanus), mountain lion (Puma concolor), and wild turkey 

(Meleagris gallopavo). 

The project area includes a resident elk population, as well as mapped winter range for elk (CPW 2016). 

A resident population refers to a group of animals that use the area all year. Winter range refers to the 

location of 90 percent of individuals for an average of 5 winters out of 10. The project area contains mule 

deer summer and winter range, and a portion of CR 120 N is within a mapped winter concentration area 

for mule deer (CPW 2016). No severe winter range or winter concentration areas for elk or mule deer

have been identified in the existing lease area or the lease modification area. Per Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife (CPW), there are important migration corridors for mule deer and elk to the north and south of 

CR 120 N. Mule deer and elk use woodland areas for cover and can use a wide variety of other habitat 

types for browse.

Black bears are common and often sighted in the project area. Per CPW data, a portion of the project area 

is within black bear fall and summer concentration habitats (CPW 2016). Black bears and black bear sign 

were observed during field surveys in 2014 (USDI/BLM 2015b).

The project area is within mapped overall mountain lion range (CPW 2016) and mountain lions have been 

observed in the proposed project area (USDI/BLM 2015b).

Wild turkey overall range is mapped throughout the project area (CPW 2016). Wild turkey winter range, 

winter concentration, and production areas are mapped in portions of the project area. Several turkeys 

were observed during field surveys completed in 2014 (USDI/BLM 2015b).

Raptors

The project area contains bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) winter range, as mapped by CPW (CPW 

2016). There are three active bald eagle nests and several undetermined, unknown, destroyed, or inactive 

nests within 12 miles of the proposed project area (CPW 2016). Within 10 miles of the project area, CPW 

has also mapped bald eagle winter foraging, summer foraging, and winter concentration areas. Potential 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-118-

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) nesting areas are located within 5 miles of the project area (CPW

2016). No bald eagles or peregrine falcons were observed in the proposed project area during 2014 

surveys; however, several other raptors were observed including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), 

northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius) nests (USDI/BLM 2015b).

These past avian surveys were conducted to determine if Mexican spotted owl were utilizing the steeper 

canyon habitats north of the King II mine (Refer to Section 3.10 for additional detail).

Wild Horses

There are no known wild horse herds in the project area or vicinity.

Migratory Birds

Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC §703-712) and Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities 

of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds,” federal agencies are directed to consider land 

management and planning impacts to migratory birds. The USFWS administers the MBTA, which 

prohibits the take of any active nest. While all migratory birds are protected by the MBTA, certain species 

have been determined to be at greater risk than others. OSMRE and USFWS entered into a Memorandum 

of Understanding in 2016 (USFWS 2016) to enhance collaboration between the agencies to strengthen 

migratory bird conservation. Bird species that are at greater conservation risk were considered according 

to the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) 2008 report (USFWS 2008) and the Land Bird 

Conservation Plan created by the Colorado Partners in Flight (COPIF) (COPIF 2000), listed in Table 3-

15. Potential effects focus on bird species that have habitat in the project area and vicinity and are 

included on the BCC list and/or the COPIF Land Bird Conservation Plan. 

Table 3-15. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern – Region 16 (Southern Rockies/Colorado 

Plateau) and Colorado Partners in Flight Priority Species – Physiographic Area 87 (Colorado 

Plateau)

Species Status1 General Habitat Description

Potential to Occur in 

or near the Project 

Area

American bittern 

(Botaurus lentiginosus)

BCC Marsh, swamp, or bog No

Bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus)

BCC Nests in tall trees and near bodies of water Potential foraging

Band-tailed pigeon 

(Patagioenas fasciata)

COPIF Mature ponderosa pine and piñon pine Potential breeding

Bendire’s thrasher 

(Toxostoma bendirei)

BCC Open desert habitats including grasslands, 

shrublands, or woodlands with scattered 

shrubs or trees; sagebrush with scattered 

junipers

Potential breeding

Black rosy-finch 

(Leucosticte atrata)

BCC Rock faces in alpine tundra No
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-119-

Species Status1 General Habitat Description

Potential to Occur in 

or near the Project 

Area

Black-chinned 

hummingbird

(Archilochus alexandri)

COPIF Open piñon-juniper woodland, lowland 

riparian woodland, and tall riparian 

shrublands, including Gambel oak

Potential breeding

Black-throated gray 

warbler

(Dendroica nigrescens)

COPIF Piñon-juniper obligates, preferring tall, 

dense piñon-juniper woodlands; 

occasionally use adjacent ponderosa pine 

and Douglas-fir habitats

Potential breeding

Brewer's sparrow 

(Spizella breweri)

COPIF, 

BCC

Primarily sagebrush, mixed shrublands Potential breeding

Brown-capped rosy-finch 

(Leucosticte australis)

COPIF, 

BCC

Rock faces in alpine tundra No

Burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia)

BCC Prairie dog colonies—grasslands, 

shrublands, and deserts

No

Cassin’s kingbird

(Tyrannus vociferans)

COPIF Piñon-juniper woodlands, frequently in 

association with sagebrush and rimrock 

Potential breeding

Cassin's finch 

(Carpodacus cassinii)

BCC Mid-elevational forest, between 8,000 and 

11,000 feet

Potential foraging

Chestnut-collared longspur

(Calcarius ornatus)

BCC Short and mixed-grass prairies with 

rolling topography

No

Common Poorwill

(Phalaenoptilus nuttallii)

COPIF Rocky sagebrush and mountain 

shrublands, piñon-juniper woodlands, and 

ponderosa pine woodlands

Potential breeding

Ferruginous hawk 

(Buteo regalis)

BCC Grasslands and semi-desert shrub; winter 

resident in western Colorado

Winter only

Flammulated owl 

(Otus flammeolus)

COPIF, 

BCC

Open ponderosa pine forests; dry montane 

conifer or aspen forests

Potential breeding

Golden eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos)

BCC Open habitats including grasslands, 

sagebrush, farmlands or tundra

Potential foraging

Grace’s warbler 

(Dendroica graciae)

COPIF, 

BCC

Ponderosa pine with scrub oak understory Potential breeding

Grasshopper Sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

savannarum)

BCC Open grassy and weedy meadows, 

pastures, and plains

Migrant only

Gray flycatcher

(Empidonax wrightii)

COPIF Piñon-juniper obligate Potential breeding

Gray vireo 

(Vireo vicinior)

COPIF, 

BCC

Mesas, steep hillsides, canyons and wide 

valleys below 6,400 feet

No

Gunnison sage grouse 

(Centrocercus minimus)

COPIF, 

BCC

Sagebrush grasslands No

Horned lark

(Eremophila alpestris)

COPIF Prefer treeless areas with short grass, 

forbs, and/or scattered short shrubs.

Migrant only
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-120-

Species Status1 General Habitat Description

Potential to Occur in 

or near the Project 

Area

Juniper titmouse 

(Baeolophus ridgwayi)

COPIF, 

BCC

Piñon-juniper; cavity nester Potential breeding

Lewis’s woodpecker 

(Melanerpes lewis)

COPIF, 

BCC

Open ponderosa pine forests, riparian, and 

piñon-juniper woodlands

Potential breeding

Loggerhead shrike

(Lanius ludovicianus)

COPIF Utilize shrubby habitats in open country; 

tall desert shrubs or piñon-juniper edge 

habitats 

Potential breeding

Long-billed curlew

(Numenius americanus)

BCC No potential for occurrence; analysis area 

does not contain suitable habitat.

No

Mexican spotted owl 

(Strix occidentalis lucida)

COPIF, 

T

Mature to old growth mixed conifer 

stands on steep, north-facing slopes 

Suitable habitat exists 

several miles north of

the proposed lease 

modification area. 

USFWS protocol 

surveys did not result

in any detections in 

2014 and 2015

(Ecosphere 2016a)

Mountain plover

(Charadrius montanus)

BCC Grazed shortgrass prairie and fallow 

plowed agricultural fields

No

Northern harrier

(Circus cyaneus)

COPIF Prefer large tracts of wetlands with dense 

vegetation; also utilize wet meadows, 

grasslands, sagebrush, and mountain 

shrublands

Potential breeding

Northern sage grouse

(Centrocercus 

urophasianus)

COPIF Sagebrush obligates, prefer large expanses 

of big sagebrush flat/rolling terrain, 

riparian meadows for brood and summer 

habitat 

No

Peregrine falcon 

(Falco peregrinus)

COPIF, 

BCC

Cliffs, associated with riparian areas Potential foraging

Piñon jay 

(Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus)

COPIF, 

BCC

Piñon-juniper woodlands Potential breeding

Prairie falcon 

(Falco mexicanus)

BCC Cliff faces in open country Potential foraging

Sage sparrow 

(Amphispiza belli)

COPIF Large, low elevation stands of big 

sagebrush or mixed big sagebrush and 

greasewood

No

Scott’s oriole

(Icterus parisorum)

COPIF Low elevation piñon-juniper woodlands 

and juniper savannas

No

Short-eared owl 

(Asio flammeus)

COPIF Open habitats including grasslands, marsh 

edges, shrub-steppe, and agricultural lands 

with tall grass cover

Potential foraging
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-121-

Species Status1 General Habitat Description

Potential to Occur in 

or near the Project 

Area

Snowy plover

(Charadrius nivosus)

BCC Coastal beaches and shores of inland 

alkaline lakes with little to no vegetation.

No

Veery

(Catharus fuscescens)

BCC Dense riparian thickets, willow-riparian. No

Virginia’s warbler 

(Vermivora virginiae)

COPIF Dense shrublands, piñon-juniper and oak 

woodlands

Potential breeding

Western bluebird

(Sialia mexicana)

COPIF Open ponderosa pine forests with large 

trees and snags with nest cavities

Potential breeding

Western kingbird

(Tyrannus tyrannus)

COPIF Open riparian forests, agricultural areas, 

and piñon-juniper woodlands

Potential breeding

White-throated swift

(Aeronautes saxatalis)

COPIF Cliffs required for nesting; may forage 

over many different habitats within a few 

miles of the nest

Potential foraging

Willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii)

BCC, 

E*

Dense, shrubby riparian vegetation No

Yellow-billed cuckoo 

(Coccyzus americanus)

BCC, T Riparian; gallery cottonwoods with a 

dense understory

No

1Status codes: COPIF = Colorado Partners in Flight Priority Species (COPIF 2000), BCC = USFWS Birds of Conservation 

Concern (USFWS 2008), T= USFWS listed as Threatened, E= USFWS listed as Endangered, C= Candidate for USFWS listing, 

P= Proposed for USFWS listing

*The southwestern subspecies of willow flycatcher (E. T. extimus) is listed by the USFWS as Endangered.

3.8.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The lease modification in and of itself would not directly impact aquatic or terrestrial wildlife that may 

use the project area. However, surface-disturbing components of the Proposed Action—and future coal 

mining in the lease modification tracts—have the potential to impact wildlife resources in the project area. 

In general, wildlife that may utilize the project area have the potential to be impacted by surfacedisturbing activities, human presence, light, and noise. 

The extension of underground mining into the lease modification parcels would not result in noise or 

surface activity level increases; rather the existing levels would be extended in duration until the lease 

modification area coal resource is exhausted. This potential impact is expected to be minor, as area 

wildlife potentially utilizing the project area and vicinity are likely accustomed to the existing noise levels 

from the King II and historic mining in the area. The mine site itself is quite small; a prefab office 

building, a few out buildings, a portal; and a load out facility. Light produced by the facility has not been 

identified as an issue of concern or irritation by area residents. Similar to residences and farms, lights on 

at night attract flying insects and generally benefit feeding bats and birds in the area. These impacts would 

be expected to persist for the duration of mining operations.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-122-

Surface disturbance from potential future exploration drilling in the lease modification area could 

potentially impact wildlife; however, these effects would be subject to analysis by the OSMRE and 

CDRMS prior to implementation. Overall, no more than 5.0 acres of surface disturbance are anticipated 

as a result of the mine permit revision. Surface areas above the proposed lease modification tracts are 

primarily Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland habitat. Subsidence has the potential 

to impact wildlife, primarily in relation to the potential for vegetation to be impacted. 

Project related surface disturbance would result primarily from improvements along CR 120 N. As 

detailed in Section 2.1, the Proposed Action would include a relatively small loss of habitat along CR 120

N, increased human presence during construction of road improvements, and a phased increase in minerelated vehicular traffic along CR 120 N. Long-term habitat loss along CR 120 N would include an 

estimated 4.7 acres of mainly agricultural land and Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland habitat, with pockets of Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Inter-Mountain 

Basins Semi-Desert Grassland habitats. Wildlife are expected to disperse into adjacent suitable habitats 

during construction activities along CR 120 N, and would likely return to normal use patterns once 

construction is complete. However, individual mortality may occur, especially for small mammals or 

nesting birds. Impacts to wildlife from construction of road improvements would be minor and short 

term; impacts from habitat loss along CR 120 N would be negligible and long term.

Design Feature 5, Traffic, includes several measures to increase safety along CR 120 N. Vegetation 

clearing along CR 120 N could impact individual wildlife; however, the long-term risk of wildlife-vehicle 

collisions would be reduced by improving the line of sight for drivers. An increase in the length of paved 

surface on CR 120 N would allow haul trucks to travel at higher speeds for a greater portion of the 

roadway; however, trucks would continue to travel at least 5 miles per hour (mph) slower than posted 

speed limits, thereby reducing the risk of wildlife-vehicle collisions. Overall, the potential impacts 

described above would be negligible to minor for the duration of mine operations.

Aquatic Species

No direct impacts to aquatic habitats within the existing or proposed lease modification areas are expected 

as part of the Proposed Action. In addition, site-specific clearances and permitting (if necessary) for work 

in potentially jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the U.S. would be completed under the purview of 

LPC at the time that site-specific road improvement construction plans are submitted to the LPC

Engineer. Accordingly, potential impacts to aquatic species would be negligible.

Game Species

The Proposed Action would reduce the risk of wildlife-vehicle collisions along CR 120 N. Game species 

generally have large home ranges, therefore the minor vegetation loss associated with the Proposed 

Action is not likely to impact individuals. Any game species using the project area are likely accustomed 

to the existing noise level and human presence there, which would not be expected to change appreciably 

from implementation of the Proposed Action. These noise and mining related human activities would be 

extended for approximately 3-5 additional years until the lease modification area coal reserves are 

exhausted. Overall, the potential impacts described above would be negligible to minor for the duration of 

mine operations.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-123-

Raptors

Raptors that may forage in the project area may avoid the area during surface-disturbing activities; 

however, individuals are expected to utilize adjacent suitable habitats during construction and would 

likely return to regular use patterns once construction is complete. The Proposed Action is not expected to

result in changes to existing noise levels or human activity on the ground surface; rather, these noise and 

mining related human activities would be extended for approximately 3-5 additional years until the lease 

modification area coal reserves are exhausted. This impact to area raptors would be negligible.

Wild Horses 

Because there are no wild horse herds in or near the project area, no direct or indirect impacts are 

expected. 

Migratory Birds

The ongoing impacts to migratory birds from mining operations are not expected to change appreciably 

based on implementation of the Proposed Action. Any surface-disturbing activities in the lease 

modification area would be analyzed and permitted by OSMRE and CDRMS prior to implementation.

Migratory birds may be displaced, injured, or killed during construction of the CR 120 N improvements; 

this impact would be minimized by completion of migratory bird nest clearance prior to any vegetation 

clearing. Vegetation removal would occur adjacent to the existing road and is not expected to increase 

habitat fragmentation. Direct impacts to migratory birds would be negligible and short term, as any future 

vegetation clearing would not occur during the breeding season.

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

Design Features 4a and 4b would benefit project area wildlife by including efforts to minimize noise and 

vibration impacts from the mine facility and truck traffic (respectively). Design Feature 5 includes several 

safety measures that would reduce the potential for wildlife-vehicle collisions. Work in potentially 

jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the U.S. would be permitted under the purview of LPC prior to 

implementation. To minimize impacts to migratory birds, all drilling actions would either be completed 

outside of the nesting season or appropriate nest clearance surveys would be conducted by experienced 

biologists prior to any disturbance—as specified in the PAP. In addition, nest clearance surveys would be 

completed prior to any vegetation removal along CR 120 N that is proposed within the nesting season.

Based on the low (negligible to minor) level of potential impacts to wildlife discussed above, annual 

monitoring would not be performed.

3.8.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, mining would continue in the existing lease area under the current 

mining plan. Mine-related noise, human presence, and surface-disturbing activities would be expected to 

continue at existing levels until current coal reserves are exhausted around 2019. Impacts associated with 

currently ongoing road improvements to CR 120 N would be the same as those described under the 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-124-

Proposed Action alternative, although the impacts would also be for a shorter duration of time as road 

improvements would like cease after Phase 3 in 2019.

3.9 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

3.9.1 Affected Environment

Special Status Plant and Animal Species

There are 37 BLM sensitive species with potential to occur on lands managed by the TRFO (USDI/BLM 

2015c); their basic habitat descriptions and potential to occur in or near the project area are included in 

Table 3-16. Based on the habitat preferences and known ranges, 5 of the 37 species have potential or are 

suspected to occur in or near the project area—these include (1) Allen’s big-eared bat, (2) fringed myotis, 

(3) bald eagle, (4) golden eagle, and (5) northern goshawk.

Table 3-16. Bureau of Land Management Listed Sensitive Species 

Species Habitat Requirements Potential to occur in or 

near the Project Area1

Mammals (7)

Allen’s big-eared bat

(Idionycteris phyllotis)

Rocky and riparian areas in woodland and 

scrubland regions.

S; No roosts will be 

disturbed

Desert bighorn sheep

(Ovis canadensis nelsoni)

Rocky canyons, grass, low shrub, open habitat 

with adjacent steep rocky areas for escape and 

safety.

NP; project area is outside

of species’ known 

geographic distribution

Fringed myotis

(Myotis thysanodes 

pahasapensis)

Piñon-juniper and other coniferous woodlands. S; No roosts will be 

disturbed

Gunnison’s prairie dog

(Cynomys gunnisonii)

High mountain valleys and plateaus at 

elevations of 6,000 to 12,000 feet; grasslands 

and semi-desert and montane shrublands, with 

scattered junipers and pines.

NP; No colonies in project

area

Rocky mountain bighorn 

sheep

(Ovis canadensis)

Prefers steep, high-mountain terrain. In 

Colorado, prefers habitat dominated by grass, 

low shrubs, rock cover, and areas near open 

escape routes.

NP; No suitable habitat in 

project area

Spotted bat

(Euderma maculatum)

Piñon-juniper, shrub desert, and possibly 

riparian habitats.

NS; No roosts will be 

disturbed

Townsend’s big-eared bat

(Corynorhinus townsendii)

Dependent on availability of abandoned or 

inactive mines or caves for roosting.

NS; No roosts will be 

disturbed

Birds (9)

American Peregrine 

Falcon

(Falco peregrinus)

Prefers open country and high vertical cliff 

areas for nesting (>200 feet).

NP; Cliff structure not

present in project area
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-125-

Species Habitat Requirements Potential to occur in or 

near the Project Area1

Bald Eagle

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus)

Forested stands around aquatic settings. S; Potential foraging 

habitat

Black swift

(Cypseloides niger)

Vertical rock faces near waterfalls or in 

dripping caves.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Brewer’s sparrow

(Spizella breweri)

Primarily sagebrush but also in mixed 

shrublands (e.g., rabbitbrush, greasewood, etc.).

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse

(Pediocetes phasianellus 

columbianus)

Oak/serviceberry shrublands, often interspersed 

with sagebrush; aspen forests; irrigated pasture.

NP; project area is outside

of species’ known 

geographic distribution

Ferruginous hawk

(Buteo regalis)

Grasslands and semi-desert shrub; winter 

resident in western Colorado.

NS; Outside known 

breeding range of species

Golden Eagle

(Aquila chrysaetos)

Open habitats including grasslands, sagebrush, 

farmlands, and tundra.

S; Potential foraging 

habitat

Northern goshawk

(Accipiter gentiles)

Ponderosa pine, aspen, mixed-conifer and 

spruce-fir forests.

S; Raptor timing

restriction to protect

raptors

Western burrowing owl

(Athene cunicularia)

Prairie dog colonies with vacant burrows; 

grasslands, shrublands, deserts.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Fish, Amphibians, and Reptiles (9)

Bluehead sucker

(Catostomus discobolus)

Found in runs or riffles with gravel or rocky 

substrates within small or mid-sized tributaries 

of the Upper Colorado River Basin. Tributaries 

of the Colorado and San Juan Rivers.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Boreal toad

(Bufo boreas boreas)

Permanent ponds or wetlands with shallow 

sunny margins, adjoining willow thickets or 

shrub cover, and upland montane forests within 

an elevation range between 8,000 and 11,000 

feet. Normally associated with lodgepole pine 

or spruce-fir forests.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Canyon Treefrog

(Hyla arenicolor)

Intermittent streams and pools in deep rocky 

canyons.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Colorado River cutthroat

trout

(Oncorhynchus clarki 

pleuriticus)

Headwater tributaries, larger streams, and 

portions of main-stem rivers within the 

Colorado River Basin.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Flannelmouth sucker

(Catostomus latipinnis)

Occurs in medium to large streams not heavily 

impacted by impoundments or other habitat 

degradation in the Upper Colorado River Basin.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Longnose leopard lizard

(Gambelia wislizenii)

Shrublands with open ground, below 5,200 feet 

elevation.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-126-

Species Habitat Requirements Potential to occur in or 

near the Project Area1

Midget faded rattlesnake

(Crotalus viridis concolor)

High, cold desert dominated by sagebrush with 

an abundance of rock outcrops and exposed 

canyon walls. 

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Northern leopard frog

(Rana pipiens)

Springs, slow streams, marshes, bogs, ponds, 

canals, floodplains, reservoirs, and lakes; 

usually permanent water with rooted aquatic 

vegetation. In summer, commonly inhabits wet 

meadows and fields.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Roundtail chub

(Gila robusta)

Stream reaches that have a complexity of pool 

and riffle habitats; relatively deep, low-velocity 

habitats that are often associated with woody 

debris or other types of cover. Tributaries of the 

Colorado and San Juan rivers.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Insects (1)

Great basin silverspot

butterfly

(Speyeria nokomis 

nokomis)

Found in streamside meadows and open 

seepage areas with an abundance of violets in 

generally desert landscapes; mostly tied to 

springs.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Plants (11)

Aromatic Indian breadroot 

(Pediomelum aromaticum)

Semi-desert shrublands and sagebrush 

shrublands; 4,800 to 5,700 feet.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Comb Wash buckwheat 

(Eriogonum clavellatum)

Shale soils in shadscale communities, 4,300 to 

5,500 feet; known in the Four Corners area and 

adjacent Utah.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Cushion bladderpod 

(Physaria pulvinata)

Barren shale outcrops in piñon-juniper, semidesert shrubland, and sagebrush communities.NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Dolores River 

skeletonplant 

(Lygodesmia doloresensis)

Piñon-juniper, semi-desert shrublands with 

shadscale, and sagebrush communities on 

reddish, purple, sandy alluvium and colluvium 

of the Cutler Formation between the canyon 

walls of the Dolores River; 4,000-5,500 feet.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Fragile rockbrake 

(Cryptogramma stelleri)

Sheltered calcareous cliff crevices and rock 

ledges, typically in coniferous forest or other 

boreal habitats.

NP; No suitable habitat in

project area

Gypsum Valley cateye

(Oreocarya revealii)

Grayish, near-barren gypsum hills of the 

Paradox Member of the Hermosa Formation in 

Western Colorado; known from Mesa, 

Montrose, and San Miguel Counties in 

Colorado.

NP; No suitable habitat in 

project area

Jones’ bluestar 

(Amsonia jonesii)

Runoff-fed draws on sandstone in piñon-juniper 

and desert shrub communities, 3,900-7,000 feet; 

Known from Montezuma County, Colorado 

(Heil et al. 2013).

NS; project area is outside 

of species’ known 

geographical distribution
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-127-

Species Habitat Requirements Potential to occur in or 

near the Project Area1

Kachina fleabane

(Erigeron kachinensis)

Saline soils in alcove and seeps in canyon 

walls; 4,800-5,600 feet.

NP; No suitable habitat in 

project area

Lone Mesa snakeweed 

(Gutierrezia elegans)

Barrren Mancos Shale outcrops and thin soil 

over shale in piñon-juniper, semi-desert 

shrubland, and sagebrush vegetation 

communities; known from Dolores County, 

Colorado.

NS; project area is outside 

of species’ known 

geographical distribution

Naturita milkvetch 

(Astragalus naturitensis)

Sandstone mesas, ledges, crevices, and slopes, 

5,000-7,000 feet.

NP; project area is outside 

of species’ elevation 

range

Frosty bladderpod 

(Lesquerella pruinosa)

Mountain grasslands and mountain shrublands 

on soils derived from Mancos Shale (6,800-

8,000 feet); Known from Archuleta County

(Heil et al. 2013).

NS; project area is outside 

of species’ known 

geographical distribution

Source: USDI/BLM 2015c.

1Potential to occur in project area: NP = habitat not present; NS = habitat present species not expected to occur; S = suspected 

occurrence; K = known occurrence.

USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species

The USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation tool was used to review USFWS threatened and 

endangered species in La Plata County, Colorado; Pueblo County, Colorado; and Bernalillo County, New 

Mexico (USFWS 2017). Pueblo and Bernalillo counties were queried to assess if species were potentially 

present in the known areas of coal combustion from GCC-owned and operated cement plants. None of the 

listed species have suitable habitat in the Project area; near the King II Mine or along CR 120 N to SH 

140. Several of the riparian obligate species, such as Yellow-billed cuckoo, Southwestern willow 

flycatcher and New Mexico jumping meadow mouse, are known to occur in La Plata County with the 

nearest potential habitats along the La Plata River. The King II Mine is about 4.5 miles from the La Plata 

River with no noise, air, or human activity impacts from the mine anticipated to affect habitats along the 

La Plata River. CR 120 N, at its terminus with SH 140 is approximately 0.3 mile from the La Plata River. 

No impacts are expected to habitats along the La Plata River, or to listed species potentially present, from 

coal trucks turning onto the SH 140. 

Based on the lack of habitat in the project area, determinations of “no effect” were made for 12 of the 14

species listed for the three counties. The two-remaining species—greenback cutthroat trout and Rio 

Grande silvery minnow—have potential to be impacted by the Proposed Action from coal combustion in 

those counties. A project-specific Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared to analyze the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action on federally listed species. The BA and the 

USFWS project-specific concurrence letter are provided in Appendix D. Table 3-17 summarizes the 

analysis and effects determinations for federally listed species included in the analysis.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-128-

Table 3-17. Summary of effects analysis for Federally Listed Species considered in the analysis of

the Proposed Action

Species

Status*

(Counties 

where listed)

Analysis Summary

Mammals

Black-footed ferret

(Mustela nigripes)

E

(Pueblo)

No effect; no prairie habitats would be impacted by 

the Proposed Action.

Canada lynx

(Lynx canadensis)

T

(La Plata, 

Pueblo) 

No effect; no impacts to montane or subalpine 

forests are expected from the Proposed Action.

New Mexico meadow jumping 

mouse

(Zapus hudsonius luteus)

E

(La Plata, 

Bernalillo)

No effect; nearest potential riparian habitat is located 

along the La Plata River and would not be impacted 

by the Proposed Action.

North American wolverine

(Gulo gulo luscus)

P, T

(La Plata, 

Pueblo)

No effect; high-elevation alpine habitats would not 

be impacted by the Proposed Action. 

Birds

Mexican spotted owl

(Strix occidentalis lucida)

T

(La Plata, 

Pueblo, 

Bernalillo)

No effect; Proposed Action would not impact 

suitable habitat. Suitable habitat consisting of mixed 

conifer stands on steep, north-facing slopes exists 

several miles north of the proposed lease 

modification area; however, USFWS protocol 

surveys did not result in any detections in 2014 and 

2015 (Ecosphere 2016a). 

Southwestern willow flycatcher

(Empidonax traillii extimus)

E

(La Plata, 

Bernalillo)

No effect; nearest potential riparian habitat is located 

along the La Plata River and would not be impacted 

by the Proposed Action.

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus)

T

(La Plata, 

Bernalillo)

No effect; nearest potential riparian habitat is located 

along the La Plata River and would not be impacted 

by the Proposed Action.

Fish

Colorado pikeminnow

(Ptychocheilus lucius) 

E

(La Plata)

No effect; Proposed Action would not impact 

suitable aquatic habitats.

Greenback cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki stomias)

T

(Pueblo) 

May affect, not likely to adversely affect;

Discussed in further detail below.

Razorback sucker 

(Xyrauchen texanus) 

E

(La Plata)

No effect; Proposed Action would not impact 

suitable aquatic habitats.

Rio Grande silvery minnow 

(Hybognathus amarus)

E

(Bernalillo)

May affect, not likely to adversely affect;

Discussed in further detail below.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-129-

Species

Status*

(Counties 

where listed)

Analysis Summary

Flowering Plants

Chapin Mesa milkvetch

(Astragalus schmolliae)

C

(La Plata)

No effect; Known species distribution is limited to 

Chapin Mesa area in Montezuma County, Colorado 

(Anderson 2004). 

Knowlton’s cactus

(Pediocactus knowltonii) 

E

(La Plata)

No effect; Proposed Action would not impact 

alluvial deposits in piñon-juniper woodlands. Known 

Species distribution is limited to one population 

along the Los Piños River in northeastern San Juan 

County, New Mexico (USFWS 1993).

Insects

Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly

(Boloria acrocnema)

E

(La Plata)

No effect; Proposed Action would not impact alpine 

snow willow habitats.

Source: USFWS 2017.

Critical Habitat

Three counties were reviewed for the presence of proposed or designated critical habitat: La Plata County, 

Colorado; Pueblo County, Colorado; and Bernalillo County, New Mexico. There is no designated or 

proposed critical habitat in the project area; near the King II Mine, or along CR 120 N to SH 140 

(USFWS 2017); therefore, no impacts to critical habitat are expected in La Plata County, Colorado.

Critical habitats in Pueblo and Bernalillo counties were included to assess potential impacts near the 

known areas of coal combustion from GCC-owned and operated cement plants. There is designated 

critical habitat for Mexican spotted owl in both Pueblo and Bernalillo counties, however these habitats are 

in remote forested and canyon areas 10 to 20 miles from the nearest cement plant; and therefore, would 

not be impacted by the Proposed Action. There is also proposed critical habitat for the yellow-billed 

cuckoo in Bernalillo County along the Rio Grande River; however, the small amounts of Hg released are 

not expected to impact riparian habitats.

However, because of the potential for Hg to enter the Rio Grande River aquatic system from the Tijeras 

Cement Plant, the potential for impacts to designated critical habitat for the Rio Grande silvery minnow 

warrant further analysis.

Critical Habitat: Rio Grande Silvery Minnow

The USFWS designated Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande silvery minnow in 2003 (USFWS 2003). 

Critical habitat includes portions of the Middle Rio Grande River and the Jemez River through four New 

Mexico counties: Socorro, Valencia, Bernalillo, and Sandoval. There are four primary constituent 

elements of Critical Habitat specific to Rio Grande silvery minnow; as described below: 

1. A hydrologic regime that provides sufficient flowing water with low to moderate currents capable 

of forming and maintaining a diversity of aquatic habitats, such as, but not limited to the 

following: backwaters, shallow side channels, pools, eddies, and runs of varying depth and 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-130-

velocity—all of which are necessary for each of the particular silvery minnow life-history stages 

in appropriate seasons;

2. The presence of low-velocity habitat within unimpounded stretches of flowing water of sufficient 

length that provide a variety of habitats with a wide range of depth and velocities;

3. Substrates of predominately sand or silt; and

4. Water of sufficient quality to maintain natural, daily, and seasonally variable water temperatures 

in the approximate range of greater than 1 degree Celsius (°C) (35° Fahrenheit) and less than 

30°C (85° Fahrenheit) and reduce degraded water conditions (decreased dissolved oxygen, 

increased pH, etc.) (USFWS 2003).

The potential effects to Rio Grande silvery minnow critical habitat are discussed below.

3.9.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Because disturbances to the ground surface and vegetation are concentrated along the existing CR 120 N 

ROW, direct impacts to sensitive species are anticipated to be negligible to non-existent. Vegetation 

removal for road improvements would result in negligible, long-term impacts to species that may use 

these habitats. Ground-disturbing activities that may occur within the lease or lease modification areas are 

subject to CDRMS and the OSMRE sensitive species clearance surveys; accordingly, impacts to sensitive 

species, if present, would be avoided. Reclamation of disturbed areas (i.e., seeding, mulching, noxious 

weed management, etc.) would be completed post-disturbance in conformance with the Reclamation Plan. 

Site reclamation would be expected to recover disturbed areas within 5 years; therefore, these impacts are 

considered short term. Subsidence resulting from future underground mining activities may impact small 

areas of vegetation through erosion, rock fall, and minor landslides. These slight alterations to habitat 

have the potential, albeit very low, to displace or kill bats that may be present in rock outcrops, trees, or 

on the ground. Any impacts to sensitive species would be negligible and long term, and would be limited 

to individuals and would not be detectable at the population level. Indirect impacts would include the 

introduction of noise and human activity to the Project area. These impacts would likely be limited to 

disturbance of raptors that may nest, perch, forage, and/or roost in the area. Overall, potential impacts to 

sensitive species are expected to be negligible to minor and short to long term, based on the few sensitive 

species with potential to occur in the project area.

Special Status Plant and Animal Species

The Proposed Action may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of species 

viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide

for Allen’s big-eared bat, fringed myotis, bald eagle, golden eagle, and northern goshawk. The Proposed 

Action would have no impact on the remaining 32 BLM sensitive species with potential to occur on lands 

managed by the TRFO. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-131-

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened and Endangered 

The Proposed Action is expected to have “no effect” on 12 of the 14 federally listed species considered in 

the effects analysis, as there are no surface-disturbing activities proposed in or near suitable habitat for 

these species. Two federally listed species, the Rio Grande silvery minnow and the greenback cutthroat 

trout, received determinations of “May affect, not likely to adversely affect” due to small amounts of Hg

entering the aquatic systems associated with coal combustion at nearby GCC-owned cement plants. The 

Tijeras Cement Plant is located approximately 15 miles east of the Rio Grande River. The plant burns 

approximately 76,000 tons/yr., which releases approximately 25 pounds (lbs.)/yr. of Hg annually. 

Similarly, the Pueblo Cement Plant burns approximately 105,000 tons/yr., releasing approximately 10

lbs./yr. For both plants have air permits whereas federal Hg release is limited to 55 lbs./yr. per million 

tons of clinker produced. 

During scoping, the OSMRE submitted a Formal Section 7 Consultation in accordance with the ESA, as 

amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.) and the Interagency Cooperation Regulations (50 CFR 402). The 

OSMRE was seeking concurrence that the Proposed Action “is likely to adversely affect the continued 

existence” of fish in the San Juan River Basin that are listed under the ESA. OSMRE’s determination was 

based on a proposed 34 acre-feet per year depletion from a San Juan River sub-basin. On April 30, 2015, 

USFWS responded stating that USFWS issued a biological opinion (BO) (USFWS 1999) determining 

that depletions of 100 acre-feet or less would not limit the provision of flows outlined in the Recovery 

Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the San Juan River Basin (USFWS 1992). 

As a result of this past water depletion BO, the Proposed Action would have no effect on the Colorado 

pike minnow and razorback sucker. Similarly, approximately 3,500 tons of King II coal are burned 

annually by the DSNGRR in a San Juan River sub-basin, releasing an estimated 0.25 lbs./yr of Hg. This 

small quantity is considered part of the environmental baseline of the San Juan River as a result of the 

USFWS Consultation (No. 02ENNM00-2014-F-0064). This BO analyzed the depositional impacts of coal 

combustion from the Four Corners Power Plant in Kirtland, NM. Baseline water quality established in the 

BO include more than 100 years of DSNGRR coal combustion along the Animas River in Colorado, that 

is tributary to the San Juan River.

The BA, provided in Appendix D, contains detailed analysis of federally listed species and their potential 

to occur in the project area or to be impacted by the Proposed Action; a summary of the findings in the 

BA is included in Table 3-13. The USFWS concurrence with the the BLM and OSMRE’s effects 

determinations is also provided in Appendix D.

Critical Habitat 

There would be no impacts to silvery minnow critical habitat constituent elements along the Rio Grande 

because of coal combustion from the Tijeras Cement Plant. Constituent elements of critical habitat for this 

species pertains to hydrologic flow, the seasonality of flow, water temperate and substrate materials. The 

coal combustion emissions from the Tijeras Cement Plants, 15 miles to east, would not affect any of these

habitat characteristics; consequently, there would be no impacts to critical habitat.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-132-

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

As the lead federal agency that conducted Section 7 consultation of ESA for the Four Corners Power 

Plant/Navajo Mine Expansion Project (Consultation No. 02ENNM00-2014-F-0064), OSMRE is required 

to evaluate and consult with the Service on all discretionary OSMRE permitting actions within OSMRE’s 

authority that have the potential to deposit mercury (Hg) in the San Juan River. OSMRE will conduct this 

evaluation every two years and consult with USFWS upon completion of the evaluation. This requirement 

is addressed in detail in the BA.

For any proposed future ground-disturbing activities within the proposed lease and permit areas, GCC is 

required by their OSMRE and CDRMS mine permits to complete biological clearance surveys and obtain 

agency authorization prior to conducting any ground disturbances. LPC and CDOT have similar 

biological resource clearance requirements prior to any ground-disturbing activities within a LPC CR or 

SH 140 ROW. 

GCC adherence to federal limits for releases of Hg in their Pueblo and Tijeras cement plant air permits 

will minimize potential impacts to listed fish in the Arkansas River (Pueblo County, Colorado) and in the 

Rio Grande (Bernalillo County, New Mexico).

3.9.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Same as under the Proposed Action but for a shorter duration (approximately 4-5 years depending upon 

coal sales).

Special Status Plant and Animal Species

The No Action Alternative would have direct and indirect impacts similar to those described for the 

Proposed Action. Under the No Action Alternative, impacts would be shorter in duration as existing mine 

coal reserves are depleted and the mine enters closure phases. Based on the low (negligible to minor) 

level of potential impacts to wildlife discussed above, annual monitoring would not be performed.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened and Endangered Species

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to federally listed species would be similar to those expected 

from the Proposed Action. Minor quantities of mercury from coal combustion would continue to enter the 

Rio Grande and Arkansas rivers in Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Pueblo County, Colorado.

However, under the No Action Alternative coal combustion would decline as the King II Mine exhausted 

remaining reserves and enters closure phases. It is not known if GCC would replace King II coal at their 

cement facilities with another coal source or whether they would replace the coal fuel with another 

alternative.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-133-

3.10 Access and Transportation

3.10.1 Affected Environment

Access and transportation resources consider the impacts to the capacity and safety of transportation 

infrastructure in the affected area. The affected area for transportation resources includes the 6.2-mile 

section of LPC road (CR 120) between the King II Mine access road and SH 140 as shown in Haul Road 

Map A-4. While there are other roads used by mine employees and suppliers, the affected area was 

specifically identified during scoping as being affected by mine operations. These resources are managed 

by LPC and CDOT. Multiple traffic studies were prepared by GCC consultants, by independent traffic 

engineers and by La Plata County Road and Bridge Department engineers. All of the traffic related 

studies and analyses are publicly available on the La Plata County Planning Department webpage at: 

http://lpccds.org/planning/gcc_energy_project/. Potential impacts to transportation resources are related to 

the condition and status of the roads as well as the traffic conditions relative to the number of truck trips 

required to transport the coal to market.

Current Road and Traffic Conditions

The road conditions for the affected routes are as follows:

SH 140 is a paved 2-lane road classified as a regional highway. The speed limit on SH 140 is 55 to 65 

mph with a 45-mph speed limit through the towns of Kline and Red Mesa. 

CR 120, starting at the intersection of SH 140 (mile post [MP] 0.0), the approximate existing roadway 

conditions on CR 120 are as follows:

▪ MP 0.0 – MP 2.5: Road width about 22 feet with asphalt road surface and 2-foot aggregate 

shoulders. 

▪ MP 2.5 – MP 5.6: Road width 30 feet or greater with gravel surface. 

▪ MP 5.6 – MP 6.4: Road width 24-feet with gravel surface. Irrigation and power lines run directly 

adjacent to roadway. 

▪ MP 6.4 – MP 6.5: Road width 30-feet with gravel surface. 

Traffic conditions are based on measurements of AADT. The AADT data are used in establishing 

roadway design criteria and applicable road maintenance standards. An AADT is defined as a one-way 

trip for the coal transport trucks or for other non-coal related vehicles. The AADT data for affected routes 

for the period 2008 to 2014 are shown in Table 3-18. Historically, vehicle trips associated the King II 

Mine comprise more than half of all vehicle trips and most of the truck trips recorded on CR 120. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-134-

Table 3-18. Average Annual Daily Trip Data for the Affected Area

Road Segment Location 2008 2010 2012 2014

CR 120 At intersection with SH 140 (north) 652 681 814 870

CR 120 At intersection with SH 140 (south) 162 454 437 434

SH 140 At intersection with La Plata County Road 122 near Kline 2100 2500 2800 2500

Source: La Plata County Road and Bridge Department and CDOT 2017.

Another component of evaluating safety of a roadway section is to assess past accident records for causal 

factors. These causal factors may reflect opportunities for modification of the roadway geometry or 

characteristics that could improve public safety. An assessment of accident locations along CR 120 

between 2005 and 2014 was included in the TIA prepared by GCC for LPC (Roadrunner 2015). Of 38 

accidents that occurred during the 10-year period, eight were found to be related to GCC traffic. In 

evaluating the mapped records, accidents were found to cluster at three locations. 

1. MP 0.3 at the 90° corner.

2. MP 3.9-4.0, adjacent to Wiltse’s Barn with impaired sight distance. 

3. MP 12.4 at the 90° curve at Big Stick Ditch.

The TIA recommended modifications to the roadway at these locations to improve safety. GCC has 

agreed to complete the recommended modifications at the first two locations as part of its RIA with LPC 

(see Section 2.1.3 Coal Production and Transportation). The third location is outside the 6.4 miles of CR

120 used by GCC as a coal haul route. While GCC has not committed to modifying CR 120 at this 

location, it has agreed to pay an annual road maintenance fee to LPC that could be used to modify CR 120 

at this location. 

In addition to vehicle safety concerns related to road conditions on CR 120, public scoping comments 

raised the issue of wildlife-vehicles collisions. The modifications to CR 120 included in the RIA would 

reduce this risk by improving line of sight for drivers and reducing speeds on CR 120.

3.10.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

The effects to transportation resources for the Proposed Action would be related to mine-related traffic 

along CR 120 N and modifications to the 6.4-mile section of CR 120 N used by GCC as a coal haul route. 

Mine-related traffic along CR 120 is limited, in part, by the RIA between GCC and LPC. The number of 

loaded coal-trucks that can travel on CR 120 are limited in the RIA per the status of scheduled 

improvements to CR 120. For the Proposed Action, it is assumed that GCC would complete Phase 1, 2, 

and 3 improvements as specified and scheduled in the RIA (see Section 2.1.3 Coal Production and 

Transportation). The maximum allowable loaded truck traffic is 80 trucks, which would correspond to 

160 daily-trips. There would be additional vehicle trips on CR 120 associated with mine-workers and 

suppliers. For the Proposed Action, it is estimated that there would be a maximum of 300 daily vehicle

trips on CR 120. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-135-

Direct and Indirect Impacts

In 2014, average traffic data for CR 120 showed about 870 daily vehicle trips along the northern segment 

of CR 120 used by GCC as a coal haul route. The Proposed Action would have an estimated maximum of 

300 daily vehicle trips. This is lower than the long-term trend of King II Mine vehicle trips accounting for 

about half of all traffic along CR 120. On SH 140, King II Mine vehicle trips would comprise about oneeighth of total daily traffic under the Proposed Action. 

The improvements to CR 120 that would be completed by GCC under the RIA are to increase road width 

and paved surface, reduce vehicle speed and loaded truck numbers, as well as improve sight distance to

reduce risks for those traveling on CR 120. Therefore, the direct effects to transportation resources would 

be reduced traffic numbers and improved road safety. Overall, potential impacts to transportation in the 

project area would be minor to moderate and potentially adverse associated with maintained high traffic 

volumes and beneficial based on completion of required CR and SH intersection improvements. These 

beneficial impacts would be long term, lasting beyond the life of the mine. The adverse impacts would 

last until about 2023 when the coal resource in the lease modification area is exhausted.

The indirect effects would be related to ongoing road maintenance on CR 120 completed by LPC and 

funded in part by GCC’s road maintenance fee as specified in the RIA of $0.12 ton of coal produced at 

the King II Mine. The maintenance fee is set to ensure that improvements along CR 120 are maintained.

The fee would be adjusted according to the RIA to include inflation and changes to road conditions.

These impacts would be moderately beneficial lasting for the duration of mining associated with the 

Proposed Action.

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

To provide for the safety of the traveling public, residents, and mine traffic, the route proposed for use by 

haul trucks needs to be improved to minimum county standards as per LPCLUC 74-91(c), design 

standards (refer to Design Feature 5). GCC proposes to achieve these minimum requirements via an 

executed RIA capturing the improvements within a phased development schedule. Every scheduled 

improvement, therefore, with such an executed agreement in conjunction with GCC’s land use permit, 

creates an improved and safer condition of the existing roadway from the existing condition—while 

achieving progressive compliance per an established schedule. Ultimate completion of this schedule of 

improvements achieves ultimate compliance with the land use permit and correlates to the RIA. 

In addition to the RIA, there are number of operational and interim mitigation measures described under 

Design Feature 5 that will further mitigate transportation impacts and improve safety along CR 120 N.

3.10.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, the King II Mine would continue to operate as currently permitted by 

LPC and in accordance with the RIA. However, under this scenario, GCC would likely request 

renegotiation of the RIA with LPC as the currently required improvements could not be capitalized 

without the coal production authorized in the RIA. For this analysis, it is estimated that road 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-136-

improvements would only be completed through Phase 3 (November 2019). Accordingly, approximately 

4.30 miles of CR 120 N would not be repaved and sections would not be widened. As the mine would 

gradually shut down, traffic along the CR would revert to rural residential use only; and presumably to a 

level of safety compatible with LPC standards.

3.11 Noise and Vibration

3.11.1 Affected Environment

Noise

The King II Mine surface facilities are located at the confluence of two narrowly incised drainages nearly 

7 miles from the nearest town of Hesperus—as shown in Map A-1 in Appendix A. The closest residences 

are located along County Road 120, as shown in Map A-8 CR 120 Roadway Current Conditions and 

Proposed Improvements, located in Appendix A, and in the Vista de Oro subdivision, located 

approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the mine surface facilities and as shown on Proposed Coal Haul 

Routes Map A-4 in Appendix A. 

Measurable characteristics of noise are intensity (dB), frequency (the number of cycles per second or 

Hertz [Hz]), spectral content (intensity versus frequency over the entire time varying noise), duration 

(continuous or impulsive), number of noise events over a given time period and pattern of occurrence. 

Stationary noise sources associated with GCC mining operations have been identified as the air intake fan 

and coal processing equipment. Off-site noise sources include the coal haul trucks with noise generating 

components such as the engine, cooling fan, air intake, exhaust, transmission, and tires.

An initial sound study of mine operations was completed by Engineering Dynamics, Inc. (November 

2013). The study, as well as a vibration study, were included in the Summary of Analytical Activities in 

Response to Neighborhood Comments in Conjunction with a Permit Expansion of GCC Energy LLC –

King II Coal Mine by CDS Environmental Services LLC, dated May 8, 2014 (CDS 2014).

The studies were reviewed by Dr. Catherine T. Aimone-Martin of Aimone-Martin Associates on behalf of 

LPC. Dr. Aimone-Martin’s comments were presented in her report titled “Review of Noise and Vibration 

from CR 120 Truck Traffic and Mining Operations at the GCC Energy King II Coal Mine” dated 

September 7, 2015 (refer to Exhibit 15 of the LPC Planning Department staff report). Dr. Aimone-Martin 

suggested additional studies to evaluate the impact of coal mine haul truck noise on CR 120, and to

provide additional data to aid LPC in its decision making.

Wave Engineering, Inc., was retained by GCC to perform an additional sound study as suggested in Dr. 

Aimone-Martin’s report. The additional work included background noise measurements without coalhauling trucks running, measurements of haul trucks passing by on gravel and paved road surfaces, and 

computer modeling to assess the noise impact of haul trucks on residences along CR 120. The computer 

model was also used to evaluate the potential noise mitigation offered by sound barriers, speed 

limitations, and limiting the hours of trucks. Wave also prepared a supplemental analysis following LPC’s 

receipt of additional recommendations from their noise consultant Aimone-Martin Associates. All of the 

above referenced noise studies are available for public review on the La Plata County Planning 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-137-

Department webpage at: http://lpccds.org/planning/gcc_energy_project/. The following items from Wave

Engineering’s report, King II Coal Mine Noise Assessment, dated January 4, 2016 are noted:

▪ Measurements were taken at approximately 50 feet from CR 120 centerline and at a second 

location near residences; 

▪ Baseline noise at residences is well below noise from traffic, with the highest background value 

being recorded at 10 dBA, due to wind gusts exceeding 10 mph;

▪ As expected, travel uphill and with a loaded haul truck, increased noise considerably;

▪ The speed at which trucks travel has a significant effect on noise—approximately 8 dBA increase 

between 12 and 22 mph. During the study, trucks slowed to 10 mph on gravel road portions near

residences;

▪ Haul trucks traveling at 10 mph on flat portions of the road did not have an alternative effect; and

▪ All haul trucks measured had noise levels below 86 dBA, a cited limit established by the State of 

Colorado.

There is no county or state code or ordinance that currently limits noise levels from trucks. Colorado 

Revised Statutes 25-12-107 allows counties to limit heavy truck noise levels to 86 dBA 50-feet from the 

centerline of the lane of travel. All trucks that were measured in the Wave study were well below this 

level. Background ambient noise levels was measured (without truck noise) at four locations along CR

120 N during a weekend, with continuous day and night measurements. Depending upon the location, 

ambient sound levels ranged from about 37 dBA to 52 dBA during the day and 29 dBA to 48 dBA at 

night.

Since LPC does not have an applicable noise standard for coal mine facilities, CRS Section 25-12-103 

standards are used to establish maximum permissible noise levels in residential, commercial, and 

industrial locations. These standards set limits for residential properties of 55 dBA daytime (7:00 a.m. to 

7:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA nighttime at 25 feet from the property line. The standards include further 

limitations for periodic, impulsive, or shrill noise such as back-up alarms and warning devices. 

Vibration

Vibration studies have not confirmed a source at the surface facility or underground, but have been 

identified by adjacent landowners as being associated with the ventilation fan and underground miner. 

This study also tested for the presence of vibration and sound emanating from mine activities near 

neighboring residences. Vibration studies reported no detectable ground motion near adjacent landowners' 

test locations and only low-level ground motion levels within 10 feet of the mine fan and conveyor. The 

study also indicated that this low-level ground vibration would not transmit beyond the immediate 

vicinity. In response to surrounding residents’ requests, the study was extended to include acoustic 

analyses to test for low-frequency sound transmitted to neighboring residences—acoustic waves that 

would be perceived as a vibration. The study concluded that noise from the mine did not transmit lowfrequency sound to nearby residences.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-138-

A supplemental vibration study was performed in December 2014 to address adjacent landowner 

concerns that measurements in the 2013 noise and vibration study were made too far from production 

activity and covered too short of a time span. This supplemental study conducted noise and vibration 

measurements for 19 days continuously on the surface immediately above the active mining area where 

two continuous miners operated one or two shifts per day throughout the test period (CDS 2014). This 

study concluded that any vibration or noise attributable to mining activity was well below the threshold of 

human perception. The typical high levels reported were at or below one-quarter of the perception limit.

3.11.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The noise and vibration effects of the Proposed Action are associated with mining and loading equipment 

operating at the mine’s surface facilities and underground as well as from semi-trucks transporting coal 

along CR 120. The affected area for noise and vibration focuses on the sensitive receptors or residences 

that have identified noise and vibration issues during scoping. 

Noise

Because an adjacent landowner expressed specific concerns about noise and vibration from the mine’s 

operation, measures included in Design Feature 4a such as installing dampers on the ventilation fan, 

adjusting “back-up” warning signals, and eliminating mining within 300 feet of existing residences have 

been implemented to minimize noise and vibration effects. 

The principal noise sources related to the continued mining operation of the surface facilities include the 

ventilation fan, conveyors, and warning signals on load-out equipment. Noise from mining operations 

were also demonstrated by LPC noise consultants to provide no impact (refer to Exhibit 15 of the LPC 

Planning Department staff report). Mitigation of mine-site noise is not required. 

Indirect noise impacts are associated with the truck-traffic on CR 120 from coal transport. There are no 

published data measuring the noise or vibration associated with coal transport, but residents along CR 120 

reported noise and vibration levels that adversely affect their quality of life during scoping. As described 

above state statute set noise limits for residential properties of 55 dBA daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) 

and 50 dBA nighttime at 25 feet from the property line. All haul trucks measured had noise levels below 

86 dBA, a cited limit established by the State of Colorado. All noise measurements collected and/or 

reviewed by applicant and LPC noise consultants agreed with the results of noise monitoring results.

Overall, it was determined that following GCC’s implementation of noise mitigations (installation of 

noise barriers),that noise impacts would be negligible to minor, lasting for the duration of mining 

activities at the King II mine.

Vibration

Vibration studies did not find vibration to be above detectable levels at locations directly above the 

underground mining equipment and the surface facilities (CDS 2013). The County’s consultant, AimoneMartin Associates, indicated that the peak vibration at area residences was approximately eight times 

lower than the threshold for human perception (0.03 inches/second) and approximately 14 times lower 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-139-

than vibrations, which could cause hairline cracking in historic plaster walls (minimal) (Refer to Exhibit 

12 in the LPC Staff Report).

In response to continued resident comment, GCC then took measurements on the ground surface directly

above the continuous miner equipment—approximately 300 feet above the continuous miner. No induced

vibrations were recorded. Aimone-Martin Associates indicated that in her experience vibrations drop

below that detectable by human perception within 25 feet of this type of equipment (Refer to Exhibit 12 

in the LPC Staff Report). Based on this information, it was determined that mine operation vibrations do 

not pose a significant impact from the proposed project, and therefore do not require further mitigation. 

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

Wave Engineering evaluated the potential effectiveness of noise barriers using a model that assumed a 

12-foot high wall and a break for a driveway (which greatly decreases barrier effectiveness) and made

conclusions as summarized below. 

▪ At the Hunzeker residence, a barrier could reduce sound from the road by approximately 6 dBA;

▪ At the McCue residence, a barrier could reduce sound from the road by approximately 10 dBA;

▪ At the three residences, north of the barrier along the steep hill, there is already some screening

by topography and partly due to this, no increase in benefit is shown to occur with a barrier; and

▪ Barriers may be constructed of wood, concrete, brick, masonry, or other materials.

GCC has prepared a noise and visual buffering plan for site-specific conditions at 2541 and 3230 (McCue 

and Hunzeker) CR 120, which provide a definitive commitment to directly address this design feature.

These residences are immediately adjacent to the road and thereby warranted buffering from noise and 

dust. Buffering measures included in the plan include sound walls, landscaping, and berming as the 

respective condition provides to directly address and achieve compatibility. Impacts directly mitigated 

with this plan include noise, traffic, dust, unsightly views and other negative impacts, which are 

perceptible by adjoining land uses along north CR 120. The barriers to be constructed at the McCue 

residence provide about 4 to 7 dBA of noise reduction. The reduction is greater close to the road, and less 

as you move farther away. The barriers to be constructed at the Hunzeker residence provide about 5 to 6 

dBA of noise reduction near the residence. The noise and visual buffering plan will be implemented by 

GCC at the discretion of the respective landowners; and will be available for implementation from the 

time of approval of this project up until the completion of Phase 5 road improvements.

Mitigation measures included in Design Features 4a, 4b, and 5, including those recommended by the 

HGCAP, such as restricting truck traffic on weekends and evenings, paving CR 120, and monitoring 

truck equipment such as mufflers, truck speeds, etc. are included in the Proposed Action to further 

minimize indirect noise and vibration effects. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-140-

3.11.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, the King II Mine would continue to operate as allowed by the current 

mine plan and impacts would be the same as those described for the Proposed Action. Under this 

alternative, no noise buffers would be installed and the King II Mine would begin shutting down around 

2019. When coal reserves are completely depleted, there would be no coal-hauling truck traffic or 

associated noise and vibration along CR 120 N.

3.12 Visual Resources

3.12.1 Affected Environment

At the King II Mine, all surface facilities are located on state or private surface, while CR 120 N 

intersects private property for the entire length to SH 140. As such, BLM does not have visual resource 

management authority. 

The visual setting is a rural part of western La Plata County. The Hay Gulch area, and particularly the CR 

120 N road alignment and King II Mine site, is characterized by a well-defined canyon with agriculture 

lands on the bottomlands and canyon slopes vegetated with piñon-juniper woodlands. There are few 

residences along CR 120 N, and most property parcels have several acres of land separating them from 

neighbors.

The King II surface facility is located approximately 1,000 feet up a side-drainage above CR 120 entirely 

on State lands. The facilities are minimally visible from CR 120 and not visible from any adjacent 

properties. 

3.12.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

The visual resource management prescription applicable to the private surface on the existing and 

proposed lease modification areas are related to LPC’s Land Use code and view compatibility standards 

(La Plata County Code of Ordinances Section 82-193(c) (2)(c)). These standards require that the King II 

Mine facility will not create adverse or unsightly views for neighbors or the travelling public.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Residences along CR 120 N experience adverse impacts associated with noise, dust and views of high 

volumes of coal trucks utilizing CR 120 N. Residences that are very close to the road (McCue and 

Hunzeker) experience greater visual impacts than other residences along the road. Following the 

implementation of Design Feature 5 that includes implementation of a buffer plan; visual impacts are 

expected to be within the LPC code and view compatibility standards. Accordingly, visual impacts are 

expected to be low and short term, lasting for the life of mine estimated under the Proposed Action.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-141-

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

As described in Section 3.12.2, GCC has prepared a visual buffering plan for site-specific conditions at 

two residences along CR 120. These residences are immediately adjacent to the road and thereby 

warranted buffering from views, noise and dust. Buffering measures included in the plan include sound 

walls, landscaping, and berming as the respective condition provides to directly address and achieve 

compatibility. Impacts directly mitigated with this plan include noise, traffic, dust, unsightly views, which 

are perceptible by adjoining land uses along north CR 120.

3.12.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to visual resources would be the same those described under 

the Proposed Action. However, under this alternative impacts would last for a shorter duration.

3.13 Cultural Resources

3.13.1 Affected Environment

The project area is located within the Northern San Juan cultural region, on the periphery of the Colorado 

Plateau physiographic province. Several cultural traditions are represented in the region, from Paleoindian 

occupation to the Euro-American settlement of the area. This description characterizes both the existing 

King II lease and permit areas as well as the proposed lease modification area and the entire length of CR 

120 N in the project area. 

For a more in-depth discussion of the culture history of southwestern La Plata County, the reader is

referred to Winter et al. (1986) as well as Lipe et al. (1999). Provided below is a summary of the past 

cultural resource inventory work completed in the project area.

Current Mine Lease and Permit Areas

Multiple Class III, or pedestrian, cultural resource surveys have been conducted within the current King II 

Mine COC-62920 lease and mine permit boundaries; at exploration drill sites on state lands associated 

with CDRMS TR-22; for as-built irrigation and drainage upgrades on state land completed as part of TR25; and at the monitoring well sites associated with TR-26 on private and state lands. 

In 2005, Complete Archaeological Service Associates of Cortez, Colorado conducted a cultural and 

historic resources survey for the mine entrance surface disturbance areas located on state of Colorado 

lands in Section 36, T35N, R12W south of the CO-62920 lease boundary (CASA 2005). This survey 

covered ditch and irrigation upgrade work conducted under TR-25, which is part of the current mine 

permit area. No significant cultural or historic resources eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) or other significant archeological sites that may be affected by surface 

disturbance (including subsidence) were identified in this survey (CASA 2005). The State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the findings of this survey (Contiguglia 2005).
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-142-

In 2010, SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) completed a Class III inventory for the appended 

160-acre lease area in Section 26, T35N, R12W (Eisenhauer and Wilcox 2010). Two previously 

unrecorded sites and four isolates were identified during this inventory. Only one of the sites was 

recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP: Site 5LP9601, a homestead dating to the late 

nineteenth to early twentieth century. Isolates are not eligible for listing on the NRHP. No other 

significant archeological sites that may be affected by surface disturbance were identified in the survey 

(Eisenhauer and Wilcox 2010). The OSMRE determined that the potentially eligible site would be 

avoided by planned mining actions and requested concurrence from the SHPO on August 11, 2010 (Kirby 

2010a) and from the UMU Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) on August 19, 2010 (Kirby 

2010b). 

In 2011, PaleoWest Archaeology (PaleoWest) completed a Class III inventory of five proposed 

exploration drill hole locations in Section 25, T35N, R12W (Gilpin 2011). This area is within the current 

lease and permit area of King II mine. This survey, which covered drill sites associated with TR-22, 

identified two isolated finds that are not eligible for listing on the NRHP. THPO concurrence was 

received for the site eligibility recommendations from this survey (Knight 2012). 

In 2013, PaleoWest conducted a Class III block inventory of Sections 24 and 25 (T35N, R12W) and 

Sections 19 and 30 (T35N, R11W), that included the locations of 11 proposed exploration drill sites 

(Throgmorton and Clark 2014) all within the current mine lease and permit areas. This inventory resulted 

in the discovery of seven historic archaeological sites and 50 isolated finds. The historic sites included 

road segments, a collapsed historic shack, a historic camp, an intake segment, and two dam and reservoir 

sites with associated intakes. The isolated finds included a variety of historic and prehistoric resources. 

PaleoWest recommended all sites as either “Not Eligible to the National Register of Historic Places” or 

noncontributing segments of unevaluated resources. In a letter to the SHPO, OSMRE recommended that 

Sites 5LP.10276 and 5LP.10591, both road segments, need additional data recovery since they have not 

been completely evaluated (Iliff 2015). The SHPO recommended Site 5LP.10591.1 as a non-supporting 

segment of NRHP-eligible resource 5LP.10591, but determined that none of the other sites or isolated 

finds were eligible for listing on the NRHP (Turner 2015).

In 2014, SWCA performed a cultural resource survey of nine core drill sites addressed in TR-22 and 

located on state of Colorado lands in Section 36, T35N, R12W (Wesson and Mowrer 2014). One isolated 

find that consisted of two fragments of aqua bottle glass were identified during the survey. No cultural or 

historic resources eligible for listing on the NRHP or significant archeological sites that may be affected 

by surface disturbance were identified.

Based on the results of these studies within the current lease and permit boundary, two sites have been 

identified to date as eligible for listing on the NRHP:

▪ Site 5LP9601, a historic homestead is potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. The site has 

been avoided to date and is within the current lease and permit area.

▪ Site 5LP.10591.1, a historic road segment located in the survey area, has been identified as a nonsupporting segment of NRHP-eligible resource 5LP.10591. The SHPO has concurred with this 

recommendation. The site has been avoided to date and is within the current lease and permit 

area.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-143-

No other significant cultural sites have been identified to date within the lease and permit boundary.

Proposed Lease Modification and Permit Revision Areas

Surveys have also been completed specific to the proposed lease modification additional acreage tracts. 

With the exception of a portion the 2014 PaleoWest surveys completed for the GCC proposed exploration 

drilling license north of the current and proposed lease modification areas, all surveys were completed 

within the project and analysis area associated with the proposed lease modification and the area analyzed 

for the SMCRA permit revision. 

Within the proposed 950.55 acres of modified lease, approximately 580 acres received Class III intensive 

pedestrian surveys. The cultural resource inventory was completed by PaleoWest and consisted of a 

mixture of reconnaissance and intensive level surveys (which loosely corresponds to Class II and Class III 

surveys, respectively). The survey was completed in 2012 and the results are on file with BLM and 

OSMRE. No permission was granted by the private land owner to survey the remaining surface acreage in 

Tract E. No cultural resources recorded during the survey were determined to be eligible for listing on the 

NRHP. The BLM submitted a letter to the SHPO in December 2014 for informational purposes only with 

the determination that the proposed lease expansion would not affect any historic properties.

In 2016, Stratified Environmental and Archaeological Services conducted a Class III cultural resource 

survey outside of the current lease permit boundary for four groundwater monitoring well drill sites 

associated with TR-26. TR-26 represents a revision to current mine permit that would add several offlease groundwater monitoring well locations to the permit area. One newly recorded prehistoric site 

(5LP.11050) was found during the intensive cultural resource inventory in the vicinity of one of the 

proposed monitoring well sites. Site 5LP.11050, a large Basketmaker III period encampment (ca. AD 

600-750), is considered eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D due to its significant data 

potential. The proposed monitoring well site was relocated more than 50 feet from the site boundary to 

avoid disturbing the cultural site. As Site 5LP.11050 has been avoided by more than 50 feet, no further 

cultural resource work was recommended. Information on SHPO concurrence for this survey was not 

available at the time this EA was prepared.

There are no known NRHP eligible sites within the proposed lease modification area. As all new lease 

and permit areas would be scattered around the edges of the current mine lease and permit areas, it is 

assumed that these areas also contain similar historic sites, isolates and fragments to those found within 

the current mine lease and permit areas. Overall, site density is considered low in the immediate area of 

the mine.

CR 120 Improvements

No cultural resource inventories have been conducted along the CR 120 easement or ROW. Clearance 

surveys would be completed prior to ground disturbing activities following LPC and or CDOT acceptance 

of road improvement engineering design plans.

Native American Religious Concerns

The BLM initiated cultural and Native American consultations on September 25, 2014, by sending 

scoping letters to 26 Native American tribes (NEPA scoping letters sent to 25 tribes on 11/23/2012. Tribal 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-144-

consultation letters mailed to 26 tribes on 4/26/2017). In accordance with the 2011 USDOI Policy on 

Consultation with Indian Tribes and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, OSMRE sent a 

notice of supplemental scoping to 47 tribes from the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation directory of tribes with historic ties to Colorado. 

No Native American religious concerns or potential traditional cultural properties within the permit area 

have been identified by the UMU Tribe, or by the THPO, or by any of the other tribes consulted.

3.13.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Proposed Lease Modification and Permit Revision Areas

Cultural resources, if discovered on the surface of the proposed lease modification tracts in the future, 

could be indirectly impacted by ground disturbing activities such as CR 120 road improvements, 

installation of groundwater monitoring wells, installation and maintenance of stormwater management 

controls, overland access and reclamation activities, etc., all have the potential to directly impact cultural 

resources (if present). With the exception of CR 120 improvements, direct impacts can be avoided or 

minimized by preactivity clearance surveys, and resource avoidance monitoring requirements. Overall, 

direct impacts to cultural resources associated with leasing and or future mining beneath the proposed 

lease medication tracts are expected to be minimal due to the absence of cultural resources in the 

proposed lease tracts. 

Cultural resources, if discovered on the surface of the proposed lease modification tracts in the future, 

could be indirectly impacted by possible subsidence. This impact however is expected to be negligible to 

minor as no NRHP-eligible sites have been found within the proposed lease tracts. Subsidence could also 

adversely impact known or discovered sites within the current lease and permit areas. This potential 

impact is also expected to be negligible to minor as subsidence only occurs very infrequently at King II 

due to a variety of factors (Refer to Section 3.4 Geology and Minerals). Site 5LP9601, a historic 

homestead structure, would not be impacted from subsidence as it occurs on the edge of the existing lease 

areas in an area where no mining panels occur beneath it.

Resource avoidance associated with the widening and resurfacing of CR 120 may not be feasible due to 

engineering and/or ROW restrictions. Accordingly, direct impacts to cultural resources (if present) may 

be unavoidable. This direct impact however would be minor to moderate depending upon the nature of a 

discovered site and whether it can be avoided. Further, it is likely that if any NRHP eligible sites were 

discovered along the CR 120 ROW, that impacts would be mitigated by data recovery requirements by 

the SHPO.

Current Mine Lease and Permit Areas

Continued mining within the current lease and permit areas would continue to have minor potential direct 

impacts to known and/or future discovered resources under the Proposed Action.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-145-

Regulatory Requirements, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

For any proposed future ground-disturbing activities within the proposed lease and permit areas, GCC is 

required by their OSMRE and CDRMS mine permits to complete cultural clearance surveys and agency 

authorization prior to conducting any ground disturbances. As described in the section addressing 

previously completed cultural resource inventories, avoidance of discovered cultural resources is a 

common approach to avoiding or minimizing potential impacts to the resource. LPC and CDOT have 

similar cultural resource clearance requirements prior to any ground-disturbing activities within a LPC 

CR or SH 140 ROW. These clearances have already been obtained for the recently completed and 

ongoing construction activities associated with the Phase 1 and 2 road improvements. As a result of 

regulatory oversight, avoidance measures and when appropriate, data recovery, residual impacts to 

cultural resources would be negligible.

3.13.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Impacts under the No Action Alternative would be the same as under the Proposed Action but would be 

limited to the current lease and permit areas and would only occur for CR 120 N road improvements 

through Phase 3.

3.14 Land Use

3.14.1 Affected Environment

Land use within the project area and along the section of CR 120 N where improvements are proposed is 

largely dominated by agricultural, tribal, and transportation uses. The cultural history of the area is 

discussed in Section 3.14 Cultural Resources. The King Coal Mine began operation in 1938 at its current 

location in Hesperus, Colorado, approximately 2 miles northeast of the King II Mine. The King II Mine

has operated from its current location since the surface operation and portal were constructed in 2007. A 

detailed description of the King II mining operation, including transport and support facilities, can be 

found in Chapters 1 and 2 of this EA. Surface ownership includes a combination of federal land managed 

by the BLM, as well as private, state, and UMU tribal lands, as shown on Map A-2 in Appendix A. 

Farmlands, Prime or Unique

There are no prime or unique farmlands in the proposed project area (USDA/NRCS 2015) that would be 

affected by mining operations or road improvements along CR 120 N.

Agricultural Uses

The project area above the proposed lease area is entirely within an area managed by the UMU as tribal 

ranch properties, specifically Hay Gulch ranch properties. Cattle and horse grazing and fencing are 

evident in the project area; albeit usage is apparently not intensive, and no livestock were observed during 

any of the ground investigations completed in 2015 and 2016 associated with this EA. Along CR 120 N, 

there are mostly fenced pastures for hay production and grazing for livestock and horses.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-146-

Fire Management

While there is no BLM surface jurisdiction associated with the proposed lease modification, the BLM is 

responsible for wildfire management on BLM surface and federal lands in the region. As described in 

Section 3.3 Health and Safety, the OEM and the La Plata County Fire Chief’s Association have developed 

a County-wide AHMP, that among other hazards also deals with wildlife response.

Forest Management

Timber resources in the project area include species such as piñon pine, ponderosa pine, juniper, and 

Gambel oak. Project area forest resources are managed by the UMU Tribe. The UMU Tribe does not 

currently have a forest or Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan for the reservation or for their 

private ranch lands.

Recreation

There are no public recreational activities available in the project area, as nearly all the land in the Project 

area is private property. There are three small (40 to 80 acres each) BLM-administered land parcels 

within 2 miles of the King II Mine (refer to Project Area Map A-2) in Appendix A. The only access to 

these parcels is via UMU private roads that are closed to the public and patrolled by Tribal police. Access 

to UMU tribal and private lands is by tribal permit only. Accordingly, the only recreational opportunities 

in the project area are walking, running, or biking along CR 120 N, which is not a common activity due to 

the truck traffic present along the road. The private UMU lands are likely utilized by a small number of 

tribal members for seasonal hunting.

3.14.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

Because there are no prime or unique farmlands in the Project area, and recreational opportunities are 

limited private residential properties and along CR 120 N, these land uses are not further analyzed below. 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Agricultural Uses

There would be no direct impacts to rangeland health or fencing on UMU ranch properties. It is possible 

that subsidence could damage a UMU range fence. According to the Surface Use Agreement between the 

UMU and GCC, this potential is mitigated by commitments within the agreement. There would be no 

surface impacts to any BLM or federally administered public lands. Accordingly, no impacts to rangeland 

health or to Standards for Public Land Health are expected form the Proposed Action. The dry up of 44-

acres of irrigated farmland associated with the adjudication of Huntington Ditch Class A shares would 

result in an agricultural change of use across the acreage. The historic irrigated use of these acres was for 

the purpose of hay production whereas Huntington would commonly achieve 1-2 cuttings per year. The 

change of use of the subject water would revert these acres to 44-acres of dryland pasture, that in a wet 

year may produce one cutting of hay but that can also be used to pasture animal stock (i.e., cows, horses, 

etc.). Accordingly, there would be long-term, minor impacts to agricultural land use in the project area 

under the Proposed Action.There may be short-term minor impacts associated with temporary fence 

removal and replacement should road improvements encroach on existing fence lines.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-147-

Fire Management

MSHA requires fire suppression systems, firefighting and evacuation plans for both underground coal and 

surface operations. Underground fire protection for mines such as the King II Mine are regulated under 30 

CFR 75.1100. The King II Mine maintains a variety of fire suppression equipment onsite and 

underground to mitigate potential fire hazards. There have been no fires associated with the King II Mine 

since operations began. There is no expectation of increased fire risk associated with the Proposed Action;

therefore, no changes to the BLM’s current fire management plans or programs. Additionally, as stated 

above, the OEM and the La Plata County Fire Chief’s Association have developed a County-wide 

AHMP, that deals with wildlife response. There would be no impacts to area fire management as a result 

of the Proposed Action.

Forest Management

By the terms of GCC’s Surface Use Agreement with the UMU, no trees may be cut without the express 

authorization of the UMU. Therefore, there would be no change or impacts to forest resource 

management in the project area as a result of the Proposed Action.

Recreation

By the terms of GCC’s Surface Use Agreement with the UMU, GCC is required to coordinate access to 

UMU lands with the tribe in order to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to tribal members 

seasonally hunting on the subject ranch properties. Accordingly, negligible to no impacts are expected to 

recreational opportunities in the project area.

3.14.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to land use would be the same as those described under the 

Proposed Action except that they would be shorter in duration.

3.15 Socioeconomics

3.15.1 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics is an umbrella term used to describe aspects of a project that are either social or 

economic in nature. A socioeconomic analysis evaluates how various aspects of the human environment, 

such as population, employment, housing, and public services, might be affected by a proposed action and 

alternatives. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation Section 1508.14 states that “economic 

or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact 

statement (EIS). When an EIS is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental 

effects are interrelated, then the EIS will discuss all of these effects on the human environment.” 

Therefore, the requirement to prepare a socioeconomic analysis in an EA or EIS is project specific and 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-148-

dependent upon the existence of a relationship between natural or physical environmental effects and 

socioeconomic effects.4

The area surrounding the King II Mine, known as Hay Gulch, has historically been a ranching and coal 

mining community. Many area ranches were established in the late 1800’s, and mining operations have 

existed in the same area since approximately 1900. Coal mining at the King I Mine began in 1938 and 

continued in 1941 with the first federal coal lease occurring on land underlying Huntington Ranch. Most 

of the early residential development in Hay Gulch was associated with agricultural families and sparsely 

located along roadways and arable land. Since 1995, residential housing density increased in the Hay 

Gulch area with the establishment of several subdivisions, including Vista de Oro in 1998.

La Plata County has a long history of balancing natural resource and residential development. For 

example, in 2014 LPC had about 3,500 operating natural gas wells and was the second highest natural gas 

producer in Colorado (COGCC 2015). La Plata County was one of the first counties in Colorado to 

establish land use regulations that include compatibility standards for oil and gas development in and 

around residential areas (La Plata County 2009).

The affected area for socioeconomic impacts is determined by the communities that have experienced 

changes to employment, spending, and taxes from the King II Mine as well as scoping issues identified by 

nearby property owners. As such, the affected area defined for this socioeconomic analysis is La Plata and 

Montezuma counties. This affected area is generally rural, with the City of Durango in LPC and the City 

of Cortez in Montezuma County serving as the county seats and commercial centers, as shown on the 

Vicinity Map (Map A-1) in Appendix A.

Table 3-19 shows the population for the affected area with comparison to Colorado as a whole. The total 

population for La Plata and Montezuma counties was about 81,000 in 2015. The affected area is projected 

to grow at about the same rate as the rest of Colorado (approximately 2 percent annually) and with a 

prospective total population of about 125,000 by 2040. 

Table 3-19. Population for Affected Area

Year La Plata County Montezuma County Colorado

2010 51,443 25,515 5,049,935

2015 54,907 26,139 5,456,584

2020 61,539 29,019 5,945,319

2030 74,470 34,360 6,912,413

2040 85,481 39,045 7,802,047

Source: Colorado Demography Office 2016. 

 

4 Adapted from Federal Aviation Administration

Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental 12-1, Health and Safety Risks

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/environ_policy_guidance/policy/faa_nepa_order/desk_ref/media/

12-socioecon-enviro.pdf
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-149-

Employment and income for the affected area are summarized in Table 3-20. Generally, LPC is similar in 

employment and income to Colorado. Montezuma County has a substantially lower median household 

income and higher unemployment and poverty rates than the state (USDC/USCB 2016). 

Focusing on the mining sector, average mining wages of $86,676/year or $43.00/hr in were almost double 

the median household income for Montezuma County (Region 9 2015). Mining sector jobs are especially 

important when “livable wage” requirements in La Plata and Montezuma County are considered. A 

family of four renting a 3-bedroom home needed an hourly wage of more than $28.00 to afford to live in 

Durango and an hourly wage of $25.00 to afford to live in Cortez in 2015 (Region 9 2015a). 

Table 3-20. Employment and Income for the Affected Area

Parameter La Plata County Montezuma County Colorado

Unemployment Rate

(2015 average)

3.5% 5.6% 5.3%

Median Household Income

(2010-2014)

$60,732 $42,975 $63,945

Poverty Percent All Ages (2015) 9.4% 19.3% 11.5%

Minority Population* (% of population) 2015 19.6% 25.5% 29.3%

Median Home Value

(2010-2014)

$333,100 $184,300 $239,400

Source: Unemployment BLS 2016; Median Home Value USCD/USCB 2016 Quickfacts; MHI and Poverty USCD/USCB SAIPE 

2017.

*Minority population defined as part of total population that is not classified by the race/ethnicity category NonHispanic White Alone by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Housing prices in La Plata County were higher than the remainder of Colorado, as measured by median 

home value for the period 2010 to 2014 and shown in Table 3-20. Housing prices in the Hay Gulch area 

as represented by median home prices in rural La Plata County increased by about 50 percent from 

$219,000 in 2003 to a high of $370,000 in 2007 (LPCRHA 2015). After the housing market downturn in 

2008, median home prices in La Plata County for the period 2010-2014 have returned to 90 percent of the 

values reported in 2007. 

GCC employed 91 workers to produce about 625,000 tons of coal in 2016. Based on payroll reported by 

GCC for 2016, the average annual wage or salary paid by GCC was over $73,000, which was 

substantially higher than the median household income reported for the affected area, as shown in Table 

3-20. In addition to labor, the other major expense reported by GCC is the $5 million per year paid to a 

regional subcontractor for truck freight services to transport coal to the railhead in Gallup, New Mexico 

and to GCC’s cement plants in Pueblo, Colorado and Tijeras, New Mexico. 

Since the King II Mine is located in LPC, the county receives property tax revenues generated by the 

mine. In 2015, more than 40 percent of county property tax revenues were generated by natural resource 

extraction, primarily from natural gas production (Shinn 2016). However, with falling natural gas prices 

and production levels, revenue to LPC from natural gas has been steadily dropping and is expected to 

comprise only 30 percent of county property tax revenues in 2017 (Shinn 2016). 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-150-

The federal government receives annual royalty payments from coal lease holders as specified in the 

lease. Generally, royalty payments are 8 percent of the value of the coal removed from an underground 

mine less allowable expenses (43 CFR § 3473). Half of the royalties from federal coal are distributed to 

the federal treasury and the remaining half is returned to the state where the coal was mined. In Colorado, 

half of the federal royalty revenue is distributed to schools and forty percent is deposited into the Energy 

and Mineral Impact Assistance Fund (Headwaters Economics 2015). This fund is managed by the 

Colorado Department of Local Affairs and distributed to counties, cities, and school districts through both 

direct distributions and impact grants to affected communities. Direct distributions are based on impact 

metrics such as employment in mining and measures of mineral activity. Between 2012 and 2014, GCC

reportedly paid an average of $2.8 million in federal coal royalties each year. In addition to royalty 

payments to the State of Colorado, GCC leases 640 acres from the State Land Board both for state trust 

coal and the surface trust lands where the King II mine complex is situated. The 640 acre state trust lands 

lease generates long-term revenues for Colorado schools that go into the School Trust, including to La 

Plata and Montezuma county schools.

3.15.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

The affected area for the socioeconomic impact assessment is La Plata and Montezuma counties, 

Colorado. The direct and indirect socioeconomic effects for the Proposed Action are related to changes to 

mine employment, payroll, expenditures, and tax payments associated with the Proposed Action. 

Socioeconomic impacts were estimated using the IMPLAN model (www.implan.com) and 2015 dataset 

for Montezuma and La Plata counties. GCC’s operation was modeled using Sector 22 (Coal Mining). 

Expenditures for coal transport and federal royalties are not included in the Sector 22 profile and were 

modeled separately. IMPLAN is a proprietary input-output model that captures all monetary market 

transactions of production in a given time period. In its most basic form, an input-output model consists 

of a system of linear equations, each one of which describes the distribution of an industry’s product 

throughout the economy (Miller and Blair 1985; 2009). Regional economic impact analyses, such as was 

done for this EA, describe effects that agency activities may have on economic conditions and local 

economic activity, generally expressed as projected changes in employment, labor income, and economic 

output (Watson et al. 2007). It is important to note that results from an economic impact analysis should 

not be considered as benefits or costs (Watson et al. 2007). Consequently, the increased economic 

activity, discussed in terms of revenue, employment, labor income, total value added, and output are 

simply the economic impacts associated with the alternatives. People, based upon their views and values, 

may perceive this increased economic activity as a ‘positive’ impact that they desire to have occur; 

however, that is very distinct from being an “economic benefit” as defined in economic theory and 

methodology (Watson et al. 2007, Kotchen 2011). Additionally, another person may perceive increased 

economic activity as a ‘negative’ impact due to potential in-migration of new people, competition for 

jobs, and concerns that newcomers will change the sense of community and community qualities that are 

important to herself/himself. Therefore, it is critical to distinguish that how people may perceive an 

economic impact is not the same as, nor should be interpreted as, a cost or a benefit as defined in a costbenefit analysis.

Under the Proposed Action, it is assumed that GCC would adjust its coal production to the maximum 

levels allowed under the RIA with LPC (La Plata County 2016). According to the schedule in the RIA, by 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-151-

2019, GCC would complete road improvements that would allow truck traffic on CR 120 of 80 average 

daily one-way loaded truck trips. These loaded truck trips correspond to an average annual coal 

production of 711,360 and the mine workforce of 91. Additional road improvements scheduled to be 

completed by 2021 would allow GCC to increase annual coal production to more than 1 million tons 

annually. However, by that time, GCC would have mined most of the coal in the lease modification area. 

To conservatively estimate these socioeconomic impacts for the Proposed Action with the IMPLAN 

model, an annual production level of 711,360 tons is used in the model. The socioeconomic impacts for 

the 4.66 million tons of coal produced under the Proposed Action are based on the results of the single 

year modeled with IMPLAN. At this conservative rate, the employment, income, and output would 

continue for about 6.5 years. These annual values are used to estimate socioeconomic impacts for the 

Proposed Action because GCC is limited in annual production by the RIA and other non-economic 

factors. Even if market demand warranted higher production and associated employment and spending, 

non-market factors restrict higher production and make this scenario most representative of future 

economic impacts of the Proposed Action. 

Using the input assumptions listed above, the IMPLAN model results for the Proposed Action scenario 

are summarized in Table 3-21.

Table 3-21. IMPLAN Results for Proposed Action

Parameter Direct Indirect Induced Total

Employment 143 108 85 336 

Labor Income $8,700,000 $6,500,000 $3,200,000 $18,400,000 

Output $17,700,000 $17,800,000 $10,400,000 $100,000,000 

In translating the IMPLAN results to direct and indirect socioeconomic effects for the Proposed Action, it 

is important to consider the definition of IMPLAN’s output parameters as noted below:

▪ Direct effects are based on the values for coal production, truck transport expenditures, and 

federal royalty payments that were used as input data for the Proposed Action scenario. 

▪ Indirect effects are estimates of the impacts of local industries buying goods and services from 

other local industries in La Plata and Montezuma counties. In this case, the impact of GCC and 

truck transport company purchases for other goods and services in the local economy such as 

diesel fuel and gravel.

▪ Induced effects are the results of spending by GCC employees and other workers. Their income is 

recirculated through the local economy through household spending patterns simulated in the 

IMPLAN model. 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The direct socioeconomic impacts of the Proposed Action are measured in terms of the 143 jobs 

generated by 711,360 tons of coal production and associated transport services and royalties that it would 

generate. These 143 jobs include 91 jobs at the coal mine, 28 jobs in truck transportation, 15 state and 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-152-

federal government jobs as well as other jobs in service industries. Most of the direct jobs are in the 

relatively high-paying mining and transport industries.

The indirect socioeconomic impacts of the Proposed Action would be an additional 193 jobs supported by 

spending by GCC and its contractors in a variety of regional industries including construction, trade, and 

retail. The indirect effects also include spending and taxes by GCC employees and contractors. The 

indirect socioeconomic effects of the Proposed Action amount to 1 percent of regional employment and 4 

percent of labor income.

In addition to the direct and indirect economic activity estimated by IMPLAN, federal, state, and local 

governments would realizetax and royalty revenues generated by coal production. For example, it is 

estimated that GCC would pay about $300,000 in property taxes and $80,000 in road impact fees to LPC

annually under the Proposed Action. In addition, La Plata and Montezuma counties would receive sales 

taxes on purchases by GCC and its contractors as well as a portion of federal royalties.

It is estimated that the Proposed Action would generate about $17 million in federal royalty payments for 

the 4.66 million tons of recoverable coal estimated in the lease modification area. The associated annual 

revenue stream would depend on coal production, sales price, and allowable deductions. On average, it is 

estimated that $2 to $3 million would be split annually between the federal treasury and state and local 

governments in Colorado. 

The extension of mining operations made possible by the lease modification would also extend the annual 

payroll, local expenditures, and taxes and royalty payments by approximately 4 to 6 years depending on 

annual coal production rates. 

Other potential socioeconomic impacts such as nuisance issues, changes to quality of life, and property 

values related to the Proposed Action were evaluated and addressed by LPC as part of its land use 

planning permit for the King II mine property. Currently, residential property development is dispersed on 

relatively large lots along CR 120 and in the subdivisions surrounding the King II mine property. Part of 

LPC’s land use application process includes consideration for compatible development. This 

“compatibility review” is an integral part of GCC’s Class II Land Use Application and documents the 

mitigation measures and programs that GCC has or will undertake to ensure that continued operation of 

the King II Mine will be compatible with surrounding residential and agricultural development. 

Compatibility for the King II Mine is evaluated in terms of traffic conditions, noise, dust, and vibration 

levels, water consumption, and character, including view and privacy. As a result of LPC’s issuance of a 

Class II LUP, GCC will be required to implement mitigation measures to ensure that the character, 

privacy, view, and traffic from the Proposed Action will be compatible with surrounding development. 

There are many factors that determine relative property value including location and condition of the 

property and property improvements such as home or irrigation systems as compared to similar 

properties, the character of surrounding properties, and other market conditions related to supply, 

demand, and mortgage interest rates. Often times these exogenous factors are considered amenities.

Amenities maybe positive or negative in nature and are often subjective. Positive amenities may include 

factors such as clean water, beautiful vistas, and close proximity to recreation sites. Negative amenities 

are referred to as disamenities and may include factors such as proximity to four-lane highways, industrial 

viewsheds, and pollution. The difficulty lies in the subjective nature of determining whether an attribute is 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-153-

a positive amenity or a disamenity. Some may see having a property adjacent to a public bike trail as an 

amenity, appreciating the ease of access to trails, while others may view the adjacent bike trail as a 

disamenity due to concerns about trespassing and litter. To isolate the influence of an individual variable 

such as the character of surrounding properties on property values in a specific location requires detailed

statistical analysis that is beyond the scope of analysis for this EA. During the preparation of this EA, the 

La Plata County Assesser’s Office was contacted regarding the subject of property values along CR 120 

N. According to Craig Larson, County Assessor, property value assessments are indeed driven by the 

factors described above. Most important are the market driven factors associated with the sales of 

comparable property parcels in the area. Although potential impacts to property values is an often cited 

concern associated with underground coal mining, a review of literature has found only one study that 

was specific to examining underground coal mining on property values in the United States. This study 

done by Kern, Falkenstern, and Stingelin (2002) examined the effects of longwall mining on property 

values in Greene and Washington counties, Pennsylvania across a ten year period (1993-2002). The 

results of this study concluded that when comparing sales value data as well as assessed county value 

data, there was “no statistically significant correlation between the presence of longwall mining and 

general or average property values” (Kern, Falkenstern, and Stingelin 2002, p. 32). Other research on 

environmental impacts indicate that in general, properties above underground coal mining could still be 

impacted negatively due to subsidence, decreased groundwater quantity and quality of nearby domestic 

water wells, mining related traffic, and by mining related noise and vibrations.

While the magnitude of detrimental impacts or negative amenities to property values from the Proposed 

Action are not easily estimated, the likelihood of significant detrimental effects is low because of the 

Design Features included in the Proposed Action and the mitigation measures in the RIA and other 

requirements of GCC’s Class II LUP that are monitored and enforced by LPC. Therefore, potential 

adverse impacts to quality of life and property values of surrounding residents will be mitigated by 

Design Features in the Proposed Action and monitoring and enforcement by LPC of its land regulations.

Overall, socioeconomic impacts would be minor to moderate and could include impacts such as increased 

traffic and dust as well as increased economic activity such as jobs and income lasting for the duration of 

mine operations.

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

GCC is committed to implementation of Design Feature #5 under which GCC shall pay an annual 

Maintenance Fee for their usage of CR 120. Until January 1, 2018, the Maintenance Fee shall be $0.12 

per ton of coal removed from the Mine Project. Thereafter, the Maintenance Fee shall increase yearly in 

accordance with increases in the Annual Construction Cost Index published by the Colorado Department 

of Transportation. Other Design Features (4a, 4b, 1a, and 1b) all mitigate impacts to area residences to 

comply with LPC land use “compatibility” standards.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-154-

3.15.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM coal lease modification would not be granted, but coal mining 

at the King II Mine would continue under the current mine lease and plan to satisfy customer demand and 

contractual obligations until these reserves are depleted. Without the lease modification, an estimated 4.66 

million recoverable tons of federal coal would be permanently bypassed. Reductions in jobs and 

associated salaries, local expenditures, royalty and tax payments would occur as coal production ceases.

If the BLM were to decline to issue the coal lease modification, GCC would need to find other sources of 

mineable coal, either in a location accessible from the existing King II Mine or at another location. If 

GCC were not able to lease additional coal reserves from the existing King II Mine, the operation would 

need to close and be reclaimed. Reclamation activities would have temporary socioeconomic impacts

associated with the jobs and spending by GCC to complete reclamation of the mine.

The economic effects of the No Action Alternative would include the loss of the salaries and wages for 

coal mining and transport as well as royalty and tax payments to local governments when the mine ceases

production. Given the employment and income estimates for the Proposed Action, this could amount to a 

loss of 1 percent of local employment and 4 percent of labor income. Federal, state, and local 

governments would forego about $17 million in federal royalties from permanently bypassing 4.66 

million tons of federal coal reserve. Some area residents may appreciate the reduced traffic, noise, and 

dust associated with the mine closure.

3.16 Environmental Justice

3.16.1 Affected Environment

Executive Order 12898 of 1994, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations,” states each federal agency shall make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations. The purpose of EO 12898 is to identify and address, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on low-income 

populations, minority populations, or Indian tribes that may experience common conditions of 

environmental exposure or effects associated with a plan or project. EO 12898 requires federal agencies 

to ensure opportunities for effective public participation by potentially affected low-income populations, 

minority populations, or Indian tribes. As such, this document includes an assessment of the impacts from 

the project on minority and low-income populations.

For this EA, low-income populations in the affected area of La Plata and Montezuma counties are 

identified by the percentage of individuals living below the poverty level as reported by the U.S. Census 

Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates and shown in Table 3-20. Minority populations are 

identified by race and ethnicity as reported by individuals for the U.S. Census and shown in Table 3-20. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-155-

Additionally, EO 12898 applies to federally recognized Indian Tribes. The Southern Ute and UMU

reservations are located within the affected area and the UMU Tribe owns the surface land above the 

King II mine, though this land is not included on the Reservation.

To consider potential environmental justice issues as they pertain to Indian Tribes, and in accordance with 

the 2011 USDOI Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes and the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, OSMRE sent a notice of supplemental scoping to 47 tribes from the Colorado Office of 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation directory of tribes with historic ties to Colorado including the 

UMU and Southern Ute Tribes. In response to this notice, no tribal responses were received expressing 

concerns for any potential impacts or environmental justice issues.

In reviewing the study area for vulnerable populations that could be disproportionately affected by the 

Proposed Action, Montezuma County which includes the UMU Indian Reservation has higher portions of 

persons living in poverty than the State of Colorado as a whole. This higher poverty rate identifies this 

population as potentially vulnerable to socioeconomic impacts associated with the Proposed Action.

3.16.2 Impacts from the Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Disproportionate adverse impacts to low-income populations in Montezuma County are reviewed for the 

Proposed Action The economic impacts of the Proposed Action as measured in terms of employment, 

income, and government revenue would provide Montezuma County residents and government agencies 

annual revenue and employment opportunities for the duration of coal production (4 to 6 years). The 

socioeconomic impacts would be distributed across the affected area according to GCC’s spending 

patterns and hiring practices. For example, sales tax revenues would be distributed according to the 

location where purchases are made. It is expected that GCC’s spending patterns and hiring practices 

would not change in ways that would disproportionately affect Montezuma County residents under the 

Proposed Action.

Other socioeconomic impacts such as adverse impacts to quality of life or property value would not 

disproportionately affect low-income residents of Montezuma County because they would occur near the 

mine location in La Plata County and be mitigated by LPC land use regulations. 

With respect to the UMU Tribe, there were no environmental justice issues raised during supplemental 

scoping and UMU Tribe maintain a Surface Use Agreement with GCC that among other things, 

financially compensates the UMU Tribe for surface impacts to the UMU-owned lands above the proposed 

lease modification acreage. Therefore, the UMU Tribe would not be disproportionately affected by the 

Proposed Action or future action associated with the King II Mine. 

There are no environmental or resource related disproportional impacts to low-income or minority 

populations in the project area. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-156-

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts

Because there are no disproportionate adverse impacts to vulnerable populations in the affected area, no 

mitigation measures are warranted.

3.16.3 Impacts from the No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The environmental justice impacts for the No Action Alternative would be the same as for the Proposed 

Action because the level of coal production and associated mining activities as well as jobs and revenue 

would the same as for the Proposed Action but for a shorter duration as minable coal reserves are depleted 

earlier in time. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-157-

4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative effects are defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes other such actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period 

of time." (40 CFR 1508.7)

For cumulative effects, baseline conditions include past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

conditions in the affected area. A summary of these conditions are included here since they are common 

for all resources. The past and present uses of the proposed lease modification area include coal mining, 

historic oil and gas exploration and limited development, livestock grazing, and wildlife habitat. 

Reasonably foreseeable future activities include continued underground mining, continued coal 

exploration, continued area coal leasing, continued surface coal mine reclamation, continued oil and gas 

operations, wildfire, logging, vegetation management, agriculture and grazing, recreation, and wildlife 

habitat. These various activities are consistent with reasonably foreseeable future activities described in 

the TRFO RMP (USDI/BLM. 2015a). The affected area for cumulative effects varies by resource and is 

specified with the effects. Generally, the affected area for cumulative effects centers around the proposed 

and existing lease areas for the King II Mine and Hay Gulch community and along CR 120 N associated 

with proposed road improvements. For some resources, such as air and socioeconomics, the area of 

cumulative affect analysis is larger. Resources that are not impacted by the Proposed Action, such as 

recreation, environmental justice, land use, and health and safety, are not presented in this section.

4.1 Past and Present Actions

The primary existing (past and present) disturbances within or near the Project area, including the King I 

and II mine sites and along CR 120 to SH 140 are associated with mining, oil and gas development, 

agricultural practices and livestock grazing, and residential/subdivision development. Provided below are 

summaries of these past and present actions:

▪ Historic underground coal mining activities (there were no surface coal mines) over the past 

century included the following in the area (pers. comm., T. Bird. March 15, 2015): 

• Hesperus Mine

• Burnwell #1 and #2 Mines

• Hay Gulch Mine

• Rasmussen Mine

• Hunt Mine

• Supreme Mine

• Wright #1 and #2 Mines

• Durkan Mine
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-158-

• Tipotsch Mine

• Dunn Mine

• Arness-McGriffin Mine

• Peacock Mine

• La Plata #1 Mine

• King I Mine

• Blue Flame Mine

▪ Figure 3-3 in the King I & II Coal Mine Area Hydrologic Study (Resource Hydrologic Services 

2016), shows the locations of these past underground mines. Generally, they were located 

immediately off CR 120 N on both the north and south sides of the CR from 1 to 5 miles east of 

the King II Mine.

Over the last century, there has been subsidence in a number of areas above the historic mines. 

However, there has been no known damage to overlying resources or to structures attributable to 

this subsidence. Subsidence may have aggravated or contributed to some landslide movements; 

this has been documented in the case of the Hesperus Mine along Colorado Highway 160 and the 

Blue Flame Mine in Hay Gulch. The Hesperus Mine was also the site of a fire in the coal seam. 

Both mass movement and fires are attributable to shallow overburden, steep slopes, and outcrops 

of the coal seam.

▪ Currently, the only mining presently occurring in the Hay Gulch area is the underground coal 

extraction occurring at the King II Mine.

▪ Hard rock mining has historically , and currently occurs within La Plata Canyon approximately 

10 miles north of Hay Gulch.

▪ Past oil and gas activity within the region has included development of oil and gas wells. Wells 

adjacent to the coal lease modification area in Hay Gulch have been plugged and/or abandoned 

(COGCC 2015). Current oil and gas development is centered on drilling locations to the east and 

south in the San Juan Basin. There is some interest in drilling in the Mancos Shale in western La 

Plata and eastern Montezuma Counties, but little activity presently. The nearest current oil and 

gas wells are approximately 4 miles east of Hay Gulch.

▪ The surface over much of the existing and proposed lease area is owned by the UMU Tribe and 

operated by the UMU Tribe Farm and Ranch Enterprise. Presently, the tribe maintains a cattle 

herd of about 700 cows and bred heifers that are pastured at the Hay Gulch Ranch (UMUT 2015). 

Horses are also pastured at the ranch.

▪ Hay Gulch is a productive agricultural area with livestock and farming operations. Dry and 

irrigated agricultural activities contribute to air pollution through generation of dust and also 

impact area water sources. Ranching and farming (predominantly hay production) have taken 

place in the area for over a century.

▪ Dispersed residential development has occurred in the Hay Gulch area for over 100 years. In 

1998, Vista de Oro, a 1,000+ acre ranch immediately west of the King II Mine was incorporated 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-159-

and permitted to develop 35 homesites. In about 2002, Vista de Oro was opened and residential 

development began; including the drilling of water wells, increased vehicle traffic and human 

activity in the area; and property fencing and fire mitigation occurred. Durango and LPC have 

been growing at a rate equal to that of the overall state of Colorado (2 percent per year). 

Montezuma County to the west has experienced a growth rate over the last 10 years of less than 

half of that of the state overall (refer to Section 3.16). Associated with this residential growth is 

an unknown amount of utility and road construction.

▪ There is a current La Plata West Water Conservancy District proposal to develop a domestic 

water supply pipeline to western LPC. The pipeline would be developed in multiple phases over 

the next 10 years—dependent upon available grant and private funding. All of the proposed water 

system would be south of the Project area. No water supply lines are proposed along CR 120. It is 

estimated that the project could temporarily disturb up to 100 acres along various other CRs on 

the west side of La Plata County.

▪ There is no developed recreation in the area as most of the accessible properties are private and 

access controlled.

4.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Reasonably foreseeable future actions are focused on mining, oil and gas, livestock grazing, and 

residential/agricultural development. To a lesser degree, prescribed burns or other vegetation treatments, 

wildfire, and water impoundment projects are also reasonably foreseeable.

▪ Underground coal mining is projected to continue at the King II Mine. The level of coal 

production would depend on market demand for cement and associated coal as well as 

availability of economically recoverable coal reserves in the immediate area. Under the Proposed 

Action, coal reserves would be increased by 4.66 million tons/yr., which would enable continue 

operation of the mine until around 2023. It is reasonable to expect that GCC will again propose 

modification of their federal coal lease and/or will apply for a lease by application to extend the 

life of the mine further into to the future than can be done via a traditional lease modification.

In 2006, the Colorado Geologic Society (CGS 2006) estimated the coal resource in the San Juan 

Basin to be 9.61 billion tons of coal. Under the terms of the SMCRA of 1977, the BLM 

conducted coal unsuitability assessments to determine the suitability of lands for surface coal 

mining, leasing and development operations. Based on the unsuitability assessments (BLM 1985; 

SJNF 1983), 46,000 acres are identified as acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing

within the TRFO, with an estimated reserve of 1.5 billion tons. Of this estimated reserve, it is 

unknown how much is reasonably expected to be developed in the future.

▪ It is difficult to forecast future oil and gas development within the cumulative impact assessment 

region. In about 2012, the San Juan Basin experienced an increase in oil and gas development that 

exceeded the past average annual rate of development. Increased activity was due to changes in 

technology for the drilling and development of the conventional Mancos Shale wells and further 

driven by high oil prices. Depressed oil and gas market prices stalled the short boom period in 

late 2014. Oil and gas development in the project area and region is currently at its lowest level in 

two decades. In addition, the leasing of federal oil and gas rights in the project area has been 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-160-

deferred for the foreseeable future pending completion of the Tres Rios Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern RMP Amendment, as well as a subsequent evaluation of the area for 

potential for a master leasing plan.

The impacts of oil and gas developments, as well as other resource management actions, were 

addressed in the RMP/FEIS based on a reasonable foreseeable development (RFD) scenario of 

approximately 2,950 new wells in the next 15 years. Only 22 new wells have been approved in 

the eighteen months since the 2015 RMP was signed. This represents an average of 1.2 new wells 

every month, which is only 7 percent of the RFD’s predicted monthly average. Thus, the impacts 

to date from oil and gas development are much lower than those anticipated under the approved 

plan, and are within the range of those analyzed in the RMP FEIS. (USDI/BLM 2015a)

▪ Agricultural uses and ranching and livestock production are anticipated to continue in the area. 

▪ Dispersed residential development will likely continue in Hay Gulch and adjacent areas of La 

Plata and Montezuma counties. According to a 2015 Regional Housing Alliance (Iverson 2015) 

study, La Plata County is projected to grow 52 percent over the next twenty years, generating 

demand for an additional 15,700 housing units. That equates to about 2 percent population growth 

per year. According to the same study, demand will likely shift in the direction of more compact 

and more multi-family housing products closer to Durango where the job center is located.

4.3 Cumulative Impacts

The following section describes potential cumulative impacts to resources near the project area from the 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in conjunction with the Proposed Action. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). Resources not expected to be impacted by the Proposed Action 

(refer to Chapter 3) are not carried through the cumulative impact assessment. The cumulative impacts 

analysis area (CIAA) varies by resource. It may be restricted to the immediate project area (e.g., for soil 

impacts) or an entire watershed (e.g., for water resources). For the analysis of the cumulative impacts, it is 

assumed that all design features and any applicable mitigation measures would be implemented. 

4.3.1 Cumulative Air Quality and Climate

The cumulative impact assessment for air quality considers how air emissions from mine operations and 

coal transport when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

cumulative impacts to air quality in the King II Mine area would result primarily from emissions of PM10

from the current and future activities occurring within the region. 

To examine potential cumulative air quality impacts from activities that it authorizes, BLM initiated the 

Colorado Air Resources Management Modeling Study (CARMMS). The study was primarily concerned 

with assessing statewide impacts of projected oil and gas development (both federal and fee (i.e., private)) 

out to year 2021 for three development scenarios (low, medium, and high). Projections for development 

are based on either the most recent Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) document (high), or a 

projection of the current 5-year average development pace forward to 2021 (low). The medium scenario 

includes the same well count projections as the high scenario, but assumes restricted emissions, whereas 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-161-

the high assumes current development practices and existing emissions controls required by regulations 

(2012). Each BLM field office was modeled with the source apportionment (SA) option, meaning that 

incremental impacts to regional ozone and AQRVs from development in these areas are essentially 

tracked to better understand the significance of such development on impacted resources and populations. 

The 2021 future year for all other sources of emissions (i.e., not oil and gas and mining) were based on 

EPA’s 2020 projections used in the PM2.5 NAAQS rulemaking (EPA 2012).

The CARMMS project leverages the work completed by the WestJumpAQMS, and the base model 

platform configuration (CAMx), meteorology (WRF), and model performance metrics are based on those 

products. The complete report and associated data is available on our website at:

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/program_natural%20resources_soil%20air%20water_airco_quic

k%20link_CARMMS.pdf. The CARMMS model domain has a minimum grid resolution of 4 km.

Because CAMx is a one-atmospheric dispersion model, it requires emissions inventories to be modeled 

accurately at both spatial and temporal scales. This fact allowed the BLM to leverage the study and apply 

the source apportionment technology to all of the emissions from coal mines in Colorado that produce 

federal coal. Unfortunately, the Bureau did not have the resources to track each mine independently as 

was done for each field office’s oil and gas development (which was the primary purpose of the 

CARMMS model), but rather all of the mines were tracked together as a single source group. The source 

group included the following existing and hypothetical mines:

▪ Book Cliffs Area (Grand Junction)

▪ McClane (Grand Junction)

▪ Bowie (Uncompahgre)

▪ King II (Tres Rios)

▪ Foidel (Kremmling)

▪ Deserado (White River)

▪ Trapper (Little Snake)

▪ Colowyo (Little Snake)

▪ Sage Creek (Little Snake)

▪ West Elk (Uncompahgre)

▪ Elk Creek (Uncompahgre)

The study provided for a single mining scenario based on each mines maximum allowable emissions rate, 

which were estimated based on the CDPHE APEN database and available EISs and EAs prepared for 

previous authorizations. We note the most mines in Colorado are not currently producing at their 

maximum (i.e., what CARMMS analyzed) authorized capacities. EPA default chemical speciation 

profiles were used in the SMOKE emissions modeling for mining except that the EPA mining PM2.5

speciation profile was adjusted for abnormally high sulfur emissions that were erroneous for typical 

underground mining operations. The modelled emissions details are provided in Appendix D and D-1 in 

the CARMMS report (web reference provided above). 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-162-

Although the predicted impacts are based on a future model year emissions (2021), the differences in the 

impacts between the scenarios and the base year provide insight into how mass emission changes impact 

the atmosphere on a relative basis, and are thus useful for making qualitative and quantitative 

comparisons with emissions levels at the current pace of development.

The results (Figure 4-1) show that PM emission impacts are primarily the result of surface mining 

facilities in the northern portion of the CARMMS analysis domain. In general, primary PM (the kind the 

mines emit) is a localized pollutant. The 4-km grid resolution of the model is less sensitive to settling and 

terrain impacts (i.e., plume depletion) for primary PM than a nearfield model would show. Although the 

PM concentrations are a bit high due to the model resolution, they are reasonable across the larger 

domain. The PM contributions from all of the mines appears to be fairly low around the King II facility 

(not more than 0.4μg/m3for PM10 and 0.2μg/m3for PM2.5). The other pollutants (NO2 and O3) are also 

equally minor impactors, although we note that the ozone predictions are a function of the mines direct 

NOx and VOC contributions and does not include CMM VOCs since they are unknown.

Figure 4-1. CARMMS Mining Results
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-163-

For the TRFO, we are disclosing the high CARMMS scenario (Figure 4-2) to account for all of the 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could occur within the area (mostly oil and gas development), 

while noting that the area is currently tracking far below the low scenario.

Figure 4-2. CARMMS 2021 TRFO High Oil and Gas Scenario Emissions

The high scenario oil and gas development emissions are large enough to account for all of the reasonably 

foreseeable activities outlined in the CARMMS report that have significant emissions generation potential 

(refer to Figure 4-3)
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-164-

Figure 4-3. CARMMS TRFO Oil and Gas Results

As can be seen in the source apportionment results, the impacts are relatively minor, and are mostly the 

result of development in and proximate to the Gothic Shale Play area. The King II mine has far fewer 

NOX and VOC emissions than that of the high oil and gas scenario, such that the mine itself would not be 

expected to contribute significantly to direct ozone formation. Several other data metrics produced by 

CARMMS to describe potential impacts to sensitive resources are disclosed in Table 4-1 below. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-165-

Table 4-1. Maximum Source Group Contributions

Source 

Group

Visibility Impacts Deposition AQRV Max Contribution 

to Exceedance

Max 

dv

Days 

> 

0.5dv

Days 

> 

1.0dv

(kgN/ha-yr) Impacted 

Area

O3 PM2.5

CO Mines 0.125 0 0 0.0014 Mesa Verde 0.474 45.625

TRFO O&G 1.415 4 35 0.126 Meas Verde 0.381 0.036

As would be expected given the plots above the Colorado Mines (particularly the surface mines) 

contribute greatly to the PM related NAAQS and visibility impacts. Although the exact King II 

contributions cannot be teased out of the data, its highly unlikely that the mines emissions contribute a 

significant fraction of the modeled AQRV impacts shown above, given the isolation of the facility in 

relation to the impacted area and the localized nature of the PM emmissions.

For the total cumulative results (rolled up source apportionment and total model outputs), the BLM is 

disclosing the low CARMMS scenario. Figure 4-4 below shows the tracked report year (2015) federal oil 

and gas development emissions contrasted to each CARMMS scenario, where the emissions levels of 

each pollutant are shown relative to the High scenario (i.e., the high scenario is 100 percent on the graph). 

In most cases the 2015 emissions are far below the low CARMMS scenario, such that this has been 

deemed the appropriate scenario to disclose given the likelihood or potential for emissions generating 

activities to exceed the 2021 estimates in the short term. As noted above the mining emission were held 

constant in all future year scenarios such that those impacts are static regardless of the CARMMS oil and 

gas scenario.

Figure 4-4. CARMMS BLM CO Cumulative Oil and Gas Tracking (federal)
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-166-

Figure 4-5. CARMMS BLM CO Results (federal)

As shown in Figure 4-5 above, it is fairly evident that the surface mines are driving the estimated PM 

impacts within the CARMMS model from all of the federal emissions. We also note that the impacts 

represent the maximum contributions recorded (in the form of the applicable standard), but that these 

maximums are not necessarily relative to any exceedance values that may have been modeled for a 

pollutant shown (refer to Table 4-2).
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-167-

Table 4-2. Maximum Source Group Contributions

Source Group

Visibility Impacts Deposition AQRV Max Contribution to 

Exceedance

Max 

dv

Days 

> 

0.5dv

Days 

> 

1.0dv

(kgN/ha-yr) Impacted Area O3 PM2.5

CO O&G and 

Mines (federal)

0.655 16 0 0.043 Mount Zirkel 

(vis)/Flat Tops 

(dep)

0.621 45.737

The plots in Figures 4-6 and 4-7 show the maximum modeled concentrations and the expected changes 

from future emissions relative to the base year. As can be seen, the majority of the analysis area sees 

relatively modest decreases or no changes to ozone formation potential. Particulate matter impacts are 

mostly confined to the urban areas in Colorado, and can be attributed to the expected population increases 

projected to occur (which have occurred steadily since the CARMMS base year). Interestingly these areas 

also project some of the largest drops (undoubtably due to tighter mobile source standards). Another 

interesting model artifact is the high ozone predicted along the I-70 corridor north of the proposed project 

area. This region has always been a “hot spot” for the CAMx and CMAQ photo-chemical models (even in 

the updated Intermountain West Data Warehouse 2011b platform), for reasons which are currently 

unknown. Although we suspect the area’s topography, especially the rapid elevation gains along the Roan 

cliffs, along with the limits of the CAMx and WRF meteorological model resolutions may have 

something to do with it. Ultimately, it has been shown that the model tends to over predict ozone in 

western Colorado. So the ozone results on face value should be considered conservative.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-168-

Figure 4-6. CARMMS Cumulative “one atmosphere” Results
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-169-

Figure 4-7. CARMMS Cumulative Changes (future minus base)

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

The following information on predicted climate change has been summarized from the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

All of the climate change predictions made by the climate science community are predicated upon various 

global GHG emissions scenarios, known as Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) (refer to 

https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome#intro). RCPs are not fully 

integrated scenarios of climate feedback, policy, or socioeconomic projections, but rather a consistent set 

of projections of only the components of radiative forcing that are meant to serve as input for climate 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-170-

modeling, pattern scaling, and atmospheric chemistry modeling (Refer to Figures 4-8 and 4-9). The RCPs 

provide a consistent analytical baseline from which climate science communities can start additional 

analysis from. For the purposes of this EA the BLM has chosen to focus on RCP’s 2.6 and 4.5 (where 

data and analysis is available) as likely scenarios for analysis given the recent and reasonably foreseeable 

regulatory developments, policy changes, and actions that are being formulated or occurring at home and 

internationally in response to predicted climate change. Additionally, these scenarios are the only two that 

result in decreasing future emissions relative to the baseline. The RCP 2.6 pathway, developed by the 

IMAGE modeling team, is representative of scenarios leading to very low greenhouse gas 

emissions/concentration levels. Its radiative forcing level is predicted to peak at a value around 3.1 W/m2

(Watt per square meter) mid-century before returning to 2.6 W/m2 by 2100. The RCP4.5 pathway, 

developed by the MiniCAM modeling team, is a stabilization scenario where total radiative forcing is 

stabilized before 2100 by employment of a range of technologies and strategies for reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions. It should be noted that according to the IPCC, only projections following the lowest 

concentration pathway (RCP2.6) result in an estimated mean increase in global average temperatures 

below 2°C (the current internationally agreed upon target for limiting average surface warming). Equally 

important, IPCC scientists project warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except for 

RCP2.6.

The RCP2.6 scenario provides for an abrupt and rapid decline in CO2 emissions starting around 2020, 

with atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and subsequent radiative forcing stabilizing between 2040 and 

2060. This scenario also provides for “negative emissions” starting in 2080, and essentially projects more 

carbon being removed from the atmosphere than is emitted. The curve suggests that emissions from fossil 

fuels and other sources would decline by approximately 3.5 percent per year until 2040, and then continue 

at a pace of approximately 10 percent per year until the emissions become negative between 2070 and 

2080. The RCP4.5 scenario forecasts global emissions will increase until about 2040, with actual 

stabilization occurring between 2030 and 2050. Starting in 2050 RCP4.5 scenario emissions would start 

to decline at rates commensurate with the 2.6 pathway until 2080, when emissions stabilize again through 

the end of the century. As noted earlier, GHG concentrations and forcing would continue to rise under 

RCP4.5 scenario through the end of the century, although the rate of increase diminishes significantly 

around 2070.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-171-

Figure 4-8. Global GHG Emissions Projections

Figure 4-9. CO2e Atmospheric Concentration Projections

Projected Climate Impacts

The future climate equilibrium is dependent upon warming caused by past anthropogenic emissions, 

future anthropogenic emissions, and natural variability. Global mean surface temperature change for the 

period 2016–2035 relative to 1986–2005 is similar for the four RCPs and will likely be in the range 0.3°C 

to 0.7°C (medium confidence). The projection assumes no major volcanic eruptions, changes in natural 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-172-

emissions sources (e.g., CH4 and N2O), or unexpected changes in total solar irradiance. By 2050, the 

magnitude of the projected climate change is significantly affected by the overall emissions path the 

world is tracking along.

The projected increase of global mean surface temperature by the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) 

relative to 1986–2005 is likely to be 0.3°C to 1.7°C under RCP2.6, 1.1°C to 2.6°C under RCP4.5, 1.4°C 

to 3.1°C under RCP6.0 and 2.6°C to 4.8°C under RCP8.5. It is virtually certain that there will be more 

frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales, 

as global mean surface temperature increases. It is also very likely that heat waves will occur with a 

higher frequency and longer duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur, due to the 

inherent variability within the climate system. Changes in precipitation patterns will not be uniform, but 

in general arid regions are expected to become dryer while wetter areas can expect more frequent 

exceptional precipitation events. Oceans will continue to warm, with the greatest impacts occurring at the 

surface of tropical and northern hemisphere subtropical regions. Models also predict ocean acidification 

will increase for all RCP scenarios, where surface pH can be expected to decrease by 0.06 to 0.07 (15 to 

17 percent) for RCP2.6 and 0.14 to 0.15 (38 to 41 percent) for RCP4.5. Year-round reductions in Arctic 

sea ice are projected for all RCP scenarios and it is virtually certain that near-surface (upper 3.5 m) 

permafrost extent at high northern latitudes will be reduced (37 percent - RCP2.6 to 81 percent - RCP8.5) 

as global mean surface temperature increases. Global mean sea level rise will very likely continue at a 

faster rate than observed from 1971 to 2010. For the period 2081–2100 relative to 1986–2005, the rise 

will likely be in the ranges of 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, and of 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. It is very 

likely that the sea level will rise in more than about 95 percent of the ocean area, where about 70 percent

of coastlines worldwide would experience a sea level change within ±20 percent of the global mean.

All climate model projections indicate future warming in Colorado. Statewide average annual 

temperatures are projected to warm by +2.5°F to +5°F by 2050 relative to a 1971–2000 baseline under 

RCP4.5. Under the high emissions scenario (RCP8.5), the projected warming is +3.5°F to +6.5°F and 

would occur later in the century as the two referenced scenarios diverge. Summer temperatures are 

projected to warm slightly more than winter temperatures, where the maximums would be similar to the 

hottest summers that have occurred in the past 100 years. Precipitation projections are less clear, with 

individual models showing a range of changes by 2050 of -5 percent to +6 percent for RCP 4.5 percent, 

and -3 percent to +8 percent under RCP8.5. Nearly all of the models predict an increase in winter 

precipitation by 2050, although most projections of snowpack (April 1 Snow Water Equivalent) show 

declines by mid-century due to the projected warming. Late-summer flows are projected to decrease as 

the peak shifts earlier in the season, although the changes in the timing of runoff are more certain than 

changes in the amount of runoff. In general, the majority of published research indicates a tendency 

towards future decreases in annual streamflow for all of Colorado’s river basins. Increased warming, 

drought, and insect outbreaks, all caused by or linked to climate change, will continue to increase wildfire 

risks and impacts to people and ecosystems.

The Office of Natural Resources Revenue, U.S. Department of the Interior data shows that in 2015 total 

federal (onshore) production of coal in the country stood at approximately 389,606,150 tons. As a whole 

(federal and non-federal), the U.S. produced approximately 896,940,563 tons of coal in 2015 (U.S. 

Energy Information Administration). Federal coal made up approximately 43 percent of the total 2015 

production, and in general has continued to decline along with the total coal production nationally. On an 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-173-

annual basis, the maximum production year for the Proposed Action would represent 0.27 percent of all 

federal coal produced nationally and 0.11 percent of all the coal produced in the U.S. relative to 2015. 

The total direct and estimated indirect GHG emissions from the maximum projected King II production 

would be approximately 0.07 percent of the total U.S. emissions relative to 2016, and 0.01 percent of the 

total global GHG burden relative to 2011 on a worst-case year annualized basis. 

In this analysis, the agencies acknowledge that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are contributing 

to climate change. The agencies present a qualitative discussion of the environmental effects of climate 

change. The agencies have used estimated GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Action as a 

reasonable proxy for the effects of climate change in this NEPA analysis. The agencies have placed those 

emissions in the context of relevant state emissions. The climate change analysis recognizes that there are 

adverse environmental impacts associated with the development and use of coal and discusses potential 

impacts qualitatively. The analysis appropriately weighs the merits and the drawbacks of the alternatives.

Other ways to characterize GHG emissions include estimating the monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases in a given year often 

discussed as “Social Costs of GHG Emissions.” It includes (but is not limited to) changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services due to climate change. A social costs of GHG emissions protocol was developed by 

an Interagency Working Group (IWG) to assist agencies in meeting Executive Order (EO) 12866, which 

requires federal agencies to assess the cost and the benefits of intended regulations as part of their 

regulatory impact analyses (RIAs). Several commenters suggested that the IWG protocol be used for this 

EA. However, a recent Executive Order (EO) entitled, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic 

Growth,” issued March 28, 2017, (before this analysis was conducted) directed that the IWG be 

disbanded and that technical documents issued by the IWG be withdrawn as no longer representative of 

governmental policy (Section 5 of the EO). It further directed that when monetizing the value of changes 

in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from regulations, agencies follow the guidance contained in OMB 

Circular A-4 of September 17, 2003.5 However, it is not necessary to quantify the greenhouse gas 

emissions using the IWG protocol to assess the impacts of GHG emissions.

The fact that climate impacts associated with GHG emissions were not quantified in terms of monetary 

costs does not mean that climate impacts were ignored. Climate change and potential climate impacts, in 

and of themselves, are often not well understood by the general public (Etkin and Ho 2007; National 

Research Council 2009). This is in part due to the challenges associated with communicating about 

climate change and climate impacts, stemming in part from the fact that most causes are invisible factors 

(such as greenhouse gases) and there is a long lag time and geographic scale between causes and effects 

(National Research Council 2010). Research indicates that for difficult environmental issues such as 

climate change, most people more readily understand if the issue is brought to a scale that is relatable to 

their everyday life (Dietz 2013); when the science and technical aspects are presented in an engaging way 

such as narratives about the potential implications of the climate impacts (Corner et al. 2015); use 

examples and make information relevant to the audience while also linking the local and global scales 

 

5

Similar to the withdrawn IWG technical papers, OMB Circular A-4 provides guidance to Federal agencies for regulatory 

analyses.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-174-

(National Research Council 2010). In order to more effectively convey the potential climate impacts, the 

agencies took the approach of providing quantitative GHG emissions as a common metric across 

alternatives and qualitatively discussing cumulative climate impacts at the state and global scales.

Additionally, based upon the quantified greenhouse gas emissions and emissions scenarios known as 

Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), global and state level impacts are discussed. The 

projected climate impacts to the state level provides a narrative discussion in a scale that is 

understandable and relevant to the decision-maker and the general public. This does not discount the 

quantified GHG emissions nor the qualitative discussions of global level impacts, but provides a 

meaningful and engaging way to connect the reader to more relatable impacts that then allow them to 

make the connections to the global impacts. The approach taken by the agencies effectively informs the 

decision-makers and the public of potential climate impacts at global and state scales.

Climate Change Mitigation

It is impossible to say with certainty exactly how society and governments will modify and balance their 

behaviors, lifestyles, technologies, and needs at the global scales required to mitigate or avoid the 

predicted impacts of climate change. It is entirely possible that an energy or policy breakthrough could 

enable emissions declines for any number of scenarios that could ultimately support any RCP scenario 

presented. Irrespective, effective implementation for any such breakthrough will require careful planning, 

such that the changes could be made with the least amount of disruption to society and economies a whole 

(this would include accounting for the projected climate change impacts themselves). From a practical 

implementation standpoint, it seems unlikely that world nations would be able to radically shift their 

economies, infrastructure, and alter the way energy is produced and used by 2020 such that emissions 

would decline in accordance with the analyzed RCP2.6 rates. However, the longer-term viability of the 

scenario is possible with continuous technological and policy advancements. In general, the 2.6 and 4.5 

scenario contributions to both forcing and concentrations track closely through 2030 (true for all RCPs), 

such that aggressive reductions in GHG emissions after 2030 could produce similar desired consequences 

regardless of the initial track. For the purposes of this analysis there is no basis from which we can find 

the Proposed Action to be significant in the context of climate change. No tools exist to predict the 

residual impacts of any mitigation that could be reasonable prescribed, up to and including denying the 

project, such that the resulting analysis would not be deemed to be arbitrary and capricious upon 

inspection. 

4.3.2 Cumulative Geology and Minerals

The CIAA for geological resources is the project area associated with the mine lease area where 

subsidence has the potential to occur. The cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action would be the 

removal of coal and minor amounts of possible subsequent subsidence. Approximately 4.66 million tons 

of coal would be mined under the Proposed Action. This amount is approximately 0.05 percent of the 

estimated 9.61 billion tons (2006 estimate) in the San Juan Basin coal field. Other geologic

formations/features in the area would remain in place and would not be impacted by the proposed 

continued mining. Other actions that may cumulatively impact geological resources are limited to future 

mining and oil and gas development. However, while future mining could possibly occur in the CIAA, 

political, regulatory, and economic factors limit the potential of new coal mines being developed in the 

area. No other metal or mineral mines are likely to be developed in the CIAA. Oil and gas drilling in the 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-175-

CIAA has been historically very limited (refer to Section 3.4). As such, cumulative impacts from these 

activities would be minor as geologic resources are removed or altered.

Under the No Action Alternative mining would conclude in approximately 2019 when the available coal 

reserves are depleted at the existing mine. Consequently, cumulative impacts under the No Action would 

be incrementally less than under the Proposed Action due to a shorter timeline for continued mining.

4.3.3 Cumulative Soils

The CIAA for soils is the project area. Cumulative impacts to soil resources would come from 

underground mining and the minor amounts (less than 5.0 acres) of associated surface disturbance as well 

as along CR 120 N where approximately 4.7 acres of soils have potential to be disturbed. This amount of 

disturbance is less than 1 percent of the entire project area. Along with the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, mining in the project area is likely to result in minor cumulative impacts to soil 

resources in the region due to the small area of surface disturbance, as well as the general requirement for 

reclamation of disturbed areas when mining operations cease. 

Mining and reclamation under the No Action Alternative would conclude sooner than under the Proposed 

Action. Consequently, cumulative impacts under the No Action Alternative are considered negligible.

4.3.4 Cumulative Water Resources

The CIAA for water resources is the Hay Gulch watershed.

Cumulative Effects to Surface Water Resources

Discharges of surface water from the mine operations have little potential to have cumulative effects, as 

these discharges are related to natural precipitation events, and are treated in accordance with Clean 

Water Act requirements. All discharges are regulated by the permits and compliance ensured by CDPHE 

and CDRMS and the Proposed Action would have the same or smaller detrimental cumulative effects to 

surface water resources as baseline conditions.

Under the No Action Alternative mining would conclude in approximately 2019 when the available coal 

reserves are depleted at the existing mine. Consequently, cumulative impacts under the No Action would 

be incrementally less than under the Proposed Action due to a shorter timeline for continued mining.

Cumulative Effects to Groundwater Resources

Cumulative effects to groundwater resources for the affected area are measured in terms of additive or 

subtractive changes to groundwater quality and the hydrologic balance related to the Proposed Action.

Water used from the Hay Gulch Irrigation Ditch is utilized for mine dust suppression but is recaptured 

ahead of potential infiltration to the unsaturated bedrock exposed underground.

There would be negligible cumulative impacts to identified water resources from continued mining. As 

the King II Mine is not known to discharge water from the mining operation to underground areas that are 

known to be hydraulically connected to users outside the mine area, there are no cumulative effects from 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-176-

mine water used in the operation. King II does not withdraw or intercept groundwater in the underground 

mine workings or in the alluvial deposits in the surrounding ephemeral drainages. 

Discharges of surface water from the mine operations have little potential to have cumulative effects, as 

these discharges are related to natural precipitation events, and are treated in accordance with Clean 

Water Act requirements. All surface discharges are regulated by the permits and compliance ensured by 

the CDPHE and CDRMS. Other activities, including oil and gas development, residential development, 

ranching, agriculture, and other rural development may contribute additional cumulative impacts in the 

Hay Gulch area. Other development activities would have additive impacts due to surface disturbance and 

use of groundwater for their purposes. Uses of water from these developments could impact the quantity 

and quality available to downstream users in the primary downstream drainages.

Design Features 2 and 3 expand monitoring and characterization of the potentially affected groundwater 

system and will serve to reduce the likelihood of detrimental effects to groundwater quality or the 

hydrologic balance outside the existing permit or proposed lease area. Therefore, the Proposed Action 

would not have significant cumulative effects to groundwater resources.

Under the No Action Alternative mining would conclude in approximately 2019 when the available coal 

reserves are depleted at the existing mine. Consequently, cumulative impacts under the No Action would 

be incrementally less than under the Proposed Action due to a shorter timeline for continued mining.

4.3.5 Cumulative Vegetation

The CIAA for vegetation is the project area. Additional mining and CR 120 N road improvements under 

the Proposed Action would have the potential to cumulatively impact vegetation in the area. The impacts

related to mining operations are minor as only infrequent small surface impacts occur associated with 

surface drilling and testing. These potential impacts are anticipated to be less than 5.0 acres. CR 120 N 

road construction has the potential to alter 4.7 acres of area vegetative communities along the CR ROW. 

Along with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, mining and oil and gas 

development in the project area are likely to result in minor cumulative impacts to the region, due to the 

associated surface disturbance, reclamation of the area at the end of the life of the mine, and 

reestablishment of local vegetative communities. Overall, cumulative impacts are expected to be minor as 

the disturbance to vegetation associated with the operation of the King II Mine is very small, less than 10

acres (<1 percent of the project area); and because native and agricultural vegetation along CR 120 N has 

historically been altered when the road was originally constructed.

Mining and reclamation under the No Action Alternative would conclude sooner than under the Proposed 

Action. Consequently, cumulative impacts under the No Action Alternative are considered negligible.

4.3.6 Cumulative Wildlife (Aquatic and Terrestrial)

The CIAA for fish and wildlife resources is the project area, and an approximately 5-mile buffer zone

around the disturbance areas to account for noise, traffic, and human activity.

When combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the region, mining in 

the project area would cumulatively contribute to impacts to fish and wildlife species. This cumulative 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-177-

impact would be relatively minor, given the large amount of similar undisturbed habitat that occurs in the 

region and because most of the habitat disturbance area is associated with the widening of an existing CR. 

Other activities in the region have the potential to cumulatively impact wildlife. Livestock grazing can 

create competition for grazing resources between cattle and big game species. Future oil and gas 

development would have the potential to displace wildlife species from an area for the life of those 

projects (USDI/BLM. 2015a). However, oil and gas development on both federal and state leases is 

generally strictly regulated—and subject to wildlife protection mitigation measures—and thus would be 

analyzed independently should such development occur (USDI/BLM. 2015a). Cumulative impacts from 

these activities would likely be negligible.

Mining under the No Action Alternative would conclude sooner than under the Proposed Action by 

several years. Consequently, cumulative impacts under the No Action are considered less than negligible.

4.3.7 Cumulative Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

The CIAA for special status species is the project area plus a 1-mile buffer around the disturbance area.

The CIAA for federally listed species is an approximately 25-mile radius around known coal combustion 

locations in the United States where emissions have the potential to impact listed species in proximity to 

the source. The reasonably foreseeable developments within 25-miles of the subject GCC-owned and 

operated cement plants are difficult to precisely quantify as both cement plants are located in industrial 

and/or high developed urban areas characterized by privately owned lands. Reasonably foreseeable 

developments include the following: agricultural activities (seasonal farming); urban development and 

sprawl; residential development and growth; commercial developments; road improvements; 

infrastructure improvements and/or redevelopment and industrial developments. All of these reasonably 

foreseeable developments are driven by regional growth and/or contraction based on economic factors.

Future job growth over the next ten years in Tijeras, New Mexico is predicted to be 34.43 percent 

concentrated in the business, sales and manufacturing sectors (Sperling 2017). Pueblo, Colorado is also 

projected to grow at a rate similar to Tijeras and in the same market sectors (Sperling 2017).

Sensitive or special status species with potential to occur in the Project area and to be impacted by the 

Proposed Action are limited to several BLM-listed sensitive bat species and area raptors; specifically, 

northern goshawk and bald eagle. Based on the OSMRE, CDRMS, LPC, and CDOT biological clearance 

requirements prior to any ground-disturbing activities, potential cumulative impacts to area sensitive 

species is expected to be negligible as sensitive species would be avoided.

The Proposed Action would have no direct impacts to federally listed threatened, endangered, or 

candidate species. There would be indirect impacts to the silvery minnow in the Rio Grande River and to 

the green back cutthroat trout in Pueblo County, Colorado from coal combustion and associated mercury 

deposition at the GCC-owned Tijeras and Pueblo cement plants. Some portion of this mercury is 

reasonably likely to end up in the Rio Grande and in the Arkansas River or tributaries thereof, which 

would cumulatively impact these listed fish. Reasonably foreseeable developments in the Pueblo and 

Tijeras areas are anticipated to be based on small town growth associated with increases in the availability 

of goods and services with minor amounts of new industrial development. These kinds of developments 

and activities will occur within or immediately adjacent to city limits where most habitats have already 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-178-

been altered or are currently impacted by noise, light, pollution and human activity. Accordingly, the 

Proposed Action, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

would contribute negligible to minor long-term cumulative impacts to the listed fish and their habitats in 

the CIAA.

Under the No Action Alternative mining would conclude in approximately 2019 when the available coal 

reserves are depleted at the existing mine. The end users of King II coal however would not shut down 

their cement plants and railroads. Rather, deposition of air pollutants would continue and possibly 

increase depending upon the type and source of alternative fuels used for combustion (natural gas, used 

tires, industrial waste, etc.) in lieu of King II coal. 

4.3.8 Cumulative Access and Transportation

The CIAA for transportation is the project area, including the length of CR 120 to SH 140. Cumulative 

effects to transportation resources for the Proposed Action are related to the road conditions and traffic on 

CR 120 and adjacent roadways, as well as interactions between coal transport trucks, residents, and users 

of CR 120 and adjacent roadways. The direct and indirect effects to transportation resources for the 

Proposed Action would intensified if additional uses of the affected roads increase with oil and gas 

development and/or additional residential development. Increases in area ranching and agricultural 

activities are not anticipated in the CIAA as all irrigable lands are currently being irrigated, and ranching 

occurs as it has in the area for the last 100 years. Projected population and residential growth in the region 

are unlikely to add to transportation impacts in the project area, as future growth is forecast closer to 

Durango. Additionally, existing high truck traffic on CR 120 N will also likely deter prospective land or 

home buyers from the CIAA.

Under the No Action Alternative mining would conclude in approximately 2019 when the available coal 

reserves are depleted at the existing mine. Consequently, cumulative impacts under the No Action would 

be incrementally less than under the Proposed Action due to a shorter timeline for continued mining.

4.3.9 Cumulative Noise and Vibration

The CIAA for noise is the project area, including the length of CR 120 to SH 140 and an approximately 

1-mile buffer around the area. Cumulative noise and vibration effects for the Proposed Action would be 

related to changes in equipment use or number of truck trips. These cumulative effects could be additive 

if additional uses of the road system increase through oil and gas development, additional residential 

development, and increased ranching and agricultural activities.

Noise and vibration effects for the Proposed Action consider equipment use and truck trips for the 

maximum allowable coal production under the current mine permit. If GCC were to change equipment or 

desire to increase coal production above permitted levels, it would be required to apply for a permit 

revision with CDRMS and the OSMRE. These agencies would evaluate the potential noise and vibration 

effects associated with the proposed permit changes. Therefore, the cumulative noise and vibration effects 

for the Proposed Action are the same as baseline levels because noise and vibration levels allowed under 

current mine plan would be enforced. The likelihood of adverse noise and vibration impacts would be 

reduced under the Proposed Action with implementation of Design Features 3, 4, and 5.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-179-

Under the No Action Alternative mining would conclude in approximately 2019 when the available coal 

reserves are depleted at the existing mine. Consequently, cumulative impacts under the No Action would 

be incrementally less than under the Proposed Action due to a shorter timeline for continued mining.

4.3.10 Cumulative Cultural Resources

The CIAA for cultural resources is the project area. Cumulative impacts to cultural resources would come 

from the potential for subsidence and from minor surface disturbances associated with CR improvements 

and on the surface of the mine. Along with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

mining in the project area is likely to result in minor cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the 

region due to the small area of surface disturbance, as well as because potential impacts from the 

Proposed Action are considered negligible to minor lasting for the duration of mine operations.

Mining and reclamation under the No Action Alternative would conclude sooner than under the Proposed 

Action but with similar potential for impacts to cultural resources. Consequently, cumulative impacts 

under the No Action Alternative are also considered negligible to minor lasting for the duration of mine 

operations.

4.3.11 Cumulative Socioeconomics

The CIAA for socioeconomics includes La Plata and Montezuma counties. Cumulative socioeconomic 

impacts are measured by the incremental changes to employment, income, output, and government 

revenues associated with coal production under the Proposed Action. The direct and indirect economic 

impacts of the Proposed Action are 1 percent of employment and 4 percent of income in the CIAA for the 

duration of coal production in the lease area, approximately 4 to 6 years. Because coal production at King 

II mine is limited by non-market factors such as the Road Improvements Agreement and Class II Land 

Use permit with LPC, it is not possible for GCC to respond, for example, to coal price increases by 

increasing production beyond levels allowed by the non-market agreements. Therefore, GCC is limited in 

how fast it can increase employment levels at the King II mine and potentially exacerbate adverse 

socioeconomic conditions such as worker or housing shortages in the CIAA. 

Non-economic impacts such as changes to quality-of-life associated with the Proposed Action are 

considered by LPC as part of the compatibility review in its land use regulations. LPC will monitor and 

enforce the measures and requirements included in GCC’s Class II Land permit to determine on-going 

compliance and compatibility of GCC’s King II mine with surrounding residents. 

Overall, the relatively small direct and indirect economic impact (less than 5 percent of employment and 

income) of the Proposed Action on the CIAA and the on-going monitoring and enforcement by LPC the 

compatibility of mining operations makes the likelihood of adverse cumulative socioeconomic impacts 

low.

Under the No Action Alternative mining would conclude in approximately 2019 when the available coal 

reserves are depleted at the existing mine. Consequently, cumulative impacts under the No Action would 

be incrementally less than under the Proposed Action due to a shorter timeline for continued mining.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-180-

5. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

5.1 Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted

As described in Section 1.9 Scoping, BLM and OSMRE conducted external scoping by sending letters to 

adjacent landowners and to other expressly interested parties.

The BLM initiated cultural and Native American consultations on September 25, 2014, by sending 

scoping letters to 33 Native American tribes. In accordance with the 2011 USDOI Policy on Consultation 

with Indian Tribes and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, OSMRE sent a notice of 

supplemental scoping to 47 tribes from the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 

directory of tribes with historic ties to Colorado. Table 5-1 lists all persons, agencies, and organizations 

that provided input and consultation regarding this EA.

Table 5-1. List of all persons, agencies and organizations consulted for purposes of this EA

Name Purpose and Authorities for 

Consultation or Coordination

Seth McCourt/Chris Dorenkamp

GCC Energy

Mine operations and planning

Tom Bird

GCC Energy

Mine operations and planning

Trent Peterson

GCC Energy

Mine operations and planning

Connolly, Marjorie Comment summary in Table 1-2

Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners Comment summary in Table 1-2

San Juan Basin Health Department Comment summary in Table 1-2

Vista de Oro Property Owners Association – contains 

comments of 35 landowners

Comment summary in Table 1-2

La Plata County Planning Department Comment summary in Table 1-2

Clement J. Frost, Chairman, Southern Ute Indian Tribe Requested permission to review and 

comment on Water Monitoring Program 

and Probably Hydrologic Consequences 

Analysis.

Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Director Hopi Cultural 

Preservation Officer

Would like to be consulted if prehistoric 

sites are identified with the Proposed 

Action.

5.2 List of Preparers

BLM TRFO and Colorado State Office staff as well as OSMRE staff specialists who determined the 

affected resources and contributed further analysis in the body of this EA are listed below. Tables 5-2 and 

5-3 lists agency and consultants that contributed to the preparation of this EA.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-181-

5.2.1 BLM and OSMRE Preparers

Table 5-2. List of Preparers

Name Title

Jennifer Maiolo BLM LSFO Mining Engineer

Connie Clementson BLM TRFO Field Office Manager

Joseph Manning BLM TRFO Assistant Field Manager, Resources

Jamie Blair BLM TRFO Geologist

Justin Abernathy BLM TRFO Minerals Manager

Helen Mary Johnson BLM TRFO Geologist

Nate West BLM TRFO Biologist

Bruce Bourcey BLM TRFO Archaeologist

Jessica Montag BLM Blue Sky Zone – CO, MT & WY Socioeconomics Specialist

Chad Meister BLM Colorado Physical Scientist

Douglas Siple BLM Colorado State Mining Engineer

D. Maggie Magee BLM Southwest District Planning & Environmental Coordinator

Gina Phillips BLM Southwest District Planning & Environmental Coordinator

Marcelo Calle OSMRE Manager Program Support Division 

Mychal Yellowman OSMRE Indian Program Branch Manager

Paul Clark OSMRE Permit Coordinator/Hydrologist

Gretchen Pinkham OSMRE NEPA Specialist

Nicole Caveny OSMRE Environmental Protection Specialist

Christine Belka OSMRE Sr. Regulatory Specialist

Jeremy Illiff OSMRE Archaeologist

Ed Vasquez OSMRE Aquatic and Biologist

Roberta Martinez-Hernandez OSMRE Air and Climate Change

Jacob Mulinex OSMRE Soils, Geology and Mineral resources

Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; TRFO = Tres Rios Field Office; LSFO = Little Snake Field Office
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-182-

5.2.2 Cooperating Agencies

Table 5-3. List of Cooperating Non-BLM Preparers

Name Title

Cooperating Agencies

CDRMS Daniel Hernandez, Sr. Environmental Protection Specialist

Robin Reilley, Coal Specialist

James Stark, Sr. Environmental Protection Specialist

La Plata County Leslie Jacoby, La Plata County Engineering Department

Daniel Murray, AICP, Sr. Planner, La Plata County Planning Department

Sheryl Rogers, La Plata County Attorney

Damian Peduto, La Plata County Community Development Director

Third-Party Contractors

Mike Fitzgerald Project Manager/Principal, Ecosphere Environmental Services, Inc. (Ecosphere)

Cindy Lancaster Sr. Technical Editor, Section 508 Specialist, Ecosphere

Carolyn Dunmire Sr. Project Manager and Socioeconomics Specialist, Ecosphere/Dunmire 

Consulting

Alison Rohwer Biologist/Natural Resource Specialist, Ecosphere

Jerusha Rawlings Biologist/Natural Resource Specialist, Ecosphere

Krista Dearing Sr. Geologist and Project Manager, Ecosphere 

Landon Cook Principal Hydrogeologist, Resource Hydrologic

Mike Olson Traffic Engineer, Roadrunner Engineering

Mike Savage Geology, Savage Consultants

Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; Ecosphere = Ecosphere Environmental Services, Inc.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-183-

6. REFERENCES

6.1 References Cited

Anderson. D., 2004. Final Report: Population Status Survey of Schmoll’s Milkvetch (Astragalus 

schmolliae C. L. Porter). Prepared for the National Park Service, Mesa Verde National Park. The 

Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Available online at: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu

/download/documents/2004/Schmoll_milkvetch_final_public.pdf. Accessed on April 27, 2017.

BBC Research and Consulting. Measuring the Impact of Coalbed Methane Wells on Property Values. 

Prepared for Greystone Environmental Consultants and La Plata County Colorado. Working 

Paper. November 12, 2001. Available online at: https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/74

/Property%20Values%20-%20Coal%20Bed%20Methane%20in%20SW%20CO.pdf. 

Downloaded on December 6, 2016. 

Bird. T., GCC Energy Manager of Coal Services, personal communication. March 15, 2015.

Bourcy, B. 2016. Archeologist, Bureau of Land Management, Tres Rios Field Office. Email 

communication with M. Fitzgerald, Ecosphere Environmental Services, Inc. regarding cultural 

resources Section 106 compliance coordination. November 10, 2016.

Bourcy. B., 2017. Archeologist, Bureau of Land Management, Tres Rios Field Office. Email 

communication with M. Fitzgerald, Ecosphere Environmental Services, Inc. regarding cultural 

resources Section 106 compliance coordination. January 13, 2017. 

Braslau Associates, Inc. 2016. Haul Truck Noise Impact Assessment, Prepared for Law Offices of Luke J. 

Danielson, P.C.

Brown. S. C., CONVEYOR NOISE SPECIFICATION AND CONTROL, Heggies Australia Pty Ltd, 

Sydney, Australia. 2004.

BLS. 2016. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics Program. Labor Force Data 

by County, 2015 Annual Averages. April 15, 2016. Accessed on December 6, 2016. 

Canadian National (CN). 2017. Interactive Network Map. Available at: 

http://cnebusiness.geomapguide.ca/. Accessed: July 27, 2017.

CDS Environmental Services, LLC (CDS). 2013. Final Report – Analytical Activities in Response to 

Neighborhood Comments. Durango, CO. Includes King II Mine Ground Motion Studies, La Plata 

County, Colorado.

CDS. 2014. GCC Energy King II Mine Underground Miner Ground Motion Study December 11-31, 

2014.

Colorado Department of Health and the Environment (CDPHE). 2014. Colorado Greenhouse Gas 

Inventory and Reference Case Projections 2014 Update. Including Projections to 2020 & 2030. 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-184-

Steven Arnold, Dileo, Jim and Takushi, Theresa. October 2, 2014. Available online at: 

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AP-COGHGInventory2014Update.pdf.

Colorado Department of Local Affairs. Colorado Demography Office. Population Data. Available online 

at: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251593300013. Accessed on July 

31, 2015.

CDOT. 2017. Colorado Department of Transportation. Online Transportation Information System. Traffic 

Count Station ID 104631, 2015 value. Available online at: http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis

/trafficdata#ui/0/0/0/criteria//67/true/true/. Accessed on March 17, 2017. 

Colorado Division of Reclamation and Mining Safety (CDRMS). 1997. Colorado Division of 

Reclamation, Mining and Safety. Hay Gulch Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety. 2013. Mining Permit – Coal, Permit # C-1981-

035. Issued to GCC Energy, LLC. Issued August 18, 2012. Expires August 18, 2017.

CDRMS. 2006. Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. GCC Energy, Permit Revision 08 

Findings of Compliance and Proposed Decision.

CDRMS. 2015. Colorado Coal Mines – Activity Status. Available online at:

http://mining.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/ColoradoCoalMines.pdf.

Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR). 2014. Colorado’s Well Permit Search. Available online 

at: http://www.dwr.state.co.us/WellPermitSearch/default.aspx.

CDWR. 2015. http://www.dwr.state.co.us/wellpermitsearch/.

Colorado Geological Survey (CGS.) 2006. Coal Fields and Resources of Colorado. Christopher Carroll, 

Map Series 43, Plate 1 of 3. http://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/MS_43_Pl_1_Coal_Fields_and_Resources.pdf

CGS. 2015. Geologic Hazards. Available online at: http://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/geologichazards/. Accessed on July 15, 2015.

Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). 2014. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission. http://dnrwebmapgdev.state.co.us/mg2012app. 

COGCC. 2015. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. COGIS Production Data Inquiry. 

Available online at: https://cogcc.state.co.us/cogis/ProductionSearch.asp. Accessed on December 

6, 2016. 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2016. Species Activity Mapping Data. Available online at: 

https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=190573c5aba643a0bc058e6f7f0510b7.

Colorado State Demography Office. 2016. Table 3. Preliminary Population Forecasts by County, 2010-

2015. Available from https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/population/population-totalscounties/#population-totals-for-colorado-counties. Accessed on December 6, 2016.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-185-

Complete Archaeological Service Associates (CASA). 2005. Cultural resource inventory, East Alkali 

Mine, Hay Gulch Area, La Plata County, Colorado. Prepared for National King Coal. August 8, 

2005.

Contiguglia. G., 2005. Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer. Communication with Nancy S. 

Hammack, Complete Archaeological Service Associates, regarding East Alkali Mine (King II), 

Hay Gulch Area, La Plata County, CO. August 12, 2005.

Clark. L., and R. Schwendler. 2014. Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of GCC Energy's Proposed 

Coal Exploration, La Plata County, Colorado. Technical Report No. 14-51, Colorado Permit No. 

2014-70.

Dunrud. C. R., 1976. Some Engineering Geologic Factors Controlling Coal Mine Subsidence in Utah and 

Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 969. Denver, CO: USGS.

Dyer, D., Mining Engineer, Bureau of Land Management, e-mail communication. March 15, 2015.

Ecosphere Environmental Services (Ecosphere). 2016. Natural Resource Surveys at 2012-2013 Coal 

Exploration Drill Sites. Memorandum to GCC Energy, LLC. December 21, 2016.

Ecosphere. 2016a. 2015 Mexican Spotted Owl Surveys, Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Lands, Hay Gulch 

Area, GCC Energy Lease by Application Project. January 2016.

Eisenhauer, N. F. and S. Wilcox. 2010. Class III cultural resource inventory of the King II Mine 

expansion, La Plata County, Colorado. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Durango, CO. 

(Compass Project Number LP.OSM.R1.)

Engineering Dynamics Incorporated (EDI). 2013. Noise Assessment, King II Coal Mine, Hesperus, La 

Plata County, Colorado.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Emission Factors for Locomotives. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf. Accessed: July 27, 2017.

Environ International Corporation. 2009. Air Quality Modeling Study for the Four Corners Region. 

Revised Report August 2009. Prepared for the New Mexico Environment Department. Air 

Quality Bureau. June 30, 2009. Accessible online at: https://www.env.nm.gov/aqb/4C/Documents

/FinalRepRev20090806.pdf.

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (February 11, 1994), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Low-Income Populations. 59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994. Available online at: 

http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-executive-order-12898-federal-actions-addressenvironmental-justice. Accessed on July 15, 2015.

GCC Energy LLC (GCC). 2006. National King Coal LLC, King II Mine Application Document, CDMG 

Permit #C-81-035.

GCC. 2014. GCC Energy LLC, Annual Hydrologic Report for King I and II Mines. 

GCC. King II Transportation Options. Background and Feasibility. HGCAP Presentation, June 12, 2015.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-186-

GCC. 2017. King II Mine CO-0106, BLM Lease COC-62920, Permit Revision Application Package.

Gilpin. D., 2011. Archaeological survey of five proposed 1-acre drill hole locations at the King II Mine, 

La Plata County, Colorado. Technical Report No. 11-61. PaleoWest Archaeology. November 1, 

2011.

Gleick. Peter H., 1994. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. Annual 

Review Energy Environ 1994. 19:267-99. Oakland, California 94612

Headwaters Economics. 2015. The Impact of Federal Coal Royalty Reform on Prices, Production, and 

State Revenue. May 2015. Published online at: http://headwaterseconomics.org/energy/coalroyalty-reform-impacts.

Heil. K. D., S. L. O’Kane, Jr., L. M. Reeves, and A. Clifford. 2013. Flora of the Four Corners Region –

Vascular Plants of the San Juan River Drainage. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press. 

Iliff. J., 2015. OSMRE Indian Programs Archeologist. Communication with E. Nichols, Colorado State 

Historic Preservation Officer, regarding concurrence on PaleoWest survey (Trogmorton andClark 

2014). October 14, 2015.

IMPLAN Group, LLC, IMPLAN System (data and software), 16740 Birkdale Commons Parkway, Suite 

206, Huntersville, NC 28078. Available online at: www.IMPLAN.com.

IMPLAN Model. 2017. www.implan.com. IMPLAN Online Model using 2015 datasets for Montezuma 

and La Plata County, Colorado. Accessed on March 16, 2017.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate 

Change 2007. Synthesis Report. Available online at: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data

/ar4/syr/en/contents.html, Accessed June 2014. 

Iverson, Karen. 2015. La Plata County Housing Demand Forecast. Prepared by Regional Housing 

Alliance. 

Kern, J.R., Falkenstern, D., and Stingelin, R.W. 2002. Effects of Longwall Mining on Real Property 

Value and the Tax Base of Greene and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania-Final Report.

Prepared for Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mining and Reclamation, 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. November 8, 2002.

Kirby, F. 2010a. Cultural III cultural resource inventory of the King II Mine [160-acre] expansion, La 

Plata County, Colorado. Communication with E. Nichols, Colorado State Historic Preservation 

Officer. Number 100819. August 19, 2010.

Kirby, F. 2010b. Cultural III cultural resource inventory of the King II Mine [160-acre] expansion, La 

Plata County, Colorado. Communication with T. Knight, Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer. Number 100811. August 11, 2010.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-187-

Knight, T. 2012. Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. Communication with T. Bird, 

GCC Energy, LLC, regarding concurrence with the findings of cultural resources report provided 

by PaleoWest Archaeology, Technical Report 11-61. April 4, 2012.

Korte, S. GCC Energy Consulting Geologist, personal communication. July 30, 2015.

La Plata County. Abstract 2014 Assessment and Summary of Taxes. Available online at: 

http://www.co.laplata.co.us/departments_and_elected_officials/assessor/assessor_reports/abstract

_assessment_and_summary_taxes. Accessed on July 15. 2015. 

La Plata County. 2009. La Plata County Board of County Commissioners. Oil and Gas Provisions of the 

La Plata County Code Chapter 90. Available online at: http://lpccds.org/planning/oil_and_gas/

Accessed on December 6, 2016.

La Plata County. 2015a. Code of Ordinance. Available online at: https://www.municode.com/library/co

/la_plata_county/codes/code_of_ordinances. Accessed July 7, 2015.

La Plata County. 2015b. GCC Energy Project. Available online at: http://www.co.laplata.co.us

/departments_and_elected_officials/planning/gcc_energy_project. Accessed July 15, 2015.

La Plata County. 2016. Road Improvements Agreement Pertaining to La Plata County Road 120 – GCC 

Energy, LLC. Recorded on June 27, 2016.

La Plata County Regional Housing Alliance. 2015. La Plata County Housing Demand Forecast. June 

2015. Published online at: http://www.durangogov.org/DocumentCenter/View/6175.

Loebig, D., 2016. An intensive cultural resource inventory for GCC Energy’s proposed groundwater 

monitoring wells on state and private lands in La Plata County, Colorado. Prepared by Doug 

Loebig, Principal Investigator Stratified Environmental & Archaeological Services (SEAS), LLC. 

Prepared for Ecosphere Environmental Services, Inc. October 2016.

Mateoblue. 2017. Climate for Durango – La Plata County Airport. Available online at: 

https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/forecast/modelclimate/durango%E2%80%93la-platacounty-airport_united-states-of-america_5420253. Accessed on June 7, 2017.

Matheson Mining Consultants. January 2013. GCC Energy – King II Mine Ground Motion Studies, La 

Plata County, Colorado. January 8, 2013.

National King Coal, LLC (NKC). 1999. NEDO Drilling Project Geologic Report. June 1991.

New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT). New Mexico State Rail Plan. Draft. September 

30, 2013. Available online at: http://dot.state.nm.us/content/dam/nmdot/Transit_Rail

/New_Mexico_State_Rail_Plan_Draft_2013-09-30.pdf.

National Park Service (NPS). 2005, Mesa Verde: Geology of Mesa Verde. Available online at:

http://www.nps.gov/meve/planyourvisit/upload/geology_web.pdf. Accessed on 8/15/2014.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-188-

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Custom Soil Resource Report for La Plata 

County Area, Colorado, GCC King II Mine. March 5, 2017. Accessed online at: 

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE). 1989. Handbook on Procedures for 

Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.

Partners in Flight (PIF). 2000. Land Bird Conservation Plan: Colorado. Estes Park, Colorado.

Postle, R., 2012. Manager, Program Support Division, OSMRE. Communication with T. Bird, GCC 

Energy, LLC, regarding exploration drilling program in Section 25. July 25, 2012.

Region 9. Economic Development District of Southwest Colorado. 2008 Southwest Colorado Index –

Data http://scan.org/uploads/2008_SCI_housing.pdf. Available online at: 

http://scan.org/uploads/livable_wages_2013.pdf, Accessed on July 15, 2015.

Region 9. Economic Development District of Southwest Colorado. Report 2015. Available online at: 

http://scan.org/index.php?page=r9report. Accessed on July 15, 2015.

Region 9. 2015. Region 9 Economic Development District of Southwest Colorado. Region 9 Report 

2015. Published online at: http://scan.org/uploads/REPORT_2015-_Web.pdf. Accessed on 

December 6, 2016.

Region 9. 2015a. Region 9 Economic Development District of Southwest Colorado. 2015 Southwest 

Colorado Index. Livable Wages Update 2015. Published online at: www.scan.org. Accessed on 

December 6, 2016. 

Resource Hydrogeologic Services, Inc. 2016. King I & II Coal Mine Area Hydrologic Study.

Resource Hydrogeologic Services (RHS). 2016a. Geochemical Sampling and Analysis Plan, King I and II 

Mines, La Plata County, Colorado. Submitted to GCC Energy. October 27.

Resource Hydrogeologic Services (RHS). 2016b. Supplemental Sampling and Analysis Plan, King I and 

II Mines, La Plata County, Colorado. Submitted to GCC Energy. October 27.

Resource Hydrogeologic Services (RHS). 2016c. GeochemicalMaterials Analysis, King I & II Mines. 

Submitted to GCC Energy. April 2017.

Roadrunner Engineering LLC. GCC Energy LLC. King II Coal Mine. County Road 120. Traffic Impact 

Assessment. June 10, 2014. Revised and updated July 31, 2015. 

Roadrunner Engineering 2015. GCC Energy LLC. King II Coal Mine. County Road 120. La Plata 

County, Colorado. Traffic Impact Assessment. Update November 19, 2015. Available online at: 

http://laplatacountyco.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting

.aspx?ID=3103. Downloaded on March 19, 2017.

Shinn, Mary. Durango Herald Staff Writer. Oil and Gas Price Declines Lead to Job Losses in La Plata 

County. January 30, 2015. Available online at: https://durangoherald.com/articles/100937-oiland-gas-price-declines-lead-to-job-losses-in-la-plata-county. Accessed on March 16, 2017.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-189-

Sperling’s Best Places/Fast Forward, Inc. 2017. http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/about.aspx.

SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2014. Technical memorandum to Tom Bird, GCC, from E. 

Lyon, SWCA. Natural Resources Survey of Nine Proposed Drill Holes on State Land for the 

King II Mine, La Plata County, Colorado/SWCA Project No. 28487. April 11, 2014.

Throgmorton, K., and L. Clark. 2014. A Class III cultural resource inventory for proposed additional 

drilling within the existing King II Coal Mine Lease Area A, La Plata County, Colorado. 

Submitted to GCC Energy, LLC. Technical Report 14-101. September 25, 2014.

Tire Derived Fuel (TDF). 2017. Carbon dioxide emissions from TDF in literature from the following 

resources: http://cement.org/Briefingkit/pdf_files/TDFBrochure.pdf; 

http://www.afstechnology.com/faq; https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140927180008-

141693523-alternative-energy-fuel-used-from-recycled-scrap-tires-in-the-u-s; 

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_a_03.html; 

http://www.altenergymag.com/content.php?issue_number=07.12.01&article=tires; 

http://www.betalabservices.com/renewable-carbon/tire-derived-fuels.html. Accessed on June 7, 

2017.

Trautner Geotech, LLC. 2015. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Study for the National King Coal I 

West Waste Bank Coal Mine Waste Disposal Area, La Plata County, Colorado. June 29.

Turner, S., 2015. Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer. Communication with J. Iliff, 

Archaeologist, OSMRE regarding cultural survey in Sections 25, T35N, R12W and Section 19, 

T35N, R11W. October 21, 2015.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Prime Farmland. NRI Map 

Room. Available online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/null

/?cid=nrcs143_013686. Accessed on June 15, 2015.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. 2006 Major Land 

Resource Area (MLRA) Geographic Database, version 4.2. Available online at: 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_053624. Accessed 

April 26, 2017.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. San Juan National Forest. 1983. San Juan National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. as amended. Durango, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USDC/NOAA). 

NOAA Research. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Available online at: 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/. Accessed on March 15, 2015.

USDC/USCB 2016. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau. Quickfacts for La Plata 

County, Montezuma County, State of Colorado. QuickFacts data are derived from: Population 

Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, Current Population 

Survey, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-190-

and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, 

Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits. Available online at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08/08067.html. Accessed on December 6, 2016. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) Program 2017. 2015 Poverty 

and Median Household Income Estimates - Counties, States, and National Release date:

December 2016. Downloaded on April 24, 2017 from https://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe

/data/statecounty/data/2015.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimate Program 2017. 2015 Population, Race, and Hispanic Ethnicity. 

Release date: December 2016. Downloaded on April 24, 2017 from https://www.census.gov

/did/www/saipe/data/statecounty/data/2015.html.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Federal Emergency Management Agency (USDHS/FEMA). 

Flood Hazard Boundary Map. La Plata County, Colorado. Available online at:

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=La%20Plata%20County%20Colorado. 

Accessed on June 15, 2015. 

U.S. Department of the Interior/U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDI/USDA). 2013. U.S Department of 

Interior. Bureau of Land Management. Colorado Southwest District. Tres Rios Field Office. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. U.S. Forest Service – Region 2. San Juan National Forest. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Final San Juan National Forest and Proposed Tres Rios 

Field Office Land and Resource Management Plan. September 2013. Available online at:

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/sjplc/land_use_planning.html. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. USDI/BLM. 2008. NEPA handbook H1970-1 [BLM 1/30/2008]. Washington, D.C.

USDI/BLM. 985. San Juan/San Miguel Resource Management Plan. Durango, Colorado: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, San Juan Field Office.

USDI/BLM. 2013. Colorado Bureau of Land Management. Comprehensive Air Resource Protection 

Protocol (CARPP). Denver, Colorado. September.

USDI/BLM. 2014. Colorado Bureau of Land Management. Oil and Gas Air Emissions Tool. Provided by 

Chad Mister Colorado State BLM – Air Quality by personal communications on June 3, 2014

USDI/BLM. 2015a. Colorado Southwest District. Tres Rios Field Office. Resource Management Plan and 

Record of Decision. And for the Adoption of the San Juan National Forest Oil and Gas Leasing 

Availability Decisions. February 2015. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/sjplc

/land_use_planning.html. 

USDI/BLM. 2015b. Preliminary Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2014-0025, GCC 

Energy Proposed Exploration License Application COC 76563. September 2015. Tres Rio Field 

Office.

USDI/BLM. 2015c. State Directors Sensitive Species List. Information Bulletin CO-2015-034.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-191-

USDI/BLM. 2016. GCC Energy Proposed Exploration License Application, COC 76563, Environmental 

Assessment, DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2014-0025. Tres Rios Field Office, Dolores, Colorado. June 

2016.

USDI/BLM/OSMRE. 1997. Environmental Assessment CO-038-97-53 National King Coal, LLC Coal 

Lease Application East Alkali Tract, COC 62920.

USDI/ BLM/OSMRE. 2001. Environmental Assessment CO-SJFO-00-102EA National King Coal, LLC 

Coal Lease Application East Alkali Tract, COC 62920

USDI/BLM CRUP No. C-70616 (BLM# TR14002) (OAHP# LP.LM.R112). Prepared for GCC Energy, 

LLC. Submitted to: Bureau of Land Management Tres Rios Field Office. November 25, 2014.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Non-road Model. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm. Accessed on March 20, 2015.

USEPA. 2010. eGrid. Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/, Accessed on March 20, 2015.

USEPA. 2013. 2011 National Emissions Inventory Data. Version 1 (released September 30, 2013). 

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2011inventory.html. Accessed in June 2014.

USEPA. 2014. Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available online at: 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emission-factors_2014.pdf. 

Accessed on June 7, 2017.

USEPA. 2015a. Air Data. Monitor Values Report. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/airdata

/ad_rep_mon.html. Accessed on April 15, 2015.

USEPA 2015b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2013. April 15, 2015. 

Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHGInventory-2015-Main-Text.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Service (USFWS). 1993. Federal Register Vol 58, N. 188. Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Theatened Species. 

September 30, 1993. 

USFWS. 2003. Federal Register Vol. 68, N. 33. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow; Final Rule. February 19, 

2003.

USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp.

USFWS. 2012. National Wetlands Inventory – Wetland Polygons vector digital data. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Habitat and Resources Conservation. 

Washington, DC. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-192-

USFWS. 2016. Memorandum of Understanding between Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, United States Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.

USFWS. 2017. Endangered Species Act species lists for La Plata County, Colorado, Pueblo County, 

Colorado, and Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. 

Accessed February 2017

USFWS National Wetlands Inventory. (USFWS/NWI). 2015. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed on July 15, 2015. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Undated. Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project – Land Cover 

Descriptions. Available online at: http://swregap.nmsu.edu/HMdatabase

/landc_database_report.pdf. Accessed on April 27, 2017.

USGS. 1985. Hydrology of Coal-Lease Areas near Durango, Colorado, Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 85-4125, Lakewood, Colorado.

USGS. 2004. National Gap Analysis Program. Provisional Digital Land Cover Map for the Southwestern 

United States. Version 1.0. RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, Utah State 

University.

USGS. 2013a. Hesperus quadrangle, Colorado [map]. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Reston, Va: United 

States Department of the Interior, USGS, 1999.

USGS. 2013b. Mormon Reservoir quadrangle, Colorado [map]. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Reston, Va: 

United States Department of the Interior, USGS, 1999.

USGS. 2013c. Thompson Park quadrangle, Colorado [map]. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Reston, Va: 

United States Department of the Interior, USGS, 1999.

U.S. Global Change Research Program. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Thomas R. 

Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, (eds.). Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Farm and Ranch Enterprise. (UMUT) 2015. Available at: 

http://www.utemountainfarmandranch.com. Accessed on July 31, 2015.

Watson P., Wilson, J, Thilmany, D., and Winter, S. 2007. Determining economic contributions and 

impacts: What is the difference and why do we care? JRAP 37(2):1-15. (JRAP=The Journal of 

Regional Analysis and Policy—in case you need the full journal title)

Wesson, A., and K. Mowrer. 2014. A Class III cultural resources inventory for King II Mine 2014 

exploration core drilling, La Plata County, Colorado. SWCA Environmental Consultants. January 

29, 2014.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-A-1-

Appendix A – Maps
Preliminary Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

June 2017

-A-2-

Map A-1. Vicinity Map
Preliminary Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

June 2017

-A-3-

Map A-2. Project Area Map
Preliminary Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

June 2017

-A-4-

Map A-3. Surface Water Map
Preliminary Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

June 2017

-A-5-

Map A-4. Proposed Coal Haul Routes
Preliminary Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

June 2017

-A-6-

Map A-5. Direct and Indirect Air Analysis Areas
Preliminary Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

June 2017

-A-7-

Map A-6. Soils Map
Preliminary Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

June 2017

-A-8-

Map A-7. CR 120 Roadway Current Conditions and Proposed Improvements
Preliminary Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

June 2017

-A-9-

Map A-8. “A” Coal Seam Outcrop and Upper Surface Contour Map
Preliminary Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-A-10-

Map A-9. Vegetation Map
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-B-1-

Appendix B – Public Comment/

Comment Response Matrix
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

1 001 Kayla Patterson Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion Please allow King II Coal mine to modify their existing federal coal 

lease by approx. 950 acres. GCC Energy is a great community 

team player and asset. The jobs they produce pump money right 

back into our community further they provide coal to the DSN 

[sic] railroad. Last but not least La Plata County has families who 

depend on this coal to heat their family homes in the winter. La 

Plata County needs GCC Energy and King Coal II.

Comment noted.

2 002 Sarah Vance Partnerships/collaboration E. For/Against/Opinion GCC has gone above and beyond in its attempt to be a good 

neighbor and still run a business. As a company, GCC considers all 

stakeholders, including community, and strives to minimize its 

impact. There should be no significant impact form the 

modification proposed to the lease. It is a minor change and GCC 

is committed to mining in a sustainable and responsible manner.

Comment noted.

3 003 Dan Huntington Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion This is a very low impact use of our resources. Everybody needs 

concrete and this is what this coal is being used for (making 

cement). King I have mined our coal and federal coal without any 

incident to the surface or the ground water. This is an economic 

booster to both the local economy and the federal economy. If 

anyone has questions of me please feel free to email.

Comment noted.

4 004 Crue Robertson Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion I Crue Robertson have been working at gcc/KingII for 4 years has 

been the best job for me and the most fun. It has helped me 

chase my dreams I have felt right in life/not having money 

problems do to good pay. Everything I have like having 2 kids and 

brought 2 cars of my dreams and a conterbley nice house. Me 

and my family need this lease. The company and all the workers 

try are hardest to keep every one happy/narbors/road 

worki/truckers. I need this and so does a lot of people. Thanks 

God Bless

Comment noted.

5 005 Steve Felkins Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion I think the mine should continue operations it provides needed 

jobs and support for county and state taxes. I don't feel it is a

problem for th environment as my grandad worked at King I back 

in the 30's and it didn't harm anything

Comment noted.

6 006 Frank Dorenkamp E. For/Against/Opinion I support the GCC Lease Modification Comment noted.

7 007 Scott Nepp Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion I am an employee of GCCE. I have worked for GCCE for 8 years 

and been a coal miner for over 35 years. This is by far the safest, 

cleanest and environmentaly friendly mine I have ever worked at. 

It is very important that we get the reserves. We need to 

continue mining. My family and I depend on it. There is no 

reason why we shouldn't get our permits.

Comment noted.

8 008 Luke Morris Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion I would just like to say that this coal mine is my sole income for 

my family of 5. I have 3 kids all whom depend on this job to 

survive, I have worked for this mine for 3 1/2 years and has been 

by far the best job I have ever had, this mine is very family 

oriented and a good place to work. We need this permit to 

continue thank you very much.

Comment noted.

9 009 Jose Abeyta Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion As an employee at GCC Energy I would like for the plan to be 

approved as my family relies on my income from the mine. About 

90 families depend on the mine staying open, not to mention 

countless other families of indirect jobs the mine provides ie... 

the durango train, any suppliers for the mine and truck drivers.

Comment noted.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

10 010 Jerry L. Chlopek Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion This is a valuable asset to the surrounding area and the economy. 

It is very environmentally safe.

Comment noted.

11 011 Brandon Mobley Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion This project will continue to help provide for me and my 2 kids. 

I'm a single father, raising 2 childred on my own. We moved 

down here 4 years ago and built a house. My childred love it here 

and enjoy the community they live in. With this project not going 

through would be us more than likely up and moving and my 

childred starting all over again. We hope this project gets 

approve so we can enjoy our lives here.

Comment noted.

12 012 Greg Stoll Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion Please renew the lease modification. It will keep a lot of people 

employed. And after 24 years of mining it has put food on the 

table and putting my two firls thru college.

Comment noted.

13 013 Jerry Rider Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion The coal mine provides job not only for familys but also 

contributes to the surrounding areas. As long as I have been 

working in the coal mine it has always work with the concerns for 

the environment.

Comment noted.

14 014 Matt Harvey Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion Its hard to find jobs with benefits in LaPlata county with cost of 

living the way it is, its hard for a local to make ends meet. I think 

industry and community can get along and compromise as 

needed.

Comment noted.

15 015 Leo Campuzano Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion Before getting hired I went months without work. I've been with 

GCC Energy for six years. I have seen the company grow and 

would like to see it continue, it's brought a lot of jobs to people 

who have been without. Thank you

Comment noted.

16 016 Milo Gonzales Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion We are hard working men and women from La Plata County who 

want to keep working to provide for our families. We need this 

lease or a lot of us will be out of jobs and it will effect the rest of 

the country. We are really safe mine working in a great county 

and would like to contine what we are doing.

Comment noted.

17 017 Jerold Gilbert Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion I support the lease modification, it has provided a lot of jobs for 

the area. I've been employed by the mine for the last 13 years. 

We provide coal for the Durango Silverton. It would have a big 

impact if it's not passed.

Comment noted.

18 018 Travis Myers Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion I support GCC lease mod it provides a lot of jobs in the 

community. I've worked there for the last 10 years. We supply 

coal for the Durango Silverton train.

Comment noted.

19 019 Don Crowley Traffic and Transporation E. For/Against/Opinion I support the King II mine lease modification. They are doing road 

improvemnts which is really helpng. GCC is a first rate mining 

company.

Comment noted.

20 020 Shanna Jones Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion I think the lease modification should be approved. This mine 

helps me to live in Laplata County. I own a home in Durango. My 

wife work in Durango. My stepson goes to Durango High. This job 

make it so I can injoy Colorado outdoors. Our cement plants that 

we supply coal to burn our Low Ash Coal are already beyond 

complying with the reg. I think our mine does a great job of 

taking care of our environment.

Comment noted.

21 021 Andrew Coulson Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion This company feeds my family I have 2 childred and a wife that 

relies on GCC to live. I own a house in Cortez. Love colorado and 

love this mine. Please consider me and my family before making 

a decision.

Comment noted.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

22 022 Jeff Knestrick Environmental responsible E. For/Against/Opinion I fully support the approval of the lease modification permit 

revision and renewal. GCC has responsibly operated and 

continues to operate in an environmentally responsible manner.

Comment noted.

23 023 Keith Davis Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion Approving the lease will help to sustain the economy and 

continue to provide gainful employmnet for a lot of families.

Comment noted.

24 024 Jordan McCourt Public Health and Safety E. For/Against/Opinion I support the King II mine lease modification. I believe GCC has 

proven with all of the data that has been gathered that there 

isn't any risk to the public by extending the leases.

Comment noted.

25 025 Wade M. Wymore Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion Great company - good to their employees, good for the local 

economy, very environmentally aware company.

Comment noted.

26 026 Johsue Chlopek Environmental responsible E. For/Against/Opinion This operation has met and exceeded the laws, statutes and good 

faith to ensure that the mine opearting act as the best stewards 

of the natural resources of coal. It provides good jobs, relations 

and huge contributer to the local, state and national economy 

the area of Durango is dependent for its well being based on this 

coal mine.

Comment noted.

27 027 Matt Watson Environmental responsible E. For/Against/Opinion I am for project approval. I have worked for GCC Energy for over 

five years and can personally speak to the way in which they run 

their business's. It's a world class organization that truly cares 

about its employees, environment, sustainability and the 

communities in which we operate. Being HR for the mine I know 

all our employees and in many cases wives and children as well. 

Our continued opeation is vital to their welfare as well as all the 

businesses our operation touches directly and indirectly. Thank 

you for your consideration.

Comment noted.

28 028 Mae Morley Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion It doesn't look like the expansion of the mine will be noticeable 

on the surface. We are use to the mine operating in hay gulch. I 

believe GCC has already done it's fair share to improve the road 

owned by the county. The mine provides many jobs that are 

needed here. The coal that they mine is a high quality product, 

which provides royalties to the state and federal government.

Closing the mine would cause a lot of economic problems for the 

individuals that would lose their jobs, as well as the loss of 

revenue to the government. I believe that the environmental 

impacts would be very small compared to all the negative 

problems that would occur if they cannot enlarge the mine & 

keep it operating.

Comment noted.

29 029 Brandon Waddell Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion Thank you for making this public meeting available. I feel coal 

mining is a important part of our states finanacial infrastructure. 

All beit, its very important to consider its impact on every choice. 

I've studied the environmental findings from many avenues and 

have concluded that King II has done a very good job @ staying 

within compliance all while dealing with local adversary. 

Transparency is important considering new leases and future 

growth, and I have found GCC to do their best on local, state & 

federal levels. My next concern is their impact economically. I 

feel coal is one of the foundations to this country and its growth 

& sustainability. Please do your research as well as possible. Mine 

has concerns approval for the federal mine permit without 

revisions. Respectfully, Brandon Waddell

Comment noted.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

30 030 Kaleigh Barnard Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion As an employee of GCC and a local resident of Durango, I support 

the King II Mine Lease Modification. The economical support that 

the King II Mine provides to this area can't be measured - from 

the employees that are employed by GCC to the tourism that is 

generated by the coal that is provided to the train in Durango. 

The coal that is mined in the Hay Gulch is a historical part of 

Durango and the surronunding areas. Mining is a respectful 

career and industry and the people that are part of it love it. It 

will always be in their blood, and the conditions and culture at 

the King II Mine are evident in the type of employees that come 

to work here and contribute to this community. We ask that this 

lease modification be approved so we can continue to employ 

these good people.

Comment noted.

31 031 Jeff Conner Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion I've been working in the coal mines for 28 years and I would like 

to stay at this one. We are all very hard working people at the 

mine. We also pay taxes to the community. I feel the country 

still needs a demand for coal. The mine also provides jobs for 

other people like truck drivers ect.....

Comment noted.

32 032 Diana Crawford Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion GCC mine has a huge impact on the ecomomic livelyhood of La 

Plata County and its contributions to our taxes are not met by 

any other business in our county. My family has lived close to and 

had dealing with King Coal/GCC since the mine opened. Our 

property has been adjacant to the mine for 5 generations with 

zero problems of any kind. We support them getting the needed 

permits to expand and continue mining. The majority of those 

complaining are transplants who want to change our county to 

suit them. The coal mined goes to make concrete, the Silverton 

train and Hay Gulch Coal who sells coal for domestic use in 

homes. The owner of Hay Gulch collected signatures of a few of 

his customers totalling over 3 thousand. This is only a partial list 

of people who depend on coal to heat their homes. No one 

knows the total nunber of people who heat with coal. Please 

don't send these families into a downward spiral by taking their 

only heating source away. Give the mine the permits.

Comment noted.

33 033 Susan Atkinson E. For/Against/Opinion I insist that the BLM and OSMRE deny a modification of the 

existing Federal Coal Lease COC62920 for the King II Coal Mine

Comment noted.

34 033 Susan Atkinson Water Quality and 

Quantity

D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Local concerns for the subject issues are detailed and summarized in Sections 

1.9.2 thru 1.9.5 in Table 1-2; Table 1.3; Table 1-4 (HGCAP); and Table 1-5. The 

affected environment and potential environmental consequences to water 

resources, noise, and air are detailed in sections 3.1 Air; 3.11 Noise; and Water 

in Section 3.6. Surface disturbance is detailed in Table 2-5 Anticipated new 

ground disturbance from CR 120 improvements and in Section 2.1.2 Coal 

Removal where up to an additional 5-acres of disturbance may occur to UMU 

owned lands above the mine workings.

35 033 Susan Atkinson Air Quality D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 34 Response
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

36 033 Susan Atkinson Noise and vibration D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 34 Response

37 033 Susan Atkinson Surface Effects D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 34 Response

38 033 Susan Atkinson E. For/Against/Opinion If the proposed expansion is only estimated to extend the life of 

the mine by 5 to 7 years, I insist that GCC Energy’s time and 

money would be better spent designing and implementing a 

retraining program for the mine’s workers and a remediation 

plan to prepare for the inevitable closure of the mine.”

Comment noted.

39 033 Susan Atkinson Climate change D. Already addressed The use of coal is a significant contributor to dangerous 

greenhouse gas emissions. The realities of a changing climate and 

a rapidly declining demand for coal resources do not support the 

expansion of the King II Coal Mine

Project releases of greenhouse gases are described in Section 3.1 Air Quality 

and Climate. Greenhouse gases are described on pg. 61 and quantified with 

other air pollutants in Section 3.1.2 in Tables 3-4 thru 3-10. The EA also 

addressed the cumulative greenhouse gas and climate change 

impacts/contribution of the Proposed Action in Section 4.1.

40 034 Kathryn Barrett E. For/Against/Opinion I insist that the BLM and OSMRE deny a modification of the 

existing Federal Coal Lease COC62920 for the King II Coal Mine

Comment noted.

41 034 Kathryn Barrett Water Quality and 

Quantity

D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 34 Response

42 034 Kathryn Barrett Air Quality D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 34 Response

43 034 Kathryn Barrett Noise and vibration D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 34 Response

44 034 Kathryn Barrett Lands and realty D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 34 Response

45 034 Kathryn Barrett E. For/Against/Opinion If the proposed expansion is only estimated to extend the life of 

the mine by 5 to 7 years, I insist that GCC Energy’s time and 

money would be better spent designing and implementing a 

retraining program for the mine’s workers and a remediation 

plan to prepare for the inevitable closure of the mine.”

Comment noted.

46 034 Kathryn Barrett Climate change D. Already addressed The use of coal is a significant contributor to dangerous 

greenhouse gas emissions. The realities of a changing climate and 

a rapidly declining demand for coal resources do not support the 

expansion of the King II Coal Mine

Refer to Line 40 Response

47 035 Ethan Billingsley Land Use D. Already addressed I do not support the expanded lease at the King II mine. While I 

am supportive of multipleuses and extraction, I belive the is 

expansion is a poor use of public lands. This would appear to be 

politically motivated as opposed to meeting needs of the 

American people. ... It's time we turn our attention to sustainable 

There are no public surface lands directly affected by the Proposed Action. 

Clarification added to Section 2.1 Proposed Action and Map A-2 in Appendix A.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

uses of our public lands instead of continuing to support a dying 

industry.

48 035 Ethan Billingsley Partnerships/collaboration C. Beyond scope The description on social media (Facebook) was misleading and 

stated coal's economic impact statewide as opposed to being 

specific to King II.

BLM and OSMRE are unaware of the specifically referenced social media 

(Facebook) reference. A socioeconomic impact analysis of the Proposed Action, 

specific to King II is provided in Section 3.15 Socioeconomics of the EA pursuant 

to 40 CFR 1508.14.

49 036 Raul H. Borrastero E. For/Against/Opinion I’d like to express my support for the approval of the mine plan 

for the King II mine so that it may continue to operate and create 

value for the State of Colorado.

Comment noted.

50 037 Lynn Bruzzese E. For/Against/Opinion I am writing to submit comments about the above-referenced 

Lease Modification (Federal Coal Lease COC62920), which I 

oppose for the following reasons:

Comment noted.

51 037 Lynn Bruzzese Water Quality and 

Quantity

D. Already addressed It is critical to me that the quality of our environment, including 

but not limited to air, land and water, be preserved and 

protected. ... The Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the 

proposed expansion does not sufficiently address our local 

concerns about this mine’s impact on water quantity or quality, 

sound pollution, air pollution, or surface disturbances. Again, 

these matters are of enormous concern to me as a long-time 

resident of this area; I want them to be thoroughly and properly 

addressed.

Refer to Line 34 Response

52 037 Lynn Bruzzese Noise and vibration D. Already addressed It is critical to me that the quality of our environment, including 

but not limited to air, land and water, be preserved and 

protected. ... The Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the 

proposed expansion does not sufficiently address our local 

concerns about this mine’s impact on water quantity or quality, 

sound pollution, air pollution, or surface disturbances. Again, 

these matters are of enormous concern to me as a long-time 

resident of this area; I want them to be thoroughly and properly 

addressed.

Refer to Line 34 Response

53 037 Lynn Bruzzese Air Quality D. Already addressed It is critical to me that the quality of our environment, including 

but not limited to air, land and water, be preserved and 

protected. ... The Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the 

proposed expansion does not sufficiently address our local 

concerns about this mine’s impact on water quantity or quality, 

sound pollution, air pollution, or surface disturbances. Again, 

these matters are of enormous concern to me as a long-time 

resident of this area; I want them to be thoroughly and properly 

addressed. ...It is a significant contributor to dangerous 

greenhouse gas emissions, and even the coal dust that's lost 

during transport is hazardous.

Refer to Line 34 Response.

Coal trucks hauling coal from King II are covered. Therefore, fugitive coal dust

potentially losts during transport is not an issue of concern. 

54 037 Lynn Bruzzese Surface Effects D. Already addressed It is critical to me that the quality of our environment, including 

but not limited to air, land and water, be preserved and 

protected. ... The Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the 

proposed expansion does not sufficiently address our local 

concerns about this mine’s impact on water quantity or quality, 

sound pollution, air pollution, or surface disturbances. Again, 

these matters are of enormous concern to me as a long-time 

Refer to Line 35 Response
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

resident of this area; I want them to be thoroughly and properly 

addressed.

55 037 Lynn Bruzzese Climate change D. Already addressed It is a significant contributor to dangerous greenhouse gas 

emissions, and even the coal dust that's lost during transport is 

hazardous. The limited lifespan of the mine under the proposed 

modified lease, plus the realities of a changing climate and 

rapidly declining demand for coal resources, simply do not 

support the expansion of the King II Coal Mine.

Project releases of greenhouse gases are described in Section 3.1 Air Quality 

and Climate. Hazardous pollutants are described in Section 3.1.1 on page 61. 

Design features 1a and 1b address potential impacts associated with dust from 

the facility and mining operations as well as dust from truck traffic. Greenhouse 

gases are described on pg. 61 and quantified with other air pollutants in Section 

3.1.2 in Tables 3-4 thru 3-10. The EA also addressed the cumulative greenhouse 

gas and climate change impacts/contribution of the Proposed Action in Section 

4.1.

Coal trucks hauling coal from King II are covered. Therefore, fugitive coal dust 

potentially lost during transport is not an issue of concern.

56 037 Lynn Bruzzese E. For/Against/Opinion I believe that GCC Energy's time and money would be better 

spent designing and implementing a retraining program for the 

mine’s workers, and a remediation plan to prepare for the 

inevitable closure of this mine. The limited lifespan of the mine 

under the proposed modified lease, plus the realities of a 

changing climate and rapidly declining demand for coal 

resources, simply do not support the expansion of the King II 

Coal Mine.

Comment noted.

57 038 Christine Caldwell E. For/Against/Opinion We are strongly opposed to the expansion of the coal mine, and 

strongly urge you to deny the request.

Comment noted.

58 038 Christine Caldwell Traffic and Transportation D. Already addressed The history and current status of problems between the mine 

and the local residents, which have demonstrated King Coal’s 

lack of good faith with its agreements. This can be seen in their 

disregard for the speed limits on local roads, the excessive traffic 

on local roads (more trucks than allowed), a lack of respect to 

local residents who protest, and the erosion of local roads due to 

truck traffic. My heart breaks for the people living along the road 

to and from the mine, people who have lived there for 

generations.

Per Daniel Murray, LPC Planning Department, in years past there was some 

unwillingness for GCC to comply with the County’s voluntary traffic mitigation 

measures along CR 120 because LPC had not required a LUP. However, since the 

LUP was issued (June 2016), to his knowledge, there have been no violations 

reported over the last year. GCC Energy completed Phase 1 road improvements 

in the Fall 2016 dramatically improving road conditions, dust mitigation, and 

noise reduction on an unpaved portion of road. Since the issuance of a land use 

permit, GCC has operated below the allowable 80 average trucks per day. To 

address truck speed GCC Energy conducts periodic RADAR monitoring of coal 

trucks at unannounced times and locations. Consistent with the conditions of 

approval, results of those tests are regularly posted to the "Water, Truck and 

Speed Monitoring" page on GCC's website at http://www.gccenergy.net/watertruck-speed-monitoring.php. Information includes the date of the check, the 

number of coal trucks checked, and the number of those trucks found to be 

exceeding posted speed limits, or other, lower speeds set by internal policy. The 

site also includes coal truck logs of trucks loaded by date and time. Monitoring 

results through June 2017 were available on the site at the time this comment 

response was prepared. In the last year of random monitoring 9% of trucks 

exceeded posted speeds by an average of 5.57-6.30 mph. Approximately 24% of 

trucks exceeded posted speeds by an average of1-3 mph. In discussion with 

Daniel Murray, the County has not received any formal complaints regarding 

truck speed. Like all conditions of approval, it is up to GCC Energy to actively 

monitor operations and implement corrective measures to ensure compliance. 

Ultimately, the County can take code enforcement action if necessary. 
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

59 038 Christine Caldwell Water Quality and 

Quantity

D. Already addressed The potential for harm to the local environment, specifically to 

ground and well water, noise pollution, ground vibrations, and 

air quality.

Refer to Line 34 Response

60 038 Christine Caldwell Noise and vibration D. Already addressed The potential for harm to the local environment, specifically to 

ground and well water, noise pollution, ground vibrations, and 

air quality.

Refer to Line 34 Response

61 038 Christine Caldwell Air Quality D. Already addressed The potential for harm to the local environment, specifically to 

ground and well water, noise pollution, ground vibrations, and 

air quality.

Refer to Line 34 Response

62 038 Christine Caldwell Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion While we can appreciate the concern for saving jobs in SW 

Colorado, the logic of this argument does not hold up. Saving 

jobs is only one factor among many in these types of decisions, 

and keeping local people’s quality of life undisturbed, as well as 

having the courage to admit that coal is like a horse and buggy 

while natural gas is like an automobile in the beginning of the 

20th century, helps one to see that local jobs should be 

prioritized towards the future. We cannot hold back much 

needed changes in technology, or we will quickly become a Third 

World country. Expanding the coal mine is a step backwards.

Comment noted. Socioeconomic impacts related to the Proposed Action and No 

Action Alternatives are described in Section 3.15 of the EA. Please also refer to 

Section 1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action and Section 1.5 Need for the 

Proposed Action. Both agencies, BLM and OSMRE, have respective regulatory 

obligations to respond to GCC leasing and mine plan revisions that are described 

in these Sections. Consideration of natural gas and/or other alternative fuels for 

cement kilns (e.g. tires, industrial/medical waste, koke, etc.) are outside of the 

scope of the subject analysis. 

63 039 The Colorado Mining 

Association

E. For/Against/Opinion The Colorado Mining Association urges approval of the proposed 

Lease Modification and the Revision and Renewal of the Federal 

Mine Permit submitted by GCC Energy, LLC. We believe that the 

Preliminary Environmental Assessment (Preliminary EA) prepared 

by the BLM and OSMRE provides strong support for hte Lease 

Modification and Permit and the Finding of No Significant Impact 

from such approvals. 

Comment noted.

64 040 Colorado State Land 

Board Department of 

Natural Resources

E. For/Against/Opinion The State Land Board supports the joint environmental 

assessment (EA), Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), 

approval of the modification of existing Federal Coal Lease 

COC62920, and approval of federal mining and reclamation 

permits for several reasons pertaining to our mission: 1. Long 

Term Benefits to Colorado Schools [see letter for additional text]; 

2. Immediate Benefits to Public Schools [see letter for additional

text], 3. Mitigation of Short-Term Impacts [see letter for

additional text], 4. Beneficial Uses for the Site [see letter for

additional text]. The State Land Board believes there are many

benefits to the state and county derived from the production of

coal on lands administered by the State Land Board, as long as all

mining and reclamation activity is completed in accordance with

all laws and regulations. We will work cooperatively with other

agencies to ensure the state trust lands associated with this mine

are reclaimed to beneficial use.

Comment noted.

65 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for

Todd Foutz,

Crosscreek Ranch

NEPA process and 

alternatives

B. Resolve through policy

or administration

1. The Impacts are Significant This new lease area is almost 1000

acres. It is "a total modification request of 950.55 acres." [1]. On

that basis alone, the impact is significant and an environmental

impact statement is required. The current mine is "an

underground mining operation of approximately 565 acres (as of

July, 2015). GCC has applied for modification to the existing

federal coal lease to expand the leased area for underground

operations at the King II Mine site by 950.55 acres" The

Per the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500-

1508), the determination of a significant impact is a function of both context

and intensity. To determine significance, the severity of the impact must be 

examined in terms of the type, quality and sensitivity of the resource involved;

the location of the proposed project; the duration of the effect (short- or longterm) and other consideration of context. Significance of the impact will vary 

with the setting of the proposed action and the surrounding area. NEPA 

requires an EIS for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of 
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

modification area is bigger than the current workings. As will be 

seen below, the impacts of the proposed action are considerable, 

and under law should result in the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement.

the human environment. For the Proposed Action, BLM and OSMRE have 

determined that the level of documentation provided in the subject EA confirms 

that potential impacts do not rise to the significance level of preparing an EIS. 

Rationale and findings are included BLM and OSMRE's FONSIs.

66 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

NEPA process and 

alternatives

B. Resolve through policy 

or administration

TIMING OF PREPARATION, APPROVAL, AND DECISIONS A major 

issue in this environmental assessment is timing. One of the key 

goals of NEPA is to inform agency decision making. As a result, 

the law and the cases put a considerable emphasis on timing: the 

data and the analysis need to come first, and the decisions only 

afterward. Here, it seems that order is reversed, and the 

decisions will be taken before the data are available. It seems 

that the overall goal of this process in the eyes of some is to be 

sure, regardless of other considerations, to get this process 

completed by April, 2018. This is the supposed date on which 

GCC will "run out" of coal, or alternatively the date on which it 

will "permanently bypass" some of the coal reserves. This is a 

wrong approach, which results in several very unfortunate 

outcomes, which undermine the process. Among these are its 

arbitrary exclusion of otherwise valid alternatives.

The agencies do not agree that insufficient data is available to make an 

informed decision regarding the Proposed Action. The subject EA substantially 

updates and expands upon past King II mine NEPA decisions by updating 

environmental conditions with new site-specific investigations that are 

documented throughout the EA. Examples of new, updated data used to 

support the decision include studies on air quality, surface and groundwater 

investigations, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, vibration, and 

visual resources to name a few. 

As described in Section 1.1 Introduction, GCC submitted their original proposed 

lease modification to federal coal lease COC-62920 in 2010. The proposed 

modification was revised in 2014 because coal reserves within the original 

application had been bypassed during delays in the processing of the 

application. BLM and OSMRE reviewed, updated, and analyzed all potential 

impacts related to the Proposed Action and Alternatives in a timely manner 

including re-initiating scoping on January 6, 2017 and holding a public meeting 

on June 20th, 2017. BLM and OSMRE's schedule was informed and driven by the 

NEPA analysis process and not a date proposed by GCC. 

BLM and OSMRE took the necessary hard look at potential alternatives to the 

Proposed Action and provided rationale for why alternatives were considered 

but eliminated from detailed study in Section 2.3. No alternatives were 

eliminated from consideration solely due to timing.

67 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

NEPA process and 

alternatives

B. Resolve through policy 

or administration

2 An Environmental Impact Statement is Required. First, it is clear 

that this perceived need for hurry is driving the decision not to 

follow the law and prepare an environmental impact statement. 

The need for an EIS has been repeatedly and clearly raised now in

our communications and those of others, for at least a couple of 

years. If the agencies had agreed, and started the EIS process 

when this issue first came up, the EIS could be close to done by

now. It is not the fault of the public if the agencies and the

applicant are now pressed by time. If there actually is a time

problem (and we dispute that below) that is a self-inflicted

wound. And there is no provision of law that says that where an 

EIS is required, the agencies need not prepare an EIS if they are in 

a hurry.

Refer to Line 66 Response
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

68 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

Data/best available 

science

A. Consider in Final EA 3. Baseline Data are Needed Before, not After, the 

Environmental Assessment is Done. Again, the need for 

adequate baseline data is central to performing an adequate 

environmental analysis. And again, the neighbors have been

pointing out for years the need to gather such data. And again, 

the company has been dragging its feet to the point that the 

agencies are now proposing to make the decision without much 

of the data, and then hope for the best. A small selection of the

many examples in the EA follows, with page numbers in brackets: 

With respect to potential leaching from the waste piles, "OSMRE

is currently reviewing the material sampling analysis to 

determine if further analysis and monitoring is required." [16]. 

But the proposal apparently is to finalize the EA and make the

decision before this has been done. * With respect to water 

quality, "OSMRE is currently evaluating the water quality 

monitoring program in place at the King Coal Mine to ensure all 

requirements of the regulatory [sic] are being implemented 

appropriately. OSMRE is reviewing the permitted plan and 

collected water quality data as well as inspecting sample 

locations in the field. CORMS is aware that OSMRE is conducting 

this evaluation. Commenters and the public will be informed of 

the results when the evaluation is completed." [17] But 

apparently, this will occur only after the EA is approved and the 

decision made. * "To verify baseline conditions and monitor that 

the King JI Mine is not adversely affecting the water wells of 

adjacent landowners, GCC is planning the following measures: 

"GCC will install four monitoring well clusters (Technical Revision 

#26) ... These clusters will be located upgradient and 

downgradient of the King II Mine. They will be used to meet the 

baseline and monitoring and data requirements." [32] This seems 

to be saying that the baseline data will be gathered after the EA 

is approved and the decisions taken. "The OSMRE is conducting 

further analysis of samples taken from roof and floor materials 

that comprise the waste/spoils pile for King II Mine and are 

located on King I mine property. GCC has submitted a technical 

revision (TR-20A) to CORMS to address additional testing and 

monitoring ... "[74] "This spring and seep survey will continue 

quarterly for no less than a total of four quarters. Assessment will 

occur in a reasonable time following four quarters of data 

collection at these locations to shape the future GCC regulatory 

spring and seep monitoring requirements." [87]."To better 

support these conclusions and improve the PHC and CHIA for the 

King II Mine plan, Design Feature 2 includes a measure to 

implement a set of new monitoring wells in and around the lease 

area, which were installed in March 2017."[93] The company has 

been talking about these wells for a very long time. They could 

have been installed a year ago. Now it appears that the agencies 

are going to make their decisions before any data are produced. 

"The results of this spring and seep investigation conducted by 

Resource Hydrologic Services are currently being interpreted 

King II underground coal mines located in La Plata County have been in 

operation since 1941. On April 17, 2007, OSMRE issued Federal Indian Lands 

Permit CO-0106A to permit coal recovery in Federal Lease COC-62920. The 

permit decision was supported by the Environmental Analysis prepared by BLM 

entitled, "Environmental Assessment, EA Number CO-SJFO-00102EA, GCC 

Energy, LLC, Coal Lease Application, East Alkali Tract, COC-62920", and the 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prepared by OSMRE. The federal 

decision for modification to coal lease COC-62920 is based on historical data 

and observations, previous environmental assessment of potentially impacted 

resources, as well as currently available information in accordance with CEQ 

guidelines. The refuse waste piles referenced are associated with King I state 

permit C-1981-035; and the refuse facilities have no proposed federal action. 

The water quality monitoring program for coal lease COC-62920 was initially 

supported by the Environmental Analysis prepared by BLM entitled, 

"Environmental Assessment, EA Number CO-SJFO-00102EA, GCC Energy, LLC, 

Coal Lease Application, East Alkali Tract, COC-62920", and the Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) prepared by OSMRE. Water quality monitoring results 

are publicly available at: www.gccenergy.net/water_monitoring_results.php. 

The regulatory agencies responsible for preparation of the environmental 

assessment for COC-62920 have determined that previous operations and 

current operations have resulted in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). 

Specific to water resources, the operations have not impacted the groundwater 

system; therefore, current conditions are considered baseline conditions. 

However, the regulatory agencies determined that additional groundwater 

monitoring information was necessary to respond to assertions of groundwater 

impacts. The King II mine has not intercepted any water during underground 

operations, nor are wells used to dewater in advance of mining, which supports 

that current conditions reflect baseline conditions. 
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

(RHS 2017) and will be submitted to the agencies when finalized"

[94]. In short, the data should be gathered before, not after, the 

environmental analysis is done.

69 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

NEPA process and 

alternatives

D. Already addressed 4. Ruling Out Alternatives The agencies have repeatedly ruled 

out potentially superior alternatives on the ground that they 

cannot be implemented by April, 2018. This is improper under 

existing law. Alternatives are ruled out because: They are 

"[J]logistically infeasible, due to the duration of time to construct 

this alternative." [41] Or "[t]his situation is a time problem given 

the schedule for permit modification assuming the lease 

modification can be issued within the next year." [42] Again, 

"Logistically (from a timing perspective) infeasible, could not be 

permitted and constructed before coal is bypassed and the 

current lease reserve exhausted. [43] In short, based in large part 

on ruling out any alternative that cannot be implemented by 

April, 2018, the agencies limited their consideration to two 

options: Doing nothing - the "no action" alternative; or Doing 

exactly what the applicant proposes. There is not dispute about 

this. As the EA admits, " BLM and OSMRE have analyzed two 

alternatives: the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action 

Alternative," [2].

The EA in Section 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Study considered leasing and mining methodology alternatives and ten coal 

transportation alternatives. In no instance was an alternative eliminated solely 

because it could not be implemented by April 2018. Alternatives were 

eliminated if they met one or more of the following criteria (40 CFR 1502.14):

- it is ineffective (does not respond to the purpose and need);

- it is technically or economically infeasible (consider whether implementation 

of the alternative is likely given past and current practice and technology);

- it is inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the 

area (such as, not in conformance with the land use plan);

- its implementation is remote or speculative;

- it is substantially similar in design to an alternative that is analyzed; and,

- it would have substantially similar effects to an alternative that is analyzed.

Four transportation alternatives and alternative mining methodologies were 

eliminated based on this criterion. Six additional transportation alternatives 

were reviewed for cost magnitude, feasibility (including timing to develop), 

public safety, and environmental considerations. The consideration of each 

alternative can be found in Section 2.3.4 Coal Transportation Alternatives 

Evaluated in Detail on pages 43-52. Alternatives are then compared against 

each other along with associated environmental considerations (refer to Table 

2-8 Comparison of Transportation Alternatives Evaluated in Detail). 

70 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

NEPA process and 

alternatives

D. Already addressed 5. The April, 2018 "Deadline" is a Fiction The sense of time 

pressure that has taken this Environmental Assessment off the 

rails is at this point simply a fiction. Any mineral resource is finite 

and will at some point be exhausted. But the February 26, 2016 

memorandum and accompanying materials submitted by GCC to 

BLM in support of its application for an exemption from the coal 

leasing moratorium 1 (footnote reads: "Based on the emergency 

leasing request, GCC estimated in February 2016 that they could 

mine until May 2018 before reserves in the proposed lease 

modification areas would be bypassed" [3].) are based upon 

production rates that have never been met. As a result of a 

declining coal market, and of the truck number limits imposed by 

La Plata County, production has never reached the levels the 

company projected in February 2016. As we pointed out to BLM 

at the time of their decision, GCC's estimates were extreme and 

unrealistic even at the time they were made; time has made 

them even more so. See Table 1-1 in the Environmental 

As described in Section 1.1 Introduction, GCC submitted their original proposed 

lease modification to federal coal lease COC-62920 in 2010. The proposed 

modification was revised in 2014 because coal reserves within the original 

application had been bypassed during delays in the processing of the 

application. Since the application was received substantial amounts of data has 

been collected, reviewed and analyzed. Substantial public outreach has 

occurred over this project timeline including the completion of a lengthy public 

permitting process with LPC. BLM and OSMRE do not agree with the statement 

that "time pressure" related to reserve volumes caused the agencies to hastily 

prepare the subject EA. 

Refer also to Line 66 response above.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

Assessment. There is therefore no reason for panic here. There is 

plenty of time to get the right data, analyze it with care, and do 

the right thing.

71 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

Data/best available 

science

A. Consider in Final EA LACK OF ANALYSIS OF PRIOR SUBMISSIONS The References 

section of this study does not list a single one of the numerous 

studies and expert letters with which we have provided you in 

the past, even though some of these are referred to in the text. 

This is hard for us to understand and creates the impression that 

the concerns stated in those materials have not been read, fully 

absorbed or analyzed by the preparers. We incorporate all of 

these studies and reports by reference in these comments.

The commenter hired the following consultants to present information during 

the both LPC LUP process and the NEPA process: McVehil-Monnett Associates, 

Inc. (MMA) for air issues; Mine Engineers, Inc. for transportation issues; LSC 

Transportation Consultants, Inc. for traffic engineering issues; David Braslau 

Associates, Inc. for noise issues; and Carl Mount for mine waste issues. Specific 

reference to studies presented by these consultants are described below. 

Reference to specific and/or to all of the exhibits presented during the LPC LUP 

process (including those presented the commenter) are referred to in Sections 

2.1.7; 2.3.2 and in 3.11.1. All exhibits from the LPC LUP process were reviewed 

during the preparation of this EA and have also been scanned as part of the 

project administrative record. The documents cited in the references section of 

this EA were used by resource specialists to draft the analysis for each resource

as supporting documentation around their analyses. Additional documents used 

in the analysis, but not cited in this EA, are part of the Project Administrative 

Record.

LSC was referenced in Section 2.3.4 “Thus, LSC Technical Memorandum 

#154580 (Exhibit 34 in the LPC LUP staff report) summarized their analysis, 

findings, and recommendations. LSC made 11 recommendations regarding CR 

120 improvements, all of which appeared to pertain to industry and/or LPC road 

engineering standards.”

A citation for the Braslau report has been added to the references section 

related to a Braslau reference in Section reference mentioned in section 2.1.7.

See also Line 78 Response.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

72 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

Hazardous Materials and 

Waste Management, spills

A. Consider in Final EA Solid Waste Disposal The EA states: "The current mine permit 

authorizes some mine refuse disposal from the King II operations 

at the King I site." [2] It also acknowledges the presence of lead 

and mercury in these wastes: ''The OSMRE is conducting further 

analysis of samples taken from roof and floor materials that 

comprise the waste/spoils pile for King II Mine and ore located an 

King I mine property. GCC has submitted a technical revision (TR20A) to CORMS to address additional testing and monitoring for 

continued use of this spoil pile location. GCC has found 

"reportable" levels of mercury and lead in the roof and floor 

material samples and has published these results in the Toxics 

Release lnventory."[74]. And further: "While the roof and floor 

material samples include these toxics, there is no indication that 

they are leaching or running off-site from the spoils pile." [74]

Would it not be more accurate to say that "monitoring in the 

past has been minimal, and the results are not adequate to say 

with confidence whether or not they are leaching or running offsite from the spoils pile?" A rigorous and well designed 

monitoring program that produces negative results may actually 

be the basis for saying there may not be a problem. What is going 

on at King I has not been a rigorous and well designed monitoring 

problem. And what we are seeing once again is the applicant's 

slow walking the new monitoring system through the approval 

process in a way that ensures there will be little or no data 

generated before the agencies make their decision. And an 

agency inclination, driven by the mythical "April 2018 deadline," 

to make the decision before the data are in. We really hope this 

is not the case. But the EA says: "The proposed TR, specifically 

Minor Revision 41 (refer to CORMS permit), is intended to collect 

King I refuse pile and King II roof, coal and floor samples in order 

to determine whether any remedial actions are warranted. The 

OSMRE and CORMS are reviewing GCC's proposed monitoring 

plan in TR-20A to ensure that their performance standards and 

regulations are being met to protect water quality and public 

health." [74] Will we get these answers before or after the 

decision is made? We conclude that the statement that "test 

results indicated that the materials in the waste piles could not 

generate acid or toxic leachate" [16] as being either simply wrong 

or inconclusive; we all know the limitations on short term column 

leaching tests.

Monitoring in the past has been in compliance with the Federal and state 

requirements. As provided in previous response to comment [page 16], "Prior to 

obtaining approval for this waste disposal area the permittee had to make a 

demonstration, to the satisfaction of CDRMS, that the material would not 

adversely affect water quality or flow, vegetation, public health, or stability of 

the disposal area based on hydrologic, geotechnical, physical, and chemical 

analysis. Because test results indicated that the materials in the waste piles 

could not generate acid or toxic leachate, CDRMS does not require special 

handling or storage practices under Rule 4.05.8. Water may percolate through 

the waste rock without causing harm to groundwater resources. Surface and 

groundwater is monitored immediately downgradient from the waste disposal 

site and any potential negative impacts would be detected. Monitoring results 

are presented in Section 3.6.1 under the groundwater affected environment 

heading. The referenced minor revision 41 is associated with King I state permit 

C-1981-035; and the refuse facilities have no proposed Federal action. OSMRE 

regularly reviews data, monitoring, and reporting information of state coal 

regulatory programs in accordance with OSMRE's oversight responsibilities. 

Clarification on King I sampling data has been added to the EA in Section 3.2 

Health and Safety. And is also available from CDRMS and OSMRE.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

73 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

Surface Effects A. Consider in Final EA Subsidence "Subsidence is the gradual lowering of the ground 

surface after coal and support pillars are removed in a completed 

mining panel. After coal recovery, fracturing and settling of the 

overlying overburden may yield surface expressions of 

subsidence in the form of subsidence cracks and a lowering of 

the ground surface." [76-77]. The EA says that "[t]he subsidence 

monitoring program enforced by CORMS and OSMRE requires 

that the permit holder fix subsidence monuments and report 

results to CORMS quarterly." [15]. Where are the results of this 

reporting presented in the EA? We do not find them. If "GCC is 

effectively providing both forms of subsidence measurements," 

where are those results in the EA? It seems that the EA does not 

focus adequately on environmental damage from subsidence, 

such as its possible role in continuing methane release in the post 

mining phase. Indeed, the EA's approach "addresses risk of 

subsidence from underground mining to adjacent surface 

property,"[33] but does not adequately acknowledge other risks. 

Subsidence fractures are an obvious way for methane to leak into 

the atmosphere for many years after mine closure.

The commenter pointed out that the quarterly subsidence monitoring [page 15] 

are not reported in the EA. Upon review of the referenced statement and the 

associated OSMRE letter to a commenter during its annual oversight process 

(2015 in Table 1-3 of the EA), the EA language in Table1-3 has been revised to 

directly quote what OSMRE actually stated. "Coal mine permittees are required 

to adopt measures to prevent subsidence from causing material damage to the 

extent technologically and economically feasible, to maximize mine stability, 

and to maintain the value and reasonably foreseeable future use of surface 

lands except where planned subsidence may occur in a predictable and 

controlled manner. Mine subsidence can be monitored by placing fixed 

monuments on the land surface above underground mine workings and 

surveying those monuments at regular intervals to detect any changes in 

relative location or by visual evaluation to determine if surface lands have 

developed cracks." At the King II mine, as with King I, GCC conducts a visual 

survey of the surface areas above active mine workings annually and reports 

results to CDRMS and OSMRE when subsidence is identified. There have been 

no monuments established at King II for this purpose as there are no structures, 

other than range fencing. As described in Section 3.3.1 under the subsidence 

heading, there has been no visual evidence of subsidence at King II. 

Potential methane releases from the mine, either via venting or that occur as a 

result of subsidence events are quantified in Section 3.1.2, Direct Air Quality 

Effects [page 71], "Methane emissions associated with the King II Mine are 

anticipated to be very low when compared to other Colorado underground coal 

mines. The geology of the surrounding strata and composition of the coal itself 

produce very little emissions during room and pillar mining. Implementation of 

the Proposed Action is estimated to contribute a maximum of 15,915 tons of 

directly emitted CO2e annually and 69,506 tons for all the recoverable coal 

estimates within the lease modification area. This is a minor fraction of the GHG 

emissions that will be generated over the same period within the affected 

environment area." Clarifying language has been added to the Final EA 

acknowledging that methane releases also may occur associated with 

subsidence events.

74 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

C. Beyond scope Methane "Methane is emitted during the production and 

transport of coal, natural gas, and oil ...." [58]. Approximately 

10.5 percent of U.S. emissions of methane come from 

underground coal mining activities (USEPA 2010)." [70]. It would 

seem that these facts would indicate that it is important to 

present some actual data about the methane emissions from this 

mine. "Due to the area's naturally low occurrence of gas in the 

coal formation, overburden, surrounding strata as well as GCC's 

room and pillar mining methods," [63] the agencies have 

apparently decided that rigorous methane emission data are not 

needed: "[t]he ventilation air methane emissions estimates are 

based on a single methane concentration measurement." [63]. It 

is evident that many of the cement kilns to which this coal is 

shipped are able to use other fuels such as natural gas and tires. 

One alternative that really does need to be explored is the 

environmental benefit that would accrue should these kilns all 

convert to natural gas, or waste based fuels. See, e.g., Cement 

Kilns: A Ready Made Waste to Energy Solution? https://wasteConsideration of alternative cement kiln fuels is beyond the scope of the 

Federal actions analyzed in this EA. Refer to Response #62.

With respect to methane emissions, the complete reference to methane 

emission on page 58 read: "Due to the area’s naturally low occurrence of gas in 

the coal formation, overburden, surrounding strata as well as GCC’s room and 

pillar mining methods, this is the only methane ventilation system required at 

the King II Mine. The ventilation air methane emissions estimates are based on 

a single methane concentration measurement (the highest ever recorded by 

MSHA at the mine was 0.02 percent) and the main vent fan air flow used by 

CDPHE to estimate vent particulate matter emissions." 
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

management-world.com/a/cement-kilns-a-ready-made-wasteto-energy-solution .The explanation for failing to consider this 

alternative is thin and unconvincing. The EA really needs to

compare the costs and benefits of these alternative fuels.

75 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

Traffic and Transportation D. Already addressed Traffic and Alternatives "GCC's proposed traffic accounts for 

approximately 99 percent of loading by weight on north CR 120 

and approximately 67 percent by volume (660/983 trips, Traffic 

Impact Assessment, November 19, 2015)." [27]. These massive 

impacts create significant safety issues for local residents. Yet the 

EA simply continues the process of ex post facto justification of a 

pre-cooked decision to use County Road 120 North as the sole 

coal transportation route. There is nothing in the EA more 

evidently wrong than these statements: "Alternative coal 

transport options have been considered and analyzed by the BLM 

and the OSMRE and by the cooperating agencies-particularly LPCsince July 2012 when GCC submitted a Class II LUP application to 

LPC." [38] "These transportation alternatives, listed in Table 2-6, 

were the focus of 4 years of detailed LPC Planning Commission 

and Board of County Commissioners evaluation" [38] "This 

option was evaluated in more detail by LPC ... "[45-46] These 

statements are simply factually wrong. The County took the 

position during this review process that it had no authority to 

review or analyze any alternatives and that it had no legal 

authority to consider any alternative except the one presented to 

it by the applicant, GCC. The County Attorney repeatedly so 

advised the Planning Commission and staff. So there never was 

any analysis of alternatives by the County. And indeed, we 

discussed at length with BLM staff the County's perception that if 

there proved to be transportation alternatives during the NEPA 

process, BLM could enforce them by conditions in its coal lease. 

And once again, we see the cart getting ahead of the horse. 

Because the County approved this project without analyzing any 

alternatives, the applicant has been making irretrievable 

commitments of resources to a single alternative while the 

environmental review has been occurring. Rather than seeing 

this as a problem, the agencies could be seen as rewarding this 

kind of approach, and pointing the analysis to approval of a single 

alternative because of the company's commitment to it. We are 

asked to support the applicant's preferred alternative because 

"[m]any of the road improvements required in Phases 1- 3 will 

have already been completed by the time the subject EA and 

decision is made." [30] So precisely because the applicant has 

been building its version of the project while the federal 

environmental analysis has been moving forward, the applicant's 

version is now supposed to be preferred. The applicant's 

proposal is now the only action alternative that can possibly be 

built by April, 2018: "(i}importantly, the required road 

improvements under this alternative can be completed within a 

timeframe that meets the purpose and need of the Proposed 

Action." [44] 

Much of the technical background around transportation alternatives was 

initially presented by various parties (proponents and opponents) as part of the 

LPC LUP process. Alternative transportation scenarios were presented and 

debated at length during the LPC process. Several alternatives presented and 

discussed in the LPC LUP process had detailed survey plats associated with them 

thereby enabling BLM and OSMRE to evaluate specific alignments of 

transportation alternatives. These technical materials have all been 

incorporated by reference in multiple locations in the EA. BLM and OSMRE 

reviewed these materials and conducted additional independent analysis of 

alternatives as described in Line 70 Response. While it is true that the LPC LUP 

process is not a process focused on alternatives analysis but rather on the 

application before the planning department; it does not mean that alternatives 

are not part of the public process. Indeed, during the LUP public process 

alternatives were presented by GCC, by organized opposition, and by individual 

residents. In fact, as a result of the LPC LUP process, not only were 

transportation alternatives considered but also a wide variety of mitigation 

measures were presented, debated, and became part of the RIA and other 

conditions within the Class II permit. Finally, refer to Table 4. Scale of Roadway 

Improvements for Three Transportation Options and Table 5. Change of 

Average Daily Trips (ADT) along CR 120N in the LPC Planning Department Staff 

Report. The tables provide comparison traffic volumes and the scale of road 

improvements along the transportation alternatives analyzed by BLM and 

OSMRE.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

76 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

NEPA process and 

alternatives

D. Already addressed Since the ability to complete the project by that date is 

apparently now an agency requirement, this eliminates all 

alternatives except the one the applicant wants to build, and 

prevents any real consideration of alternatives. “If an alternative 

is considered during the EA process but the agency decides not 

to analyze the alternative in detail, the agency must identify 

those alternatives and briefly explain why they were eliminated 

from detailed analysis {40 CFR 1502.14)." (37]. For many 

alternatives, the principal reason offered for their elimination is 

simply that they can't be built by April. Here, the reasons that the 

agencies have eliminated every single action alternative other 

than the one the applicant wants to build are obvious. No other 

alternative ever had a chance in this system. 

Refer to Lines 66 and 69 Responses

77 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

Traffic and Transporation D. Already addressed Specific Traffic and Safety Concerns The elimination of the other 

alternatives is further "justified" by unbalanced and 

unreasonable comparisons. For example, the 120 South 

alternative and the County Road 119 Alternative were eliminated 

in part because they would require modifications to the

intersection with State Highway 140. But so would the applicant's 

preferred alternative. "The TIA recommended modifications to 

the roadway at these locations to improve safety. GCC has 

agreed to complete the recommended modifications at the first 

two locations as part of its RIA with LPC (see Section 2.1.3 Coal 

Production and Transportation)." [119].There is perhaps no 

better example than the "hill grade" argument: "[T]here are four 

steep hill grades compared to one along CR 120 N; therefore, 

truck clutch and brake noise would be more frequent along CR 

120 S." [46]. There is a very large gradient on County Road 120 

North. Trucks have to gain several hundred feet in altitude. By 

comparison, the gradients on 120 South are all small and short. 

Comparing these is truly comparing apples and oranges. We 

believe that actual data about the size of the various grades is 

extremely important and should be readily available. We are 

convinced that it will show the fallacy in this comparison. The 

information is also inconsistent. "[T]here are four steep hill 

grades ...." [46] this route has five hills to negotiate." [47] 

Elsewhere it seems to say three. An important issue not included 

in the EA is this. The CR 120 North route is at substantially 

greater elevation that either the CR 119 route or the CR 120 

South route. It is thus snow and ice covered far more frequently 

and to much greater depths. There is available from local 

weather stations data sufficient to show the frequency and

duration of snow cover in these areas. Because snow and ice on 

these roads, coupled with frequent passage of heavy trucks, is a 

principal source of traffic hazard and danger to persons, this is 

quite significant. Several of the accidents on this road have been

caused by heavy trucks trying to negotiate snow and ice. It makes 

little sense to force all the traffic onto the steepest grade, at 

higher altitude, with far greater snow and ice problems. Please 

also note that there are actually two separate 'southern' road 

As the commenter noted in the eliminated CR 120 N and S alternatives 

modifications to the intersection with State Highway 140 would be required and 

since these impacts are substantially similar to those effects already analyzed as 

part of the Proposed Action they did not require further analysis.

In consideration of this comment CR 120 N and S were revisited in the field and 

evaluated spatially using GIS. It is accurate that CR 120 N has one steep grade. 

CR 120S has 2 comparable steep long grades and three hills of shorter length 

and grade. The steep grades along CR 120 S are on the west end of this 

alternative where the road ascends from Hay Gulch to the mesa top and then, 

after several hundred feet, descends then ascends out of a large unnamed 

arroyo. The various smaller hills traversed along CR 120 S are associated with 

the CR crossing small drainage courses resulting in dips in the road. For 2 of the 

3 smaller hills, sight distance is reduced until cresting the hill. The last hill 

descends to the SH 140, and while site distance is not impaired by the hill slope, 

this segment of the road has 4 sharp turns where 9 accidents have occurred 

since 205 (Refer to the TIA (Roadrunner, 2015). As a note regarding the 

comment that variable numbers were stated in the EA regarding the number of 

steep hills 4, 5 or 3; refer to the footnote in the EA on page 46. The EA has been 

revised to identify 2 steep hills along CR 120 S with braking/clutching noise and 

3 other hills that either impair visual distance or are associated with sharp turns. 

The commenter also states that CR 120 N is at a "substantially greater 

elevation" and receives snow and ice "much more frequently and too much 

greater depths." No data was presented to support this claim. The highest point 

along CR 120 N is approximately 7,800 feet and the lowest elevation point is 

7,200 at the King II mine. Along CR 120 S the elevations range from 

approximately 7,000 feet to 7,400 feet. Along CR 119 the elevations are 

approximately 6,800 feet to 7,000 feet. BLM and OSMRE could not find a 

climate data source that would substantiate the commenters assertion of much 

more frequent and higher intensity snowfall between two points along any 

given CR in La Plata County. 
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

alternatives, both of which offer a shorter truck travel distance to 

Gallup, New Mexico. One is County Road 119. The other is 

County Road 120 South. The statement that there are 'more 

people impacted on the southern route' is largely based on 

adding the people on 119 to the people on 120 South, which is 

an error. We find this statement very hard to understand or 

justify: "The Proposed Action would reduce the risk of wildlifevehicle collisions along CR 120 N." [107].

78 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

Noise and vibration D. Already addressed Noise The EA continues the practice to which we have objected 

repeatedly. It monitors noise at a few locations. "Background 

ambient noise levels was measured {without truck noise) at four 

locations along CR 120 N during a weekend, with continuous day 

and night measurements. [122] But: It ignores the conclusion in 

the Braslau report that, properly interpreted, these results are 

showing severe noise impacts at nearby residences; and There is 

still no monitoring at the location repeatedly identified by nearby

residents as having the biggest noise problem and the loudest 

sounds. "Buffering measures included in the plan include sound 

walls, landscaping, and berming as the respective condition 

provides to directly address and achieve compatibility. Impacts 

directly mitigated with this plan include noise, traffic, dust, 

unsightly views and other negative impacts, which are 

perceptible by adjoining land uses along north CR 120. The noise 

and visual buffering plan will be implemented by GCC at the

discretion of the respective landowners....." [34]. This fails to 

acknowledge that the only way that this buffering can take place 

is if the local residents make the land available to build the 

buffers. GCC has no intention of acquiring this land or paying for 

it.

The Braslau report used Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006). BLM and OSMRE do not agree that 

the referenced guidance is the appropriate guide for assessing coal truck traffic 

along CR 120. In the Preface of the guidance, the FTA states the following: "The 

manual details the procedures for producing accurate impact assessments for 

proposed federally-funded mass transit projects...BLM and OSMRE, and LPC 

concur with the noise study results reported by Dr. Catherine Aimone-Martin in 

her review of the noise study completed by Wave Engineering (of which Braslau 

refutes in testimony to LPC; refer to exhibit 73 on 

http://laplatacountyco.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=3103). Dr. 

Aimone-Martin concluded: "I find that the Wave Engineering noise study is a 

thorough evaluation of vehicle and background noise impacts. The study 

provides sufficient information for GCC Energy LLC to make an informed 

decision on mitigation options and continue to keep haul truck noise as low as 

possible on CR120." With respect to the commenter's statement regarding 

private property and buffering; based on the LPC LUP, implementation of 

buffering is detailed in the RIA and LPC LUP. Specifically, "Install noise and visual 

buffering with McQue and Hunzeker agreement." These are 2 of the properties 

that Braslau concluded would be subject to "severe noise." The LPC Staff report 

concludes the following: "The noise and visual buffering plan in the two 

identified, key locations will be implemented by the applicant at the discretion 

of the respective landowners; and will be available for implementation from the 

time of approval of this project up until the completion of phase 5 road 

improvements. This gives the landowners an opportunity to dictate when, 

where, and what buffering improvements are made."

79 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

Water Quality and 

Quantity

C. Beyond scope Agricultural Dry Up "The supplemental water supply is 

comprised of Huntington Class A Shares through dry -up af an 

additional 44 acres of previously irrigated Huntington -owned 

lands. This supplemental water supply required a "change of use" 

decree from the water court to allow irrigation water to be used 

at the mine. The supplemental water and "change of use" were 

approved by the District Court, Water Division No. 7 on January 

6, 2017." [30]. There is no identification or analysis of the adverse 

environmental effects of this dry up of historically productive 

agricultural land.

The Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969 created seven 

water divisions based upon the drainage patterns of various rivers in Colorado. 

Each water division is staffed with a division engineer appointed by the state 

engineer, a water judge appointed by the Supreme Court, a water referee 

appointed by the water judge, and a water clerk assigned by the district court. 

Water judges are district judges appointed by the Supreme Court and have 

jurisdiction in the determination of water rights, the use and administration of 

water, and all other water matters within the water division. King II water rights 

are under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Water Courts, Division No.7, which 

granted a water rights decree on January 6, 2017 to GCC (Refer to Section 2.1.5 

Water Supply). Edits to clarify the impacts associated with agricultural dry-up 

have been made to Section 3.14.2 Land Use of the EA.

See also Line 167 Response.

80 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

C. Beyond scope Numerous concerns about conflict of interest We have 

repeatedly expressed concerns about what we see as a conflict of 

BLM requested a Disclosure Statement as required by 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5(c) that 

Ecosphere Environmental Services, Inc. does not have any interest, financial or 
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

interest on the part of Ecosphere, the EA contractor. And we 

have been met by silence. What is the agencies' view of this 

concern?

otherwise, in the outcome of the project. A Disclosure Statement was provided 

to BLM via email on June 10, 2015 attesting to the provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 

1506.5(c) . BLM and OSMRE have worked with Ecosphere on several other NEPA 

projects and have no concerns regarding the quality or integrity of their work. 

BLM and OSMRE direct the content, conclusions and level of analysis of NEPA 

documents prepared under each agencies authority.

81 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

Energy and mineral 

development

A. Consider in Final EA No Analysis of Electricity Use or the Fuel With Which It Is 

Generated GCC's King II mine is a very considerable electrical 

customer. The great majority of the electricity it uses is 

generated by coal. This needs to be acknowledged, and form part 

of the GHG accounting.

According to GCC, they pay between $50,000 to $90,000 per month in electric 

bills. The GHG accounting of that largely coal generated power is described in 

the Line 83 Response below.

82 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

Climate change C. Beyond scope No Analysis of Electricity Use or the Fuel With Which It Is 

Generated GCC's King II mine is a very considerable electrical 

customer. The great majority of the electricity it uses is 

generated by coal. This needs to be acknowledged, and form part 

of the GHG accounting.

The electricity consumed by the King II mine, as it relates to "GHG accounting" is 

captured in the Colorado Air Resources Management Modeling Study 

(CARMMS) described in Section 4.3.1 Cumulative Air Quality and Climate. Base 

case emissions of the CARMMS model include major (>25MW) electrical 

generation units (power plants), most of which are coal burning units in CO, UT, 

AZ and NM.

83 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

Data/best available 

science

A. Consider in Final EA Data and Monitoring It seems that the agencies have been 

awakened to the large data gaps and historically poor monitoring 

at this site. But these data should be generated, analyzed and 

inform the environmental analysis, rather than consisting of 

future promises. "OSMRE is currently reviewing the material 

sampling analysis to determine if further analysis and monitoring

is required." [16] "OSMRE is currently evaluating the water 

quality monitoring program in place at the King Coal Mine to 

ensure all requirements of the regulatory [sic] ore being 

implemented appropriately. OSMRE is reviewing the permitted 

plan and collected water quality data as well as inspecting 

sample locations in the field. CORMS is aware that OSMRE is 

conducting this evaluation. Commenters and the public will be 

informed of the results when the evaluation is completed." [17]. 

"The OSMRE must decide whether or not to approve a Permit 

Revision Application Package consisting af a water monitoring 

program, Probable Hydrologic Consequences analysis, Right of 

Entry information, Subsidence Control Plan, and a Reclamation

Plan." [7]. "To verify baseline conditions and monitor that the 

King II Mine is not adversely affecting the water wells of adjacent 

landowners, GCC is planning the fa/lawing measures: "GCC will 

install four monitoring well clusters (Technical Revision #26}. ... . 

These clusters will be located upgradient and downgrodient of 

the King II Mine. They will be used to meet the baseline and 

monitoring and data requirements for LPC, CORMS, and the 

OSMRE related to groundwater quality" [32]. "Installation of 

monitoring well clusters proposed in GCC's permit revision 

application to OSMRE (GCC 2017) has already been approved as 

TR-26 under CORMS Permit #C- 1981-035." [84]. "This spring and 

seep survey will continue quarterly for no less than a total of four 

quarters. Assessment will occur in a reasonable time following 

four quarters of data collection at these locations to shape the 

future GCC regulatory spring and seep monitoring requirements." 

The water quality monitoring program for coal lease COC-62920 was initially 

supported by the Environmental Analysis prepared by BLM entitled, 

"Environmental Assessment, EA Number CO-SJFO-00102EA, GCC Energy, LLC, 

Coal Lease Application, East Alkali Tract, COC-62920", and the Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) prepared by OSMRE. OSMRE regularly reviews data, 

monitoring, and reporting information of state coal regulatory programs in 

accordance with OSMRE's oversight responsibilities. 

Refer also to Line 68 Response.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

[87]. "While some of the domestic water wells may have 

completion intervals that expose the "A" coal seam mined at the 

King II operation, no data exists to determine if the "A" seam is 

water bearing at these locations." [92]. There have been 

repeated requests that such data be gathered, and it is disturbing 

that they are still not available. "To better support these 

conclusions and improve the PHC and CHIA far the King II Mine

plan, Design Feature 2 includes a measure to implement a set of 

new monitoring wells in and around the lease area, which were 

installed in March 2017." [93]. Again, these data should be 

informing the environmental analysis, not something that is 

going to be gathered in the future. "The results of this spring and 

seep investigation conducted by Resource Hydrologic Services 

are currently being interpreted (RHS 2017) and will be submitted 

to the agencies when finalized." [94]. Will they be finalized 

before the agencies make their decisions? " All of these 

monitoring well clusters were installed in late Spring 2017." [95]. 

These data should be informing the environmental analysis, not 

something that is goingto be gathered in the future. "All of the 

surface and groundwater monitoring described above is for the 

purpose of monitoring area water quality and to better 

understand where and if water is resent. This information helps 

OSMRE and CORMS to monitor potential impacts to water 

resources from implementation of the mine permits." [95]. 

84 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

Traffic and Transporation B. Resolve through policy 

or administration

Binding Commitment The EA concludes that GCC will not honor 

its agreement with the County if it does not get what it wants. 

"GCC would likely request renegotiation of the RIA with LPC as 

the currently required improvements could not be capitalized 

without the coal production authorized in the RIA. For thi s 

analysis, it is estimated that road improvements would only be 

completed through Phase 3 (November 2019)." [120 - 121]

Under the No Action Alternative (Section 2.2) it is explained that GCC would 

likely request renegotiation of the RIA with LPC as the currently required 

improvements could not be capitalized without the coal production authorized 

in the RIA. 

Refer to Road Impact Agreement Article Eight - Modifications. The agreement 

may be modified by mutual consent.

85 041 Luke J. Danielson, 

P.C. Law Office for 

Todd Foutz, 

Crosscreek Ranch

E. For/Against/Opinion Questionable Conclusions We find nothing to support this 

conclusion, which we dispute: "[T]he magnitude of detrimental 

impacts to property values from the Proposed Action cannot be 

estimated, the likelihood of significant detrimental effects is low 

because of the Design Features included in the Proposed Action 

and the mitigation measures in the RIA and other requirements 

of GCC's Class II LUP that will be monitored and enforced by 

LPC.11 [136]. For the reasons stated, this environmental analysis 

is inadequate, and does not form an appropriate basis for 

approving the proposed action.

Additional clarifying analysis related to property values was added to Section 

3.15.2.

86 042 Sarah Daulton E. For/Against/Opinion Yes for lease! Comment noted.

87 043 Kati Harr E. For/Against/Opinion Please deny a modification of the existing Federal Coal Lease 

COC62920 for the King II Coal Mine.

Comment noted.

88 043 Kati Harr Water Quality and 

Quantity

D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 35 Response

89 043 Kati Harr Noise and vibration D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 35 Response
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

90 043 Kati Harr Air Quality D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 35 Response

91 043 Kati Harr Surface Effects D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 35 Response

92 043 Kati Harr Climate change D. Already addressed Climate change is a real and actual thing and the use of coal is a 

huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. What, exactly, is 

the point of wasting so much time, energy and money to extend 

the mine’s life by only 5 to 7 years? Instead, wouldn’t it be better 

– business-wise, socially, morally – to design a retraining program 

for your workers? The realities of a changing climate and a 

rapidly declining demand for coal resources do not support the 

expansion of the King II Coal Mine.

Refer to Line 40 Response

93 043 Kati Harr E. For/Against/Opinion Instead, wouldn’t it be better – business-wise, socially, morally –

to design a retraining program for your workers?

Comment noted.

94 044 Graham Johnson Climate change D. Already addressed The Draft FONSI for the King II Coal Lease Modification, under the 

"Intensity" heading 7) discounts the cumulative effects of GHG 

emissions from continued mining since they "cannot be 

accurately quantified of predicted". This is exactly the reason not 

to approve the expansion! Cumulative emissions of GHG have 

been, and continue to be significant in global climate change per 

generally accepted climate science.

BLM and OSMRE have presented substantial information in the EA describing 

direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions and the 

consequential relationship to climate change, see Sections 3.1 and 4.3.1. What 

the agencies cannot do with certainty, is to predict or describe exactly what the 

impact on climate change will be from the Proposed Action's GHG emissions. 

Based on BLM and OSMRE’s analysis, total annual GHG emissions from the 

Proposed Action (direct and indirect for maximum production levels) are 

estimated to be 0.5 Tg on a CO2e basis. This represents approximately 0.0006 

percent of the US’s GHG emissions (USEPA 2015b). Regardless of the accuracy 

of emission estimates, predicting the degree of impact of any single emitter of 

GHGs may have on global climate change or on the changes to biotic and abiotic 

systems that accompany climate change, is not possible at this time. Given the 

cumulative nature of the GHG and climate change issue, and a lack of project 

specific impacts, please see the cumulative section for a general description of 

anticipated changes and impacts at the global, regional and local levels.

95 044 Graham Johnson E. For/Against/Opinion This is exactly the reason not to approve the expansion! At some 

point sacrifices have to be made to protect the environment. 

Fossil fuels burned in Mexico, or wherever, will impact our 

collective environment. The time has come to stop burning coal. 

Comment noted. Refer also to Line 94 Response.

96 044 Graham Johnson Socioeconomic 

Considerations

E. For/Against/Opinion Yes, jobs, taxes, and royalties will be lost if the expansion is 

denied. That's unfortunate, but let's look to the future and 

renewable energy sources, not dig ourselves deeper into a crude 

technology from the past.

Comment noted.

97 045 Scott Jones E. For/Against/Opinion I wish to go on record as a strong supporter of this mine and 

express my opinion that the EA should be approved and the mine 

be allowed to continue to mine coal. This mine has been a strong 

supporter of the economy and people in the Four Corner Area 

and has been a good neighbor since it opened around the 40’s or 

50’s. Their product is used to manufacture cement and other 

products that are vital to their customer base in the US and 

Mexico. The mines environmental record and the way they 

conduct their operations is first class and should continue. OSM 

should approve the EA and unsigned FONSI.

Comment noted.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

98 046 La Plata County 

Colorado Board of 

County 

Commissioners

D. Already addressed The County is in receipt of the Preliminary Environmental 

Assessment for the GCC King II Coal Mine and aware of the 

opportunity to comment. As a cooperating agency established in 

the Memorandum of Understanding with the Bureau of Land 

Management and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, La Plata County has participated in the scoping and 

environmental assessment process for several months. In 

particular, La Plata County Planning Department and Engineering 

Department Staff, in consultation with the Board of County 

Commissioners, provided technical comments on the draft 

Environmental Assessment as part of the agency review period in 

April 2017. All of the County' s comments provided have been 

addressed in the current Preliminary Environmental Assessment 

and the County does not have any additional comments at this 

time.

Comment noted.

99 047 Lewis Roca 

Rothgerber Christie 

LLP

E. For/Against/Opinion GCC generally agrees with the findings made by the agencies, and 

also agrees that the Proposed Action will not have a significant 

effect on the human environment. These comments explain 

GCC's position in more detail.

Comment noted.

100 047 Lewis Roca 

Rothgerber Christie 

LLP

Traffic and Transporation D. Already addressed GCC's Road Improvement Agreement is not part of the Proposed 

Action Numerous sections in the EA discuss the Road 

Improvement Agreement (the "Agreement") between GCC and 

La Plata County, Colorado. See, e.g., EA § 2.1.3. The Agreement is 

not a proper subject of the EA because GCC is contractually 

obligated to make the road improvements regardless of whether 

the Agencies approve or deny the Proposed Action. The 

Agreement required no federal approval, does not require the 

expenditure of federal funds, and is not tied in any way to the 

decisions the Agencies will make on the Proposed Action. Under 

the agreement, GCC is required to make the road improvements 

as a condition of continuing to operate the mine. Under NEPA, 

the Agencies must analyze not only the direct impacts of the 

Proposed Action, but also the indirect and cumulative impacts of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Custer 

Cty. Action Ass'n v. Garvey, 256 F.3d 1024, 1035 (10th Cir. 2001). 

The road improvements contemplated by the agreement, 

however, do not fall into any of these categories, nor are they a 

"connected action" as described in 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25 ("Actions 

are connected if they: (i) Automatically trigger other actions 

which may require environmental impact statements. (ii) Cannot 

or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or 

simultaneously. (iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action 

and depend on the larger action for their justification."). The 

road improvements are to be made under a contractual 

obligation regardless of the Agencies determinations here, and 

the improvements have utility wholly independent of the 

Proposed Action. Custer Cly. Action Ass'n v. Garvey, 256 F.3d 

1024, 1037 (10th Cir. 2001) ("projects that have "independent 

utility" are not "connected ctions" under 40 C.F.R. § 

1508.25(a)(1)(iii)."). Because of this, any impacts stemming from 

BLM and OSMRE do not agree with the commenter's interpretation of 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1508.25 with regard to whether CR 120 road improvements should be 

analyzed as part of the Proposed Action. It is the position of the agencies, and 

the cooperating agencies (including LPC) that road improvements along CR 120 

are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for 

their justification.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

road improvements under the Agreement are beyond the scope 

of the Environmental Assessment, and need not be considered in 

the Agencies' decision-making process.

101 047 Lewis Roca 

Rothgerber Christie 

LLP

Energy and mineral 

development

A. Consider in Final EA Only foreseeable emissions resulting from the Proposed Action 

should be considered The Agencies must, at most, consider "the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions" in preparing 

an environmental document. WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 

F.3d 298, 309 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (discussing what impacts must be 

considered in the EIS context) (emphasis added). While the EA 

discusses some impacts that are reasonably foreseeable, such as 

the impacts of coal-burning at cement facilities owned by the 

same corporate parent as GCC, it also attempts to bring in 

impacts that are not reasonably foreseeable. For example, the EA 

discusses the downstream emission associated with unknown 

(non-GCC) recipients of coal from King II and makes broad 

assumptions to quantify those impacts. This discussion goes 

beyond the "indirect effects" described in the NEPA regulations. 

40 CFR 1508.8(b)) (indirect effects are those effects "... which are 

caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.") (emphasis 

added). These downstream emissions projections are too 

speculative to inform the Agencies' decision- making, and need 

not be included in the EA. Similarly, there is no reason to believe 

that downstream buyers of coal that originates at King II would 

cease their operations if the Proposed Action is not approved. 

Instead, it is more likely that as market buyers of coal, any such 

buyers would simply obtain their coal supply from another 

source in the market. Projecting impacts from these sources as 

part of the EA is therefore problematic-there is no reason to 

believe that the impacts from these sources are a reasonably 

foreseeable consequence of the proposed action.

BLM and OSMRE do not agree with the commenter's interpretation of 40 CFR 

1508.8(b)with regard to indirect impacts associated combustion of coal 

produced by the King II mine. It has been both agencies experiences that the 

courts want to see the end use of the mined coal resource analyzed as an 

indirect and cumulative impact, see WildEarth Guardians v. OSMRE intervenor 

San Juan Coal Company (1:14-cv-00112-RJ-CG), Dine Care, San Juan Citizens, 

Sierra Club, CBD, and Amigos Bravos v. OSMRE (12-cv-01275-JLK), and WildEarth 

Guardians v. OSMRE intervenors Colowyo Coal and Trapper Mining (13-cv00518-RBJ). Similarly, the courts have also directed the agencies to analyze the 

transport of the coal to client/market destinations. The Administrative Draft EA 

included the emissions from all the truck hauling of coal from King II to 

client/markets. 

102 047 Lewis Roca 

Rothgerber Christie 

LLP

D. Already addressed Response to Wild Earth Guardians comments Wild Earth 

Guardians made numerous comments in response to the January 

2017 Supplemental Scoping Notice that are factually and legally 

incorrect. GCC believes it is important to address these 

inaccuracies to ensure that the correct facts are in the record.

Comment noted.

103 047 Lewis Roca 

Rothgerber Christie 

LLP

NEPA process and 

alternatives

D. Already addressed OSMRE Correctly determined that the Proposed Action is not a 

major federal actionand that it will not have significant effects on 

the human environment

Comment noted.

104 047 Lewis Roca 

Rothgerber Christie 

LLP

E. For/Against/Opinion The BLM should approve the modification to Federal Coal Lease 

COC62920 GCC urges BLM, for the reasons explained in this 

comment letter, to approve the modification of the Federal Coal 

Lease. Doing so is necessary to achieve maximum economic 

recovery, and will extend the life of the King II mine by five to 

seven years, securing important jobs and tax revenue to the local 

economy. The modification serves the United States' interest in 

developing the coal resource. Likewise, there is no competitive 

interest in the area covered by this lease modification, which 

because of its adjacency to the existing King II facility must be 

Comment noted.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

mined as part of that operation. It would be very difficult if not 

impossible for an independent operation to access and mine the 

area sought in this lease modification. Even if such access were 

possible, it would result in surface impacts that are entirely

avoided in the Proposed Action.

105 047 Lewis Roca 

Rothgerber Christie 

LLP

E. For/Against/Opinion OSMRE should approve the Permit Revision Application Package 

OSMRE must decide whether or not to approve the Permit 

Revision Application Package consisting of a water monitoring 

program, probable hydrologic consequences analysis, right of 

entry information, subsidence control plan, and a reclamation 

performance bond and reclamation plan. GCC requests that the 

Permit Revision Application Package be approved. The rev1s1ons 

constitute important environmental and reclamation items that 

will allow GCC to continue to be a responsible operator at the 

King II facility.

Comment noted.

106 047 Lewis Roca 

Rothgerber Christie 

LLP

E. For/Against/Opinion OSMRE should approve the application to renew Federal Mine 

Permit C0-106A OSMRE must decide whether or not to approve 

an application to renew Federal Mine Permit C0-106A. The 

permit would reauthorize operations associated with the mining 

of federal coal from the areas within Federal Coal Lease 

COC62920 where the surface of the land is under the ownership 

of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, but outside of the Ute Mountain 

Ute Indian Reservation. Similarly, to the Permit Revision 

Application Package, GCC requests approval of its permit renewal 

application. GCC requires a permit renewal to continue its 

operations associated with its Federal Coal Lease COC62920.

Comment noted.

107 047 Lewis Roca 

Rothgerber Christie 

LLP

E. For/Against/Opinion The Secretary for Land and Minerals Management should 

approve the mining plan modification to incorporate the lease 

expansion The DOI Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals

Management must decide whether to: 1) approve; 2) approve 

with conditions; or 3) deny a mining plan modification to 

incorporate the lease expansion into Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act Permit C-1981-035. GCC requests that OSMRE 

make a recommendation of approval to the Assistant Secretary 

for Land and Minerals Management. As explained herein, the 

Lease Expansion is in the interest of the United States under the 

Mineral Leasing Act, and does not result in significant impacts to 

the human environment. With approval of the items listed here, 

GCC will be able to maximize the economic recovery of federal 

coal, while simultaneously providing economic benefits to La 

Plata and Montezuma Counties.

Comment noted.

108 048 Ryan Ludlow E. For/Against/Opinion Please swiftly reject the King II Coal Mine expansion application. 

This expansion would do enormous harm to the environment 

and communities located near the mine. I strongly believe we 

must listen to our nation’s leading climate scientists and rapidly 

switch our energy source away from dirty energy sources like 

coal to renewable energy like solar and wind. The BLM needs to 

be part of the solution by rapidly denying all applications related 

to the expansion of oil, gas and coal production on BLM land. 

Comment noted.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

Please reject this application and protect the health of future 

generations.

109 049 Debbie Meyers E. For/Against/Opinion I insist that the BLM and OSMRE deny a modification of the 

existing Federal Coal Lease COC62920 for the King II Coal Mine.

Comment noted.

110 050 Montezuma County 

Board of County 

Commissioners

E. For/Against/Opinion The Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners would 

like to express our support for the modification of the existing 

GCC Energy, LLC Federal Coal Lease COC-62920 expanding the 

lease area by approximately 952.21 acres.

Comment noted.

111 050 Montezuma County 

Board of County 

Commissioners

Socioeconomic 

Considerations

A. Consider in Final EA Mineral resources have been crucial to southwest Colorado 

economy for over 100 years. Access to mineral resources of all 

kinds expands the diversity of our regional economy. The King 

Coal II Mine employs over 100 workers and subcontractors, many 

of which reside in Montezuma County making the mine a 

significant player in our focal economy. Furthermore, there are 

economic benefits to the surrounding region from the business 

that provide supplies and other services for the mining 

operations.

Comment noted. Section 3.15 Socioeconomics identifies socioeconomic impacts 

in the baseline and impacts analyses.

112 050 Montezuma County 

Board of County 

Commissioners

Environmental responsible D. Already addressed We are always sensitive to the impacts mineral recovery could 

potentially have on other resources and the human environment. 

GCC Energy has been operating this mine since 2007 and impacts 

to the human environment from this operation are well known, 

and appear to be consistent and compatible with other existing 

rural land uses within the area. The impact to the human 

environment would not be significantly altered or increased from 

its present character. Most of the coal from this mine is used 

locally to fuel cement plants and the narrow-gauge railroad. The 

continued production and transportation of the product would 

remain relatively unchanged from its present levels.

As part of the LPC LUP process, projects must be assessed for neighborhood 

compatibility. For the subject project refer to Table 3. LPLUC and Proposed 

Project Compatibility Overview in the LPC Planning Department Staff Report. 

Following GCC's commitment to various mitigation measures, the project met 

LPLUC Sec. 82-193(c) (2) compatibility standards. The commenter states that, 

"Most of the coal from this mine is used locally to fuel cement plants and the 

narrow-gauge railroad." The accuracy of this statement depends upon what the 

commenter means by "locally". For clarification, of the maximum potential coal 

transported to a buyer in a year, (1,067,040 tons) less than 1% (10,600 tons) is 

consumed in La Plata and Montezuma counties. 

113 050 Montezuma County 

Board of County 

Commissioners

Traffic and Transporation D. Already addressed The majority of the surface impacts to other resources, and 

human environment are not related directly to the mining 

process but rather to the transportation of the product. Access to 

the mine site is via County Road 120 to State Highway 140, both 

of which are established truck routes and have adequate capacity 

to allow continued operations of this mine. Continued 

transportation of this product is consistent and compatible in 

both scale and character with the transport of other products 

that are derived from the surrounding rural landscape. Continued 

operation of this mine site would not necessitate expansion or 

inclusion of any additional transportation means.

Comment noted. As a result of the LPC LUP process, GCC is obligated to 

complete road improvements as defined in the RIA agreement between GCC 

and LPC. These road improvements have been analyzed in this EA as a 

connected action.

114 050 Montezuma County 

Board of County 

Commissioners

Land Use D. Already addressed The surrounding landscape is sparsely populated, and generally 

agricultural, with grazing and hay production being the primary 

agricultural uses. This is a relatively small mining operation and is 

clearly compatible in scale and character with the other existing 

rural land uses within the area.

Refer to Line 113 Response.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

115 050 Montezuma County 

Board of County 

Commissioners

Water Quality and 

Quantity

D. Already addressed We believe the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement (OSMRE) should approve appropriate lease 

stipulations including the water monitoring program, Probable 

Hydrological Consequences Analysis, Right of Entry Information,

Subsidence Control Plan, and Reclamation Performance Bond 

and Reclamation Plan. These stipulations, and the existing 

stipulations the mine is currently operating under, provide 

sufficient protections to other resources and the human

environment. GCC Energy should be adequately bonded to 

complete any required reclamation, and we expect GCC Energy 

would implement reasonable operational BMPs to protect other 

adjacent resources on public and private lands. These protections 

are in the best interest of GCC En ergy.

Comment noted. As a result of the LPC LUP process, GCC is obligated to 

complete road improvements as defined in the RIA agreement between GCC 

and LPC. These road improvements have been analyzed in this EA as a 

connected action.

Both CDRMS and OSMRE require and have in place bonds with GCC bods that 

assure site reclamation upon cessation of mining activities at King II. 

116 050 Montezuma County 

Board of County 

Commissioners

Land Use D. Already addressed Montezuma County asserts the following five points that we feel 

apply to mineral production from BLM administered resources. 

1.) Montezuma County supports the concept of "multiple-use" on 

BLM lands as directed by the Federal Land Policy Act of 1976, 

that management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained 

yield.

Refer to Line 113 Response.

117 050 Montezuma County 

Board of County 

Commissioners

Land Use D. Already addressed Montezuma County asserts the following five points that we feel 

apply to mineral production from BLM administered resources. 

2.) Public lands that are not withdrawn are open for all mineral 

activity. In the permit application area all lands are open for 

mineral activity.

Refer to Line 48 Response.

118 050 Montezuma County 

Board of County 

Commissioners

Partnerships/collaboration D. Already addressed Montezuma County asserts the following five points that we feel 

apply to mineral production from BLM administered resources. 

3.) The proposed action is consistent with the objectives, goals 

and decisions of the 2015 Tres Rios RMP.

Pursuant to Title 40 of the CFR, parts 43 and 3400, this site-specific EA tiers to 

and incorporates by reference the information and analysis contained in the 

BLM Colorado Southwest District TRFO Resource Management Plan (RMP) and 

Record of Decision (USDOI/BLM 2015a). Overall, coal leasing is in conformance 

with this RMP. As stated in the RMP, “all TRFO lands made available for lease 

are subject to standard lease terms, which require operators of leases, as well 

as leasable mineral permits and licenses, to minimize adverse impacts to air, 

water, land, visual, cultural, and biological resources. Special lease stipulations 

are applied to a lease if additional restrictions on the rights of lessees are 

required to protect environmental resources.” This EA addresses site-specific 

resource conditions and impacts that are not covered within the RMP and 

would be used to justify special stipulations for the lease modification.

119 050 Montezuma County 

Board of County 

Commissioners

Energy and mineral 

development

D. Already addressed Montezuma County asserts the following five points that we feel 

apply to mineral production from BLM administered resources. 

4.) The County Commission acknowledges the importance of 

implementing reasonable monitoring, BMP's and reclamation 

processes to mitigate significant impacts of exploration and 

recovery on other resources.

Comment noted. 

120 050 Montezuma County 

Board of County 

Commissioners

Socioeconomic 

Considerations

D. Already addressed Montezuma County asserts the following five points that we feel 

apply to mineral production from BLM administered resources. 

5.) Mineral exploration and recovery is an important contributor 

to the regional economy and property tax base.

Comment noted.

121 050 Montezuma County 

Board of County 

Commissioners

Partnerships/collaboration B. Resolve through policy 

or administration

We thank you for this opportunity to comment, and we thank 

you for your willingness to work with GCC Energy. We would also 

recommend that the BLM coordinate fully with La Plata County in 

accordance to FLPMA, since it is the local government directly 

La Plata County and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources (CDNR) are 

cooperating agencies for this EA based on their special expertise and 

jurisdiction. LPC’s role is as a reviewing agency for the EA and to ensure 

conformance of the EA with GCC’s Conditional Class II Land Use Permit (Project 
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

affected by this action. The coordination process should be 

described within the forthcoming EA and we respectfully request 

that the BLM make it a priority to specifically address 

coordination with local governments in all future analysis 

documents.

#2012-0089). The "coordination process" between BLM, OSMRE and LPC is 

defined by the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties. 

122 051 Michael Olsen E. For/Against/Opinion One of the main draws to Colorado as well as the economy here 

is tourism and the outdoor industry. I would hate to see the 

Durango area ruined by expanded coal mining. As a full time 

Colorado resident who enjoys recreation on BLM lands please 

don't allow more coal mining in the area.

Comment noted. As stated in Section 3.14.1, Land Use, "There are no public 

recreational activities available in the project area, as nearly all the land in the 

Project area is private property."

123 052 Trent Peterson E. For/Against/Opinion The proposed Lease Modification and the Revision and Renewal 

of the Federal Mine Permit submitted by GCC Energy, LLC should 

be approved. The Lease Modification and Permit and the Finding 

of No Significant Impact are well supported by the Environmental 

Assessment as prepared by the BLM and OSMRE.

Comment noted.

124 052 Trent Peterson E. For/Against/Opinion The Preliminary EA has been under development for a number of 

years and, as such, provides a very thorough assessment of 

potential resource impacts. During that period, three public 

sessions were hosted by Lap Plata County and two more by the 

applicant to identify and address local concerns brought up by 

members of the community. Those meetings resulted in a 

number of changes, agreements and accommodations by the 

applicant. Additionally, during the land use permitting process, 

the applicant convened a citizens’ advisory panel to explore 

means to address citizen concerns over unique local impacts. 

Numerous operational changes, constraints, and long-term 

obligations were agreed to by the applicant to address legitimate 

concerns brought forth during the citizens’ advisory panel 

meetings. The County Land Use permit includes 28 separate 

Conditions or Stipulations to address local and regional concerns.

A public scoping meeting plus a formal comment period and 

ongoing receipt of community comments has offered ample 

opportunities to bring concerns forward.

Comment noted.

125 052 Trent Peterson Traffic and Transporation D. Already addressed It is important to note that granting the Lease Modification and 

the mining permit will not result in any increased impact on the 

environment or local community. The facility is an underground 

mine with surface support facilities already in place, and no 

additional surface disturbance is anticipated from the lease 

expansion or revised mine plan. Pursuant to an agreement with 

the county, production is limited to levels comparable to recent 

output by the number of coal transport trucks allowed on the 

road. To achieve levels of production allowed under the county 

permit the applicant must complete substantial road upgrades. In 

response to concerns from adjacent landowners about vibration 

and noise associated with mining operations, the applicant 

commissioned multiple comprehensive studies of mine noise, 

road noise, ground motion and vibration. To address concerns 

about subsidence, no mining will occur closer than 600 feet of a 

dwelling unless agreed to by the landowner and subsidence 

Comment noted. All of the points raised by the commenter are also presented 

in the EA. The BLM and OSMRE also analyzed ground disturbing impacts 

associated with completing the CR road improvements. Also analyzed was an 

additional approximately 5 acres of surface disturbance that would likely/or 

already has occur associated with the installation of monitoring wells, road 

improvements and other potential future minor disturbances (i.e. exploratory 

core sample). All of these aforementioned disturbances are typically handled by 

minor or administrative permit revision/authorizations. OSMRE requires cultural 

resource and biological clearance surveys prior to any proposed ground 

disturbing activities on the surface of the underground operation. 
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

monitoring will take place including monitoring of static 

groundwater levels.

126 052 Trent Peterson Noise and vibration D. Already addressed It is important to note that granting the Lease Modification and 

the mining permit will not result in any increased impact on the 

environment or local community. The facility is an underground 

mine with surface support facilities already in place, and no 

additional surface disturbance is anticipated from the lease 

expansion or revised mine plan. Pursuant to an agreement with 

the county, production is limited to levels comparable to recent 

output by the number of coal transport trucks allowed on the 

road. To achieve levels of production allowed under the county 

permit the applicant must complete substantial road upgrades. In 

response to concerns from adjacent landowners about vibration 

and noise associated with mining operations, the applicant 

commissioned multiple comprehensive studies of mine noise, 

road noise, ground motion and vibration. To address concerns 

about subsidence, no mining will occur closer than 600 feet of a 

dwelling unless agreed to by the landowner and subsidence 

monitoring will take place including monitoring of static 

groundwater levels.

Refer to Line 126 Response.

127 052 Trent Peterson Surface Effects D. Already addressed It is important to note that granting the Lease Modification and 

the mining permit will not result in any increased impact on the 

environment or local community. The facility is an underground 

mine with surface support facilities already in place, and no 

additional surface disturbance is anticipated from the lease 

expansion or revised mine plan. Pursuant to an agreement with 

the county, production is limited to levels comparable to recent 

output by the number of coal transport trucks allowed on the 

road. To achieve levels of production allowed under the county 

permit the applicant must complete substantial road upgrades. In 

response to concerns from adjacent landowners about vibration 

and noise associated with mining operations, the applicant 

commissioned multiple comprehensive studies of mine noise, 

road noise, ground motion and vibration. To address concerns 

about subsidence, no mining will occur closer than 600 feet of a 

dwelling unless agreed to by the landowner and subsidence 

monitoring will take place including monitoring of static 

groundwater levels.

Refer to Line 126 Response.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

128 052 Trent Peterson Water Quality and 

Quantity

D. Already addressed It is well documented that the King II mine is a dry mine. Further, 

water balance analysis establishes that water used in the mining 

process can be fully accounted for, and there does not appear to 

be any potential for groundwater contamination in the mining 

process. Hydrologic studies, and studies of adjacent landowner 

water wells, point to essentially no potential for the mine to 

impact water quality. However, in response to concerns 

expressed through public comment, a complete groundwater 

monitoring plan is in place. Plans to develop underground water 

storage were set aside early on in favor of surface water storage 

for additional protection of the resource.

Refer to Line 126 Response. Also refer to Section 2.1.7 Design Features; Design 

Feature 2: Groundwater Quality; and Section 3.6 Water resources.

129 052 Trent Peterson Water Quality and 

Quantity

D. Already addressed No depletion of the Hay Gulch aquifer is expected to occur. The 

mine has acquired surface water rights through Colorado’s water 

court to supply its use for dust suppression and other on-site 

needs. Water is delivered from irrigation water and not from 

water wells. A reservoir is used to store water and supply water 

between irrigation seasons.

These points are detailed in Section 2.1.5 Water Supply of the EA.

130 052 Trent Peterson Water Quality and 

Quantity

D. Already addressed Surface water quality will not be impacted by approving the lease 

modification and mining permit. Protection of water quality and 

minimization of disturbance to the hydrologic balance is a key 

tenet of SMCRA. Surface and groundwater are both protected by 

the mine’s compliance with its reclamation plan and state 

requirements as well as those dictated by SMCRA. The 

Preliminary EA states that “Surface water resources would not be 

directly affected by the Proposed Action because there would be 

no surface-disturbing activities conducted within any ephemeral 

or intermittent drainages associated with the proposed lease 

modification area.” Page 91 of the Preliminary EA calls for 

ongoing monitoring. Because of the multiple surface ownerships 

(private fee, state, federal, Indian lands) there will be an 

abundance of oversight to ensure permit compliance.

Comment noted.

131 052 Trent Peterson Climate change D. Already addressed Approval of the Lease modification and mining permit will have 

no net impact on climate. GHG emissions contribution from the 

project is estimated to be just 0.0006% of total U.S. GHG 

emissions; however, because the coal produced is used primarily 

to manufacture cement – a necessity for construction and 

maintenance of infrastructure – coal not produced at King II 

would be obtained from other sources. Further, while the 

cement manufacturing industry has successfully incorporated 

many other fuel types, coal remains a vital component of the 

overall resource portfolio and is crucial to efficient operations.

Thus, to deny approval would not reduce GHG emissions, only 

shift the source of fuel.

Comment noted.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

132 052 Trent Peterson Socioeconomic 

Considerations

D. Already addressed The economic output associated with the mine is important to 

the region. Sales from the mine represent new money coming 

into the area, as opposed to spending of local money in service 

industries. The direct economic benefits to La Plata and 

Montezuma counties, two primarily rural counties in 

Southwestern Colorado, extend indirectly across several other 

communities to the south. Approval of the lease expansion and 

mine permit would extend the life of the King II mine for an 

additional five to seven years. Approval of the project creates or 

preserves career-track jobs that pay well, offer good benefits and 

are not seasonal. Local spending by the mine itself, its employees 

and contractors has many secondary benefits to the area. This 

extended mine life is critical, particularly for Montezuma County, 

which experiences higher unemployment, lower median 

household income, and a generally less favorable economy than 

adjacent La Plata County. Mine employees live in both counties.

Comment notes. All of the socioeconomic points raised by the commenter are 

addressed in Section 3.15 Socioeconomics and Section 4.3.11 Cumulative 

Socioeconomics. Detail was added to the Final EA to include a brief description 

of where the State tax dollars are applied to schools and other state programs.

133 052 Trent Peterson Energy and mineral 

development

D. Already addressed Failure to approve the application would lead to bypassing 

recoverable coal in adjacent reserves. Tracts of Federal coal 

could be permanently isolated, to the detriment of the U.S. 

Treasury and the State of Colorado. Continued mining of the 

estimated 4.66 million additional tons of recoverable coal would 

generate taxes and royalties that support state and local 

government for roads, schools, and general services to the 

citizens of the area. Federal royalties are shared back with the 

state (49%). 40% of the state’s share goes to the public school 

fund and 50% of the state’s share is distributed to counties and 

municipalities in the form of impact grants administered by the 

Department of Local Affairs. The mine has been, and would 

continue under approved expansion, to be an important 

economic contributor to the region.

Comment noted. The socioeconomic impacts of both approving the Proposed 

Action, and denying it (No Action) are analyzed in the subject EA in Sections 3.15 

and 4.3.11.

134 052 Trent Peterson E. For/Against/Opinion As a concerned and engaged citizen who is well informed on 

environmental policy, climate science, regulatory affairs and 

community affairs, and also an firm advocate of sustainable 

development, I urge BLM, OSMRE and the Assistant Secretary for 

Land and Minerals to approve the Lease Modification and Mine 

Permit Revision and Renewal applied for by GCC Energy, LLC as 

being in the best interest of the local community, the State of 

Colorado, and the United States.

Comment noted.

135 053 Adele Riffe E. For/Against/Opinion I insist that the BLM and OSMRE deny a modification of the 

existing Federal Coal Lease COC62920 for the King II Coal Min 

[sic] For all these reasons, I say NO to the King Coal mine 

Expansion!

Comment noted.

136 053 Adele Riffe Water Quality and 

Quantity

D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 35 Response.

137 053 Adele Riffe Noise and vibration D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 35 Response.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

138 053 Adele Riffe Air Quality D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 35 Response.

139 053 Adele Riffe Surface Effects D. Already addressed The preliminary EA fails to adequately address local concerns of 

the mine’s impact on water quantity / quality, sound and air 

pollution, and surface disturbances

Refer to Line 35 Response.

140 053 Adele Riffe E. For/Against/Opinion If the proposed expansion is only estimated to extend the life of 

the mine by 5 to 7 years, I insist that GCC Energy’s time and 

money would be better spent designing and implementing a 

retraining program for the mine’s workers and a remediation 

plan to prepare for the inevitable closure of the mine

Comment noted.

141 053 Adele Riffe Climate change E. For/Against/Opinion The use of coal is a significant contributor to dangerous 

greenhouse gas emissions. The realities of a changing climate and 

a rapidly declining demand for coal resources do not support the 

expansion of the King II Coal Mine.

Comment noted. Refer to Line 40 Response.

142 054 Philip Riffe E. For/Against/Opinion I oppose the expansion of King Coal II and ask that the BLM and 

OSMRE deny a modification of the existing Federal Coal Lease 

COC62920. Please vote against this mine expansion.

Comment noted.

143 054 Philip Riffe Climate change D. Already addressed Climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions is a dire threat 

to our economy and our way of life. Coal combustion is a major 

source of carbon dioxide emissions.

Refer to Line 40 Response.

144 054 Philip Riffe Socioeconomic 

Considerations

D. Already addressed Climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions is a dire threat 

to our economy and our way of life. Coal combustion is a major 

source of carbon dioxide emissions.

Refer to Line 40 Response.

145 054 Philip Riffe Water Quality and 

Quantity

D. Already addressed In addition, the mine has a negative effect on water quality, and 

it uses a significant quantity of water that could be more 

productively used for agriculture. The 

Section 3.6, Water Resources, of the EA describes potential impacts from the 

Proposed and No Action Alternatives related water quality and quantity. 

Agricultural uses in the area are described in Section 3.14, Land Use, as well as 

Sections 3.7, Vegetation, and 3.8, Wildlife. As stated in the BLM and OSMRE 

FONSI's impacts related to water resources would be negligible to minor.

146 054 Philip Riffe Noise and vibration D. Already addressed The noise, dust, and use of local roads by coal trucks has 

negatively impacted the local community.

Section 3.11, Noise and Vibration, of the EA describes potential impacts related 

to noise on local roadways and design features 4a, 4b, and 5 would help to 

reduce any potential impacts. In accordance with the LPC LUP, GCC has agreed 

to include measures on all of their trucks operating on CR 120 to be covered and 

operate at reduced speeds to minimize dust. Section 3.10, Access and 

Transportation, of the EA describes potential impacts associated with local 

roadways and measures in the LPC LUP that would help to mitigate those 

impacts. As stated in the BLM and OSMRE FONSI's impacts related to water 

resources would be negligible to minor.

147 054 Philip Riffe Air Quality D. Already addressed The noise, dust, and use of local roads by coal trucks has 

negatively impacted the local community.

Refer to Line 147 Response.

148 054 Philip Riffe Traffic and Transporation D. Already addressed The noise, dust, and use of local roads by coal trucks has 

negatively impacted the local community.

Refer to Line 147 Response.

149 055 San Juan Basin Public 

Health, Sherri 

Dugdale

C. Beyond scope GCC Energy currently has two OWTS serving the facility in 

question: The first, under permit number 2007-344, serves an 

office and employee showers. SJBPH staff performed a site visit 

on February 19, 2016 which confirmed that the system is failing. 

GCC Energy has taken out an application (permit #2016-056) to 

repair, alter and/or replace this OWTS. Final design of this 

replacement is pending from a professional engineer contracted 

by GCC Energy. The contracted engineer reports that the new 

Comment noted. Refer to Line 152 Response below.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

OWTS will have a design flow capacity of 1,800 gallons per day, 

using flow equalization to improve performance and to prolong 

the useful life of the new OWTS.

150 055 San Juan Basin Public 

Health, Sherri 

Dugdale

Traffic and Transporation A. Consider in Final EA The second OWTS, under permit #2007-345, serves a truck 

drivers’ bathroom. This system showed no signs of failure at time 

of inspection (February 19, 2016). This OWTS has a design flow 

capacity of 500 gallons per day on the assumption that the 

bathroom is used by 60 truck drivers per day.

Comment noted.

151 055 San Juan Basin Public 

Health, Sherri 

Dugdale

C. Beyond scope All OWTS permitted by SJBPH are allowed to receive ONLY 

residential-grade wastewater (i.e. showers, employee 

bathrooms, hand sinks, etc.) and NO commercial-grade 

wastewater (i.e. mine drainage, truck washing runoff, etc.). Any 

additional facilities generating residential-grade wastewater, or 

expansion of the existing facilities beyond their design capacities, 

will require new permitting from SJBPH.

The subject sewage system improvements do not constitute a federal action 

requiring a NEPA analysis. The system upgrades would be accomplished under 

the mine's current SJBH and CDRMS permits. With that said, the EA 

contemplates and analyzes 5 acres of potential future non-specific surface 

impacts associated with continued mining operations associated with the 

proposed permit revision. As such, the EA does analyze this minor surface 

disturbance when/if it eventually occurs.

152 056 Marikay Shellman E. For/Against/Opinion The preliminary EA fails to address adequately our local concerns 

of the modification of the existing Federal Coal Lease COC62920 

for the King II Coal Mine. I insist that the BLM and OSMRE deny a 

modification of the existing Federal Coal Lease COC62920 for the 

King II Coal Mine.

Comment noted.

153 056 Marikay Shellman Water Quality and 

Quantity

D. Already addressed For those of us living in this area, The King II Coal Mine's 

operations have impacted our water quality and noise & air 

quality for years.

Comment noted. Refer to Line 35 Response addressing local concerns analyzed.

154 056 Marikay Shellman Noise and vibration D. Already addressed For those of us living in this area, The King II Coal Mine's 

operations have impacted our water quality and noise & air 

quality for years.

Comment noted. Refer to Line 35 Response addressing local concerns analyzed.

155 056 Marikay Shellman Air Quality D. Already addressed For those of us living in this area, The King II Coal Mine's 

operations have impacted our water quality and noise & air 

quality for years.

Comment noted. Refer to Line 35 Response addressing local concerns analyzed.

156 056 Marikay Shellman NEPA process and 

alternatives

A. Consider in Final EA That the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Draft Finding 

states "No Significant Impact" does not address the concerns of 

our community.

Comment noted. Refer to Line 35 Response addressing local concerns analyzed.

157 057 SW CO Adovcates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

Public Health and Safety D. Already addressed The residents of Hay Gulch, especially those who live along 

County Road 120 Nort h, have experienced dramatic impacts to 

their quality of life, health, safety and water supply as a result of 

the expanded operations of the King Coal Mine and King II Coa l 

Mine. The increase in production and expanded above ground 

operations have been permitted by a series of Technical 

Revisions and Lease Modifications with no evaluation of the 

cumulative impacts.

Cumulative impacts associated with the operation of the King II mine were 

initially analyzed in the "Environmental Assessment, EA Number CO-SJFO00102EA, GCC Energy, LLC, Coal Lease Application, East Alkali Tract, COC62920", and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prepared by OSMRE. 

Cumulative impacts analyzed then and in the current EA include analyses 

addressing public health and safety (in the context of traffic), water quality and 

quantity. See Sections 3.2, 3.6, 3.10, 4.3.4, and 4.3.8 of the EA.

158 057 SW CO Adovcates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

Water Quality and 

Quantity

D. Already addressed The residents of Hay Gulch, especially those who live along 

County Road 120 Nort h, have experienced dramatic impacts to 

their quality of life, health, safety and water supply as a result of 

the expanded operations of the King Coal Mine and King II Coa l 

Mine. The increase in production and expanded above ground 

operations have been permitted by a series of Technical 

Refer to Line 158 Response.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

Revisions and Lease Modifications with no evaluation of the 

cumulative impac ts.

159 057 SW CO Adovcates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

Cumulative Impacts A. Consider in Final EA The residents of Hay Gulch, especially those who live along 

County Road 120 Nort h, have experienced dramatic impacts to 

their quality of life, health, safety and water supply as a result of 

the expanded operations of the King Coal Mine and King II Coa l 

Mine. The increase in production and expanded above ground 

operations have been permitted by a series of Technical 

Revisions and Lease Modifications with no evaluation of the 

cumulative impacts.

Refer to Line 158 Response.

160 057 SW CO Adovcates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

Traffic and Transporation A. Consider in Final EA The original EA (2001) contemplated a production rate of 

300,000 tons per year and 18 to 28 thirty- ton coal trucks a day. 

The King Coal mine production increased to 970,790 tons and 

144 coal trucks a day in 2014. This increase resulted in unsafe 

road conditions, excessive truck generated noise and dangerous 

levels of air pollution. 2001 - 264,676/tons, 211 days worked and 

average 36 employees/month; 2010 - 523.413/tons, 283 days 

worked and average 69 employees/month (noticed by LPC of 

need for Land Use Permit); 2012 - 639,003/tons, 355 days 

worked and average 92 employees/month (applied for LPC Land 

Use Permit); 2014 - 970,790/tons, 358 days worked and average 

133 employees/month 2016 - 628,953/tons, 266 days worked 

and average 101 employees/month

These historic (2007 to the present) production and truck trip numbers were 

presented in Section 1.2 Background in Table 1.1. The current EA analyzes the 

current Proposed Action, the subject 950.55-acre lease modification and the 

associated OSMRE permit renewal and revision. As such the analysis addresses 

all operational impacts of the mine, including truck trip numbers detailed in the 

RIA. The unsafe conditions identified by the commenter were also addressed by 

LPC (a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EA) during the LUP process 

that resulted in the issuance of a Class II LUP and the RIA, specifically to address

these community safety concerns along CR 120.

161 057 SW CO Adovcates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

Noise and vibration A. Consider in Final EA The original EA (2001) contemplated a production rate of 

300,000 tons per year and 18 to 28 thirty- ton coal trucks a day. 

The King Coal mine production increased to 970,790 tons and 

144 coal trucks a day in 2014. This increase resulted in unsafe 

road conditions, excessive truck generated noise and dangerous 

levels of air pollution. 2001 - 264,676/tons, 211 days worked and 

average 36 employees/month; 2010 - 523.413/tons, 283 days 

worked and average 69 employees/month (noticed by LPC of 

need for Land Use Permit); 2012 - 639,003/tons, 355 days 

worked and average 92 employees/month (applied for LPC Land 

Use Permit); 2014 - 970,790/tons, 358 days worked and average 

133 employees/month 2016 - 628,953/tons, 266 days worked 

and average 101 employees/month

Refer to Line 160 Response.

162 057 SW CO Adovcates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

Air Quality A. Consider in Final EA The original EA (2001) contemplated a production rate of 

300,000 tons per year and 18 to 28 thirty- ton coal trucks a day. 

The King Coal mine production increased to 970,790 tons and 

144 coal trucks a day in 2014. This increase resulted in unsafe 

road conditions, excessive truck generated noise and dangerous 

levels of air pollution. 2001 - 264,676/tons, 211 days worked and 

average 36 employees/month; 2010 - 523.413/tons, 283 days 

worked and average 69 employees/month (noticed by LPC of 

need for Land Use Permit); 2012 - 639,003/tons, 355 days 

worked and average 92 employees/month (applied for LPC Land 

Use Permit); 2014 - 970,790/tons, 358 days worked and average 

133 employees/month 2016 - 628,953/tons, 266 days worked 

and average 101 employees/month

Refer to Line 160 Response.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

163 057 SW CO Advocates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

Traffic and Transportation A. Consider in Final EA The 2017 Preliminary EA does not and cannot provide adequate 

analysis of the adverse impacts until the required road 

improvements and air quality and noise mitigation and 

monitoring is complete and in full compliance with the 

Conditions of the LPC Class II Permit for Project No. 2012 -00 89.

BLM and OSMRE are not required to wait until a connected action is complete 

before finalizing their action when adequate environmental data is available to 

characterize potential impacts and propose mitigation measures. In fact, it is the 

responsibility of BLM and OSMRE to identify the known and predicted effects to 

a resource that would occur upon implementation of the action.

BLM and OSMRE analyzed traffic, including that associated with road 

improvements of CR 120 N including noise, air quality, and potential impacts to 

a variety of other resources as a result of the approximately 4.7 acres of surface 

known and predicted disturbance associated with constructing road

improvements. Design Feature 5 dealing with traffic mitigation measures is 

intended to "provide for the safety of the traveling public, residents, and mine 

traffic, the route proposed for use by haul trucks needs to be improved to 

minimum county standards as per LPCLUC 74-91(c), design standards. GCC 

proposes to achieve these minimum requirements via an executed RIA that 

captures the improvements within a phased (5 phases) development schedule. 

Executed in conjunction with the land use permit, each scheduled improvement 

under this agreement would provide improved and safer conditions to the 

roadway, while progressively achieving compliance with the land use permit." In 

addition to this applicant committed design feature, the date specific road 

improvements and the respective upper (120 haul trucks/day) and lower (80 

haul trucks/day) truck volume limitations were analyzed as was the proposed 

implementation 11 "Operational and Interim Mitigation Measures" listed under 

Design Feature 5 in the EA.

164 057 SW CO Advocates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

Air Quality A. Consider in Final EA The 2017 Preliminary EA does not and cannot provide adequate 

analysis of the adverse impacts until the required road 

improvements and air quality and noise mitigation and 

monitoring is complete and in full compliance with the 

Conditions of the LPC Class II Permit for Project No. 2012 -00 89.

BLM and OSMRE are not required to wait until a connected action is complete 

before finalizing their action when adequate environmental data is available to 

characterize potential impacts and propose mitigation measures.

The air quality analysis completed by BLM and OSMRE considered fugitive dust 

generated by the currently unimproved CR 120 N. It also considered the 

timeline and equipment emission (dozers, graders, trucks, etc.) that would have 

emissions and generate noise and dust during the course of the implementation 

of phase road improvements. As described in Section 3.11, Noise and Vibration, 

of the EA noise monitoring has been conducted at the King II Mine and there are 

design features 4a, 4b, and 5 outlined in the EA to address potential impacts. 

165 057 SW CO Advocates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

Noise and vibration A. Consider in Final EA The 2017 Preliminary EA does not and cannot provide adequate 

analysis of the adverse impacts until the required road 

improvements and air quality and noise mitigation and 

monitoring is complete and in full compliance with the 

Conditions of the LPC Class II Permit for Project No. 2012-00 89 .

BLM and OSMRE are not required to wait until a connected action is complete 

before finalizing their action when adequate environmental data is available to 

characterize potential impacts and propose mitigation measures. The BLM's and 

OSMRE's evaluation of noise impacts included the implementation of Design 

Features 4a and 4b that are intended to mitigate noise and vibration potential 

impacts. These features include implementation of a buffering plan for residents 

along CR 120 N. The proposed noise buffering plan would be implemented as 

requested by affected residents either before or after the road improvements 

are completed. Overall, it was determined that following GCC’s implementation 

of noise mitigations (installation of noise barriers), that noise impacts would be 

negligible to minor, lasting for the duration of mining activities at the King II 

mine.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

166 057 SW CO Advocates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

NEPA process and 

alternatives

A. Consider in Final EA In 2007, the mine portal was moved and an Office Building, 

Bathhouse, Warehouse, and Scalehouse/Dispatch building were 

constructed. Two onsite wastewater systems were installed, 

SJBH Permit #2007-344, issued for approximately 2,000 

gallons/day to serve the mine's offices, bathhouse and 

warehouse, and SJBH Permit #2007-345, issued for 

approximately 500 gallons/day to serve the scale house/dispatch 

building. In a February 25, 2016 email to La Plata County, SJBH 

indicated "that upon their February 19, 2016 site visit, the upper 

leach field is clearly overloaded and requests a professional 

engineer's determination regarding a potential need to recover, 

expand, or replace the leach field." The 2017 Preliminary EA does 

notprovide adequate analysis of the environmental impacts of 

these surface improvements.

Refer to Line 151 Response.

167 057 SW CO Advocates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

Water Quality and 

Quantity

A. Consider in Final EA The water supply for the mine comes from Huntington Ditch 

Class A shares through dry-up of 44 acres of previously irrigated 

Huntington owned land currently permitted under a Substitute 

Water Supply Plan (SWSP). The Adjudicated Water Right for the 

Huntington dry- up water must be obtained by February 2020. 

The water will be held in the 3.5-acre reservoir constructed in 

2016. The 2017 Preliminary EA does not provide identification or

analysis of the adverse environmental effects of this dry-up of 

historically productive agricultural land.

The commenter is correct that the Preliminary EA did not directly address the 

environmental effects of 44 acres of agricultural dry up resulting from 

Huntington Class A ditch shares. The following language was removed/added to 

Section 3.14.2 relating to land use agricultural impacts: "No changes or longterm impacts are expected to grazing and farming along CR 120 N." This 

sentence was removed and replaced with the following: "The dry up of 44-acres 

of irrigated farmland associated with the adjudication of Huntington Ditch Class 

A shares would result in an agricultural change of use across the acreage. The 

historic irrigated use of these acres was for the purpose of hay production 

whereas Huntington would commonly achieve 1-2 cuttings per year. The change 

of use of the subject water would revert these acres to 44-acres of dryland 

pasture, that in a wet year may produce one cutting of hay but that can also be 

used to pasture animal stock (i.e. cows, horses, etc.). Accordingly, there would 

be long-term, minor impacts to agricultural land use in the project area under 

the Proposed Action."

168 057 SW CO Advocates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

Hazardous Materials and 

Waste Management, spills

A. Consider in Final EA The mine refuse from the King II Coal Mine is currently being 

disposed of at the King I mine site. The King lI Coal Mine has 

reported the presence of lead and mercury in the mine refuse. 

The LPC Class II permit does not include the King I site. The 2017 

Preliminary EA does not provide analysis of the current impacts 

or proposed mitigation for the existing refuse disposal or the 

additional disposal of waste from the permit expansion.

Refer to language added to Final EA addressing King I waste pile in Section 3.2 of 

the EA.

169 057 SW CO Advocates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

Climate change C. Beyond scope The EA should include actual data for Methane Emissions from 

the King II Coal Mine. The 2017 Preliminary EA does not provide 

analysis of the adverse environmental effects of methane

emissions.

Emissions data for methane releases at the mine are described under the Direct 

Emissions Section of 3.1 Air Quality and Climate. See also Table 3-5 which 

includes VAM emission estimate. Coal mine methane (CMM) is also disclosed on 

pg. 70. Environmental effects are discussed in Section 3.1.1. 

170 057 SW CO Advocates, 

Inc. Cynthia Roebuck, 

ED

NEPA process and 

alternatives

B. Resolve through policy 

or administration

In summary, the 2017 Preliminary EA does not provide adequate 

environmental analysis to approve the proposed action. The 

cumulative impacts of the expanded operations and production 

warrant an Environment Impact Analysis for any future permit 

expansion/modification.

Future GCC lease expansion and other area coal development is reasonably 

foreseeable to occur and in disclosed in Section 4.2 Reasonably Foreseeable 

Future Actions and are analyzed in the TRFO RMP whereas, 46,000 acres are 

identified as acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing within the 

TRFO, with an estimated reserve of 1.5 billion tons." Past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable developments in the region, including of coal resources 

is presented in Section 4.3 Cumulative Impacts and were presented and

analyzed in the TRFO RMP.
Submission 

#

Organization/Agency 

Name Category Consideration Column3 Comment Response

171 058 Ute Mountain Ute 

Tribe

NEPA process and 

alternatives

B. Resolve through policy 

or administration

The Tribe respectfully requests that the BLM extend the public 

comment period on the Preliminary EA and draft FOSI until 

August 10,2017.

BLM and OSMRE contacted the Tribe directly regarding this request in order to 

offer agency time to help the Tribe work through any issues or questions they 

have concerning the Proposed Action and the associated environmental 

analysis.
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-C-1-

Appendix C – Water Quality
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-C-2-

WATER RESOURCE DATA

Design Feature 2 (expanded description)

To ensure that the King II Mine is not adversely affecting the water wells of adjacent landowners, GCC Energy 

installed (4) four monitoring well clusters. Each monitoring well cluster includes one well completed above the

Menefee Formation “A” Coal seam, one well completed in the “A” Coal Seam, and one well completed in the 

lower Menefee Formation below the “A” Coal seam. The clusters are located up-gradient and down-gradient of 

the King II Mine. They will be used to meet the monitoring data requirements for La Plata County, CDRMS, and 

OSMRE related to groundwater quality and the hydrologic balance. Data from these monitoring wells will also be 

used to support updates to the Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment (CHIA) and Probable Hydrologic 

Consequences (PHC) for the King II Mine Plan. The monitoring well clusters were installed over a period 

extending from February through May 2017. 

The monitoring well clusters were installed at King II and monitored for the initial purpose of documenting 

presence of ground water in the relevant units above (Cliff House Formation), within the mined “A” coal seam 

and below (Lower Menefee). The surface spacing of the three wells in each cluster is approximately 20 linear feet 

apart. See Figure 1 for cluster monitoring well conceptual diagram. One (1) monitoring well cluster is located upgradient and sufficiently north of King II to document ambient ground water conditions. Two (2) monitoring well 

clusters are constructed down-gradient of King II. One (1) additional well cluster is installed north of Hay Gulch 

Ditch between King I and King II mine areas. Water level and water quality sampling at each completed well 

occurs at least quarterly for a period of no less than 1 year to establish statistical and seasonal variation. The water 

quality analyte list is consistent with OSMRE requirements and the CDRMS standard ground water sampling 

suite applicable to bedrock aquifers with the samples submitted for analysis to an accredited analytical laboratory. 

Results of current monitoring since installation in of the well cluster in March 2017 indicate groundwater 

presence in each of the monitored wells at the two (2) clusters downgradient of the King II mine and no 

groundwater presence in the monitored wells in the one (1) cluster north of Hay Gulch between King I and King 

II mine areas. Groundwater samples were collected for the six (6) wet downgradient monitoring wells in March, 

however full interpretation of the laboratory results is not planned until the upgradient cluster wells are completed 

and sampled. This sampling will occur in June 2017.

In order to determine potential for vertical hydraulic communication between the overburden (Cliff House 

Formation), the mined “A” seam and the underburden, passive well testing was conducted at each monitoring 

well cluster as Design Criteria #2. If water is present in each of the three discretely monitored intervals, 

documentation of differing water levels tracking separately over time will generally demonstrate hydraulic 

isolation of the intervals. Measured water levels in each well relative to the documented water-bearing interval 

will determine if confined aquifer conditions exist. By definition, if confining aquifer conditions exist, there is 

some substantial degree of hydraulic isolation between that aquifer and overlying/underlying formations or 

aquifers. 

The initial results indicate groundwater contribution to the downgradient Cliff House Formation wells is through 

minor seeps from fractures intersecting the boreholes that have been documented by downhole video logs. 

Following well development of the wet Cliff House wells, very slow recovery of water levels qualitatively 

indicates low hydraulic conductivity. The accumulated water column in the wells from the unconfined fracture 

seeps is on the order of several feet while the screened interval is approximately 300 feet in length. Continued 

monitoring will help determine if these groundwater sources are perched and/or seasonal or perennial. Analysis of 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-C-3-

the groundwater quality results is not yet available but will be valuable in assessing the source and allow 

discrimination against water quality collected from other monitored formations in this program.

Initial evaluation of the wet “A” seam monitoring wells following well development indicates full confining 

conditions of the “A” seam based on measured water levels several feet above the top of the “A” seam. The 

measured water levels at the Cliff House wells and “A” seam wells are very similar in depth indicating either 

coincidence due to only minor Cliff House groundwater contribution to the bottom of the wells or possibly a 

hydraulic connection between the Cliff House Formation and the “A” seam at these locations. Further monitoring 

of these wells for level and level changes in relation to each other will help characterize the groundwater system. 

Likewise, comparison of the water quality data from each respective interval could determine if these systems are 

hydraulically connected.

The wet Menefee Interburden wells completed in the 20 feet interval below the “A” seam have presented confined 

conditions with measured water levels between 5 and 45 feet above the bottom of the “A” seam. This 

potentiometric level difference between the “A” seam and the immediate underlying interval suggests no or only 

limited hydraulic connection. As described above, continued monitoring of these wells for level and water quality 

shall provide information to better characterize this groundwater system.

Future well testing to further quantify any observed hydraulic communication between the wells could include 

production or injection testing methodology and would be properly designed and conducted if warranted.

Hay Gulch Alluvium is monitored by GCC for the King II mine at two alluvial monitoring wells, #1 Up-gradient 

and #2 Down-gradient. Water level, field water quality parameters and laboratory analysis is completed quarterly 

and interpreted and submitted to CDRMS as Annual Hydrologic Reports. The Annual Hydrologic Reports 

completed by CDS Environmental Services, LLC and Resource Hydrogeologic Services, Inc. do not indicate any 

direct or indirect effects on the Hay Gulch Alluvium by mining activities at King II.

Figure 1. Bedrock Cluster Monitoring Well Concept
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-C-4-

SUPPORTING DATA FOR SECTION 3.6

Map 1. Location Map for Wells Selected for Summary of Analytical Activities in Response to 

Neighborhood Comments in Conjunction with a Permit Expansion of GCC Energy, LLC King II Coal 

Mine (CDS 2013)
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-C-5-

Table 1. Water Well Construction Information for Wells Selected for Summary of Analytical Activities in Response to 

Neighborhood Comments in Conjunction with a Permit Expansion of GCC Energy, LLC King II Coal Mine 

Source: CDS 2013

WELL ID

DATE 

CONSTRUCTED

LONGITUDE LATTITUDE

SURFACE 

ELEVATION 

(ftmsl from 

DEM 10x10m)

TOTAL WELL 

DEPTH 

(ftbgs)

TOP OF WELL 

SCREEN 

(ftbgs)

EFFECTIVE 

TOP OF WELL 

OPEN 

INTERVAL 

(ftbgs)

BOTTOM 

OF WELL 

SCREEN 

(ftbgs)

EFFECTIVE 

BOTTOM 

OF WELL 

OPEN 

INTERVAL 

(ftbgs)

EFFECTIVE 

TOTAL WELL 

OPEN 

INTERVAL 

(ftbgs)

INITIAL TEST 

PRODUCTION 

RATE 

(gpm)

INITIAL 

STATIC WATER 

LEVEL 

(ftbgs)

INITIAL 

STATIC WATER 

LEVEL 

ELEVATION 

(ftmsl)

TOP OF 

SCREEN 

(ftmsl)

EFFECTIVE 

TOP OF WELL 

OPEN 

INTERVAL 

(ftmsl)

BOTTOM 

OF 

SCREEN 

(ftmsl)

EFFECTIVE 

BOTTOM 

OF WELL 

OPEN 

INTERVAL 

(ftmsl)

DRILLER 

REPORTED 

SCREEN 

INTERVAL 

LITHOLOGY 

DRILLER 

REPORTED WATER DEPTH 

(ftbgs)

COMMENTS 

22 10/17/79 -108.148240 37.219730 7263.10 156 16 16 156 156 140 9 41 7222 7247 7247 7107 7107 Sandy shale 136-137

3/8" filter pack 16'-43' then 

open hole 43'-156'

9 8/1/03 -108.157680 37.243790 7573.50 680 360 40 480 680 640 14 360 7214 7214 7534 7094 6894 Sandstone 360-480 well overdrilled for sump, 

no filter pack

10 9/5/00 -108.156390 37.243220 7567.96 500 400 19 500 500 481 12 400 7168 7168 7549 7068 7068 shale 420 no filter pack

8 11/16/00 -108.158940 37.243180 7569.53 500 420 40 500 500 460 9 400 7170 7150 7530 7070 7070 Shale 420 no filter pack

12 5/29/02 -108.159980 37.240130 7522.12 600 340 40 560 600 560 2 240 7282 7182 7482 6962 6922

Mesa verde 

(Unknown but 

generally 

shale, SS, coal)

360 & 480

well overdrilled for sump 

and gravel filter packed 40'-

680'

35 2/26/07 -108.139220 37.229200 7135.74 160 40 40 140 160 120 10 31 7105 7096 7096 6996 6976 SS, coal, shale 55-100

well overdrilled for sump, 

coal 100-105, telescoped 

PVC well with K-packer 

from surface casing, no 

filter pack

18 9/6/04 -108.164440 37.231170 7405.26 540 420 40 520 540 500 5 300 7105 6985 7365 6885 6865

Sandstone, 

coal 340

3/8" filter pack 320'-540' to 

include interval noted as 

coal, otherwise cement 

well seal only 1'-40'

King II 12/1/04 -108.134156 37.239417 7174.81 20 0 0 20 20 20 N A 8.3 7166 7175 7175 7155 7155 Alluvial N A

No CDWR well construction 

& test report available, 

well information provided 

by GCC Energy

* Static water level measured quarterly, value reported here taken 12/11/12
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-C-1-

Table 2. King II Mine #1 Up-gradient Monitoring Well Quarterly Water Quality Data Summary
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-C-2-

Table 3. King II Mine #2 Down-gradient Monitoring Well Quarterly Water Quality Data 

Summary
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-C-3-

Table 4. Summary Water Quality for 2013 Domestic Water Well Investigation 
Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-C-4-

Source: CDS 2
Preliminary Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2011-0074-EA

September 2017

-D-1-

Appendix D – Biological Assessment
United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

and

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

Biological Assessment

August 16, 2017

Federal Coal Lease (COC-62920) Modification and 

Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

Location: King II Mine, La Plata County, Colorado

Applicant/Address: GCC Energy, LLC

6473 County Road 120

Hesperus, Colorado 81326 

BLM Tres Rios Field Office

29211 Hwy 184

Dolores, Colorado 81323

Phone: (970) 882-7296

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,

Western Region

1999 Broadway, Suite 3320

Denver, Colorado 80202

Phone: (303) 293-5000
Biological Assessment

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

May 2017

-iTABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Consultation History.......................................................................................................... 5

2. Project Description ................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Coal Removal.................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Coal Production, Transportation, and Combustion........................................................... 8

2.3 Road Improvements to County Road 120 ......................................................................... 8

2.4 Water Supply and Use....................................................................................................... 8

2.5 Reclamation....................................................................................................................... 9

2.6 Design Features................................................................................................................. 9

3. Project and Action Areas ....................................................................................................... 10

4. Environmental Baseline.......................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Habitat Conditions in the Vicinity of the King II Mine .................................................. 12

4.2 Air Quality and Climate .................................................................................................. 12

4.3 Water Quality .................................................................................................................. 13

4.4 Existing and Reasonably Foreseeable Developments and Risks .................................... 16

5. Species and Critical Habitat Considered.............................................................................. 17

5.1 Descriptions of Species and Critical Habitat Analyzed in Detail ................................... 21

5.1.1 Rio Grande Silvery Minnow................................................................................. 21

5.1.2 Greenback Cutthroat Trout ................................................................................... 22

5.1.3 Colorado Pikeminnow and Razorback Sucker ..................................................... 26

6. Effects Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 27

6.1 Summary of Impacts ....................................................................................................... 27

6.1.1 Direct Air Quality Effects..................................................................................... 27
Biological Assessment

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

May 2017

-ii6.1.2 Indirect Air Quality Effects .................................................................................. 27

6.1.3 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................................. 29

6.2 Effects to Listed Species and Critical Habitats ............................................................... 31

6.2.1 Rio Grande Silvery Minnow................................................................................. 31

6.2.2 Greenback Cutthroat Trout ................................................................................... 32

6.2.3 Colorado Pikeminnow and Razorback Sucker ..................................................... 33

7. Conclusion and Determinations of Effects ........................................................................... 35

8. Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................................. 36

9. References................................................................................................................................ 37

Appendix A – Maps .................................................................................................................. A-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5-1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species listed for La Plata and Pueblo counties, 

Colorado and Bernalillo County, New Mexico ............................................................................ 18

Table 6-1. Pueblo Facility King II emissions (maximum tons per year)...................................... 28

Table 6-2. Tijeras Facility King II emissions (maximum tons per year)...................................... 29

Table 7-1. Summary of effects determinations for federally listed species considered in the AA35

Table 8-1. Individuals and agencies consulted for the assessment............................................... 36

LIST OF MAPS

Map A-1. Vicinity map............................................................................................................... A-2

Map A-2. Project area map ......................................................................................................... A-3

Map A-3. Action Area associated with expansion of the coal lease by approximately 950.55 

acres adjacent to the current King II Mine Lease COC-62920................................................... A-4

Map A-4. Action Areas addressing indirect impacts from potential coal combustion emissions 

from the Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... A-5
Biological Assessment

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

May 2017

-iiiABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

°F degrees Fahrenheit

AA Action Area

BA Biological Assessment

BEST Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BO biological opinion

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

CR County Road

DSNGRR Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad

EA Environmental Assessment

ESA Endangered Species Act

FCPP Four Corners Power Plant

g gram

GCC GCC Energy, LLC

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

kg kilogram

Hg mercury

L liter

LPC La Plata County

LUP Land Use Permit

mg milligram

MRG Middle Rio Grande

MRGESACP Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

ng nanogram

NMEP Navajo Mine Energy Project

NMPM New Mexico Principal Meridian

NOx nitrous oxides

OSMRE Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

PM10 particulates less than 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter

ROW right-of-way

RPM Reasonable and Prudent Measure

SH State Highway

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SWQB Surface Water Quality Bureau

μg microgram

U.S. United States

USC United States Code

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

VOC volatile organic compound

WQCD Water Quality Control Division
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

4

1. Introduction

On December 28, 2010, pursuant to regulations in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

3410.2-1, GCC Energy, LLC (GCC), a subsidiary of Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, submitted a 

modification application to Federal Coal Lease COC-62920 to the Colorado State Director of the 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The application was 

amended on October 17, 2014, to adjust the parcels included in the modification and to clarify 

legal land descriptions. The proposed lease modification would add 950.55 acres to the existing 

King II Mine lease area. On March 20, 2017, GCC submitted a permit application package 

(consisting of a Permit Revision application and a Permit Renewal Application) to the DOI 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) to revise Federal Permit CO0106A to mine the additional lease acreage proposed for the King II Mine. As the regulatory 

authority with jurisdiction by law to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve the federal 

mine permit (including permit renewals and revisions), and to provide oversight authority of the 

Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (CDRMS) mine permit, OSMRE must 

analyze the potential environmental impacts to determine whether or not to approve the permit 

revision and renew the federal permit. The BLM Tres Rios Field Office is charged with 

administrating the affected federal mineral estate.

Threatened and endangered species are managed under the authority of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) of 1973 (Public Law 93-205, as amended; 16 United States Code [USC] 1536 (c)). 

The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that all actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or result 

in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. As such, both the BLM and 

OSMRE are responsible for analyzing the potential environmental impacts of their respective 

federal leasing and permitting actions on threatened and endangered species.

This Biological Assessment (BA) has been jointly prepared by the BLM and OSMRE to 

document the agencies’ conclusions and the rationale to support those conclusions regarding the 

effects of their proposed actions on protected resources. This BA is prepared in accordance with 

legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the ESA, and follows the standards established in 

7 CFR 1940.312(c) and includes elements identified at 50 CFR §402.12(f).

1.1 Background

This section summarizes pertinent background information about the historical and current 

operation of the King II Mine. Of relevance to the analysis completed in this BA is the 

background information related to the end use of the mined coal. More detailed background is 

included in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for which this BA is appended.

The King Coal Mine began operation in 1938 at the current location in Hesperus, Colorado, with 

the first federal coal lease for the mine obtained in 1941 (Appendix A, Map A-1). Coal 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

5

production has occurred—and is currently occurring—on land obtained through federal leases, 

fee owners, split estate, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and (beginning in 2007) a State of Colorado 

lease. The King I Mine operated continuously from 1938 until 2009 from a single mine portal 

location south of La Plata County Road (CR) 120. The reserve that makes up the King II Mine 

was discovered in 1998 and lies north of CR 120. The King II Mine surface operation and portal 

was constructed in 2007, approximately 2 miles southwest of the King I Mine on the north side 

of CR 120. The operation is in Section 36, Township 35, Range 12, New Mexico Principal 

Meridian (NMPM) on CR 120 approximately 6.5 miles west of State Highway (SH) 140 (see

Appendix A, Maps A-1 and A-2). 

The existing King II Mine operations are currently within a 1,311.69-acre federal coal lease 

(COC-62920) and a 640-acre state lease (CO-3388), as shown on the project area map 

(Appendix A, Map A-2). All surface facilities at the King II site cover approximately 25.5 acres, 

with an underground mining operation of approximately 565 acres. GCC has applied for 

modification to the existing federal coal lease to expand the leased area for underground 

operations at the King II Mine site by 950.55 acres, also shown on Map A-2. No new surface 

facilities are proposed at the King II Mine for the proposed lease modification.

Coal from the King II Mine is favored for its high heating value (12,300 British thermal units per 

pound) and its low sulfur, ash, and alkali content. It is sold off site in the southwest U.S. and 

Mexico and used to manufacture cement. There are also small-volume sales to regional steampowered railroads and to a local concessionaire for home heating. 

In 2016, La Plata County (LPC) issued GCC a Class II Land Use Permit (LUP) (Project #2012-

0089) that included a Road Improvements Agreement limiting coal-truck traffic along CR 120 to 

between 80 and 120 loaded trips per day for various phases of road improvements that GCC 

agreed to make as part of their LUP. Based on each loaded truck carrying approximately 28.5 

tons, the maximum anticipated annual production that can be hauled from the mine to buyers in 

the southwest U.S. and northern Mexico is approximately 1,067,040 tons per year after the 

Phase 5 road improvements are completed in 2022. Average annual coal production at the 

King II Mine has been approximately 629,785 tons per year over the last 7 years of operations 

(refer to Table 1-1 in the EA).

Ultimately, the actual produced, transported, and combusted coal would be dependent upon coal 

markets, alternative fuel markets (i.e., natural gas, tires, petcoke, industrial waste), and the coal 

supply at the mine. For this BA, a worst-case scenario of maximum allowable production limit of 

1.3 million tons per year (limit is per CDPHE air quality Permit No. 09LP0202F, Final Approval 

– Modification 1, Condition No. 2, dated 9/3/2013) and transport is assumed.

1.2 Consultation History

On February 26, 2015, the OSMRE submitted a formal Section 7 consultation to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in accordance with the ESA, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

6

and the Interagency Cooperation Regulations (50 CFR 402). The correspondence was in regards 

to impacts of the existing King II underground mine on Colorado River fishes—specifically, on 

the Proposed Action’s average annual depletion of 34.07 acre-feet from the San Juan River. On 

April 30, 2015, the USFWS responded stating they issued a biological opinion (BO) 

(USFWS 1999a) determining that depletions of 100 acre-feet or less would not limit the 

provision of flows outlined in the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program 

(USFWS 1992). Therefore, the proposed 34.07-acre-foot depletion would not limit the provision 

of flows identified for the recovery of Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker and, thus, 

would not likely jeopardize the endangered fish species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of their critical habitat.

Also in 2015, the USFWS issued a BO (Consultation #02ENNM00-2014-F-0064) for the Four 

Corners Power Plant (FCPP) and Navajo Mine Energy Project (NMEP) in northwestern New 

Mexico. The project included OSMRE’s consideration of a coal mining permit for the NMEP 

and the BIA’s consideration of a lease renewal for the FCPP facility and associated transmission 

line rights-of-way (ROWs). Reasonable and Prudent Measure (RPM) #1 of the BO, requires 

OSMRE to evaluate and consult with the USFWS on all discretionary OSMRE permitting 

actions within OSMRE’s authority that have the potential to deposit mercury in the San Juan 

River. The GCC Proposed Action analyzed in this BA would result in deposition of 

approximately 0.25 pound per year of mercury and 10.4 pounds per year of selenium along the 

Animas River in Colorado, a tributary of the San Juan River. This BA completes OSMRE’s 

reporting requirements as outlined in RPM #1 of the subject BO. 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

7

2. Project Description

GCC has filed an application to modify the existing Federal Coal Lease COC-62920 to 

incorporate four additional tracts adjacent to currently leased areas of the King II Mine to expand 

underground mining operations and extend the life of the mine into 2023. The proposed lease 

modification would add approximately 950.55 acres to the existing coal lease, which covers an 

area of 1,311.69 acres. The proposed lease modification areas are shown on Map A-2 in 

Appendix A. As part of the Proposed Action, OSMRE is considering GCC’s mine permit 

renewal and permit revision to include mining the proposed additional lease acreage being 

considered by the BLM. 

This section summarizes the Proposed Action for which this BA is prepared to analyze the 

effects to federally listed species. The Proposed Action includes the proposed lease modification 

as well as the revision and renewal of the King II Mine permit (CO-0106A) and recommendation 

for the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management (ASLM) to either 

approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the mining plan modification. A more detailed 

description of the Proposed Action is found in Section 2.1 of the EA for which this BA is 

appended.

2.1 Coal Removal

Coal would be removed from the lease modification areas in the same manner as current 

operations at the King II Mine, using existing surface facilities and the mine plan as approved by 

the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety and in accordance with OSMRE 

permit renewal and revisions requirements.

The type of mining utilized is the “room and pillar” method. The thickness of the coal seam 

ranges from 6 to 10 feet. The coal seam is mined using continuous mining machinery. After the 

coal is mined, it is brought to the surface via a conveyor into one of two stockpiles, where it is 

crushed and prepared for transport. Coal refuse (underground development waste) from the King 

II Mine is transported less than 1 mile away to an approved refuse facility located on private 

lands at the King I Mine. The BLM estimates the recoverable federal coal reserves included in 

the lease modification area to be approximately 4.66 million tons.

The King II Mine now operates more than 2 miles of underground roadway with an 

interconnected grid work of nearly 6 miles of tunnels. GCC is not proposing to expand surface 

facilities or make modifications to current mining methods employed at the King II Mine 

because of the proposed lease modification. The mine plan revision would include minor 

periodic surface-disturbing activities associated with installation of groundwater monitoring 

wells, exploration core sampling, and stormwater management controls.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

8

2.2 Coal Production, Transportation, and Combustion

Average annual coal production at the King II Mine has been approximately 629,785 tons per 

year over the last 7 years of King II operations. Coal produced at the King II Mine is hauled by 

truck to regional rail loading facilities, where it is loaded for shipment by rail to cementproduction facilities in the southwestern U.S. and Mexico. Presently, trucks hauling coal from 

the King II Mine use CR 120 and SH 140 for inbound and outbound trips to the mine. The 

distance from the mine to SH 140 is 6.4 miles. As a condition of approval for GCC’s LPC LUP, 

GCC is required to complete five phases of road improvements (e.g., widening, straightening, 

paving) along CR 120 to SH 140; these improvements are scheduled for completion in 2022. 

Upon completion of the Phase 5 road improvements, GCC would be authorized for 120 loaded 

coal truck trips per day. Each coal truck has a capacity of approximately 24.5 tons; therefore, the 

maximum coal that can be produced and hauled from the mine annually is approximately 

1,067,040 tons per year. Under the Proposed Action, this volume could be produced for no more 

than 1 to 2 years (if GCC has buyers for that volume) before the reserves of the mine are 

exhausted in 2023.

Of the average 629,785 tons of coal produced per year, and under the maximum production 

scenario of 1,067,040 tons per year, 421,000 tons per year are delivered to GCC-owned cement 

plants in the U.S. and Mexico. The GCC-owned cement plants in the U.S. are in Pueblo, 

Colorado (105,000 tons per year) and Tijeras, New Mexico (76,000 tons per year).

Approximately 240,000 tons per year are delivered by railroad to GCC-owned cement plants in 

Mexico. An average of 208,785 tons per year is delivered to a variety of buyers in the cementmanufacturing industry in variable quantities from year to year in Texas and Arizona. At 

maximum potential production, an additional approximately 437,255 tons per year could be 

produced and delivered to Arizona and Texas cement markets.

2.3 Road Improvements to County Road 120

The road improvements to CR 120 include temporary paving in front of several residences, 

realignment of specified road sections, widening specified road sections, regrading and paving 

specified road sections, and reconstruction of the existing portion of paved road. By the 

completion of Phase 5 road improvements, the entire approximately 6.5 miles of CR 120 from 

SH 140 to the King II facility would be paved and in conformance with LPC road design and 

safety standards (LPC LUC Sec 74-91.c.d.). These road improvements are estimated to impact 

approximately 4.73 acres of ground along either side of the CR.

2.4 Water Supply and Use

Water is used at the King II Mine primarily for dust suppression, as required for worker safety 

and mine operations. Since there is no water supply at the mine, water for the King II Mine is 

used based on water rights owned and leased by GCC. Water is delivered to the King II Mine 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

9

site through ditches on the private Huntington Ranch and then the Huntington pipeline. To assure 

a reliable water supply at the mine, GCC and Huntington Ranch completed a water rights 

conveyance and change of use for 34.07 acre-feet of water annually. 

2.5 Reclamation

After completion of mining at the King II Mine, facilities and surface reclamation would

commence as detailed in Table 2-6 of the EA. Reclamation activities include portal sealing, 

facilities demolition, grading, topsoil spreading, revegetation, and success monitoring. These 

activities would conclude in approximately 3 to 5 years following exhaustion of the coal reserve.

2.6 Design Features

A variety of design features is proposed by GCC to mitigate impacts associated with dust 

generation, traffic, and visual impacts along CR 120. GCC has also proposed installing a series 

of groundwater monitoring wells around the perimeter of mining operations to better assess 

potential impacts to groundwater resources. None of these design features, however, are for

mitigating any impacts biological resources.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

10

3. Project and Action Areas

The Proposed Action is located 13 miles west of Durango, in La Plata County, Colorado in 

Section 36, Township 35, Range 12, NMPM. The existing lease and lease modification occur 

adjacent to and just north of CR 120 in Hay Gulch, approximately 6.5 miles west of Colorado 

SH 140 (Appendix A, Maps A-1 and A-2).

The Action Area (AA) is defined as all areas that may be affected directly or indirectly by the 

federal action (50 § CFR 402.02), and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. It 

encompasses the geographic extent of environmental changes (i.e., the physical, chemical, and 

biotic effects) that would result directly and indirectly from the action. Direct effects are caused 

by the action, and occur at the same time and place as the action. Indirect effects are those caused 

by or resulting from the action, and are later in time, but still reasonably certain to occur.

Map A-3 in Appendix A depicts the analyzed AA associated with the anticipated direct and 

indirect impacts of King II mine operations and the associated road improvements along CR 120.

The AA includes an approximately 2-mile buffer around the existing mine facilities, around the 

proposed lease modification area, and along CR 120 to SH 140. The 2-mile buffer is established 

based on possible noise, traffic, human activity, and dust generated by development of the 

Proposed Action. 

Also analyzed in this BA is the combustion of King II-produced coal where the end use of the 

coal is consistent and known. Combustion of coal in the cement-manufacturing process releases

sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide. Of these

contaminants, mercury is of greatest concern for endangered fish and is discussed further in 

Section 6, Effects Analysis of this BA. The indirect impacts of coal combustion, and specifically 

releases of mercury to receiving waters with federally listed fish present, resulted in the 

extension of AAs around the GCC-owned cement plants in Pueblo, Colorado and Tijeras, New 

Mexico (Appendix A, Map A-4) to include the receiving waters nearest to those facilities with a 

listed fish species potentially present. The GCC Tijeras Cement Plant is approximately 15 miles 

east of the Rio Grande, where the federally threatened Rio Grande silvery minnow is known to 

occur and designated critical habitat for the species is also present. The nearest known 

occurrence of a sensitive aquatic species to the GCC Pueblo Cement Plant is 30 miles southwest

in the San Isabela National Forest where the federally endangered greenback cutthroat trout is 

known to occur in Little Graneros Creek and Apache Creek.

In addition to the GCC-owned cement plant emissions, small amounts of King II coal is burned 

by the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad (DSNGRR) and by the Cumbres & Toltec 

Scenic Railroad in Chama, New Mexico. These two mobile emission sources release very small

amounts of mercury (less than 0.25 pound per year) that are described in Section 6, Effects 

Analysis of this BA. These emission sources are so small that an AA cannot reasonably be 

established to measure or predict the potential contribution to background concentrations of 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

11

mercury in aquatic systems near these historic railroads. The DSNGRR runs along the Animas 

River in Colorado, a tributary drainage of the San Juan River.

In 2015, the USFWS issued a BO (Consultation #02ENNM00-2014-F-0064) for the FCPP and 

NMEP in northwestern New Mexico. The project included OSMRE’s consideration of a coal 

mining permit for the NMEP and the BIA’s consideration of a lease renewal for the FCPP 

facility and associated transmission line ROWs. RPM #1 of the BO, requires OSMRE to evaluate 

and consult with the USFWS on all discretionary OSMRE permitting actions within OSMRE’s 

authority that have the potential to deposit mercury in the San Juan River. This reporting requirement 

is described in further detail in Section 6, Effects Analysis of this BA.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

12

4. Environmental Baseline

This section describes the environmental setting and environmental conditions within the AA. 

The environmental baseline discussion presents the physical and biological characteristics of 

habitats in the AA both generally and as they pertain to species or life stages of species 

potentially affected by the Proposed Action. This section also describes the history of 

disturbance to these habitats, what actions or developments have previously occurred, and the 

relevance of the resulting environmental conditions on the status of listed species in the AA.

Because this BA is focused on the indirect impacts of coal combustion at consistent and known 

localities in New Mexico and Colorado that are distant from the King II Mine, the environmental 

baseline characterizes air quality, climate, and water quality conditions as they relate to 

potentially affected aquatic species. Where possible, the environmental baseline includes the past 

and present effects of all federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the AA, 

and the anticipated effects of all proposed federal projects in the AA.

Environmental baselines affecting the subject species evaluated in this BA are also included the 

species assessment, recovery plans and 5-year status reviews completed for each species. These 

documents are available for each species on the USFWS Environmental Conservation Online 

System at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/.

4.1 Habitat Conditions in the Vicinity of the King II Mine

The physical and biological characteristics of habitats in the vicinity of the King II Mine are 

described in detail in the EA for which this BA is appended.

4.2 Air Quality and Climate

Over the last 30 years, the temperatures have increased by approximately 2 degrees Fahrenheit 

(°F) in Colorado. Climate models project Colorado will warm by 2.5°F to 5°F by 2050, relative 

to the 1971-2000 baseline. Summers are projected to warm more than winters. From observed 

climate trends in Colorado, no consistent long-term trends in annual precipitation have been 

detected. Projections show a decline in snowpack at lower elevations (below 8,200 feet) across 

the West by the middle of the twenty-first century. Several studies suggest that shifts in timing 

and intensity of stream flows are related to warming spring temperatures. The timing of runoff in 

Colorado river basins has shifted 1 to 4 weeks earlier in the spring (Lukas et al. 2014).

According to Lukas et al. (2014), climate change may have wide-ranging effects on water 

resources in the AA including the following: 

▪ Increases in evapotranspiration by plants, lower soil moisture, and altered growing 

seasons may increase water demand.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

13

▪ Changes in snowpack, streamflow timing, and hydrograph evolution may affect reservoir 

operations, including flood control and storage. Changes in the timing and magnitude of 

runoff may affect functioning of diversion, storage, and conveyance structures. 

▪ Earlier runoff may complicate prior appropriation systems and interstate water compacts, 

affecting which water-rights holders receive water, and operations plans for reservoirs. 

▪ Changes in water quality. For example, changes in the timing and hydrograph may affect 

sediment load and contaminant concentrations.

▪ Warmer air temperatures may place higher demands on hydropower reservoirs for 

peaking power. Warmer lake and stream temperatures may affect water use by cooling 

power plants and in other industries.

▪ Increasing temperature and soil moisture changes may shift mountain habitats toward 

higher elevation.

▪ Changes in air, water, and soil temperatures may affect the relationships between forests, 

surface water and groundwater, wildfire, and insect pests. Water-stressed trees, for 

example, may be more vulnerable to pests.

▪ Stream temperatures are expected to increase as the climate warms, which could have 

direct and indirect effects on aquatic ecosystems, including the spread of in-stream nonnative species and diseases to higher elevations, and the potential for non-native plant 

species to invade riparian areas. Changes in streamflow intensity and timing may also 

affect riparian ecosystems.

▪ Changes in reservoir storage, streamflow intensity and timing, the character and timing of 

snowpack, and the ratio of snowfall to rainfall may affect recreation activities.

▪ Changes in long-term precipitation and soil moisture can affect groundwater recharge 

rates; coupled with demand issues, this may mean greater pressures on groundwater 

resources.

Climate change is further discussed in Section 6, Effects Analysis.

4.3 Water Quality

The water quality baseline described in this section includes summaries of baseline conditions in 

water bodies potentially affected by the Proposed Action that also provide habitat for federally 

listed species. 

San Juan River

Water quality is of concern in the San Juan River Basin with many water bodies, including the 

San Juan River, being impaired due to one or more factors, including metals, sediment, salinity, 

temperature, fecal matter, and dissolved oxygen (USFWS 2006). Osmundson and Lusk (2011),

AECOM (2013), and Electric Power Research Institute (2014) identified mercury or selenium as 

moderately elevated contaminants of concern in biota and fish tissues collected from the San 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

14

Juan River Basin. A complete discussion of the baseline water quality conditions that exist in the 

San Juan River are detailed in the FCPP/NMEP BO (USFWS 2015) and incorporated in this BA 

by reference. 

Middle Rio Grande

In 2016, the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program (MRGESACP)

contracted with the New Mexico Environment Department Surface Water Quality Bureau 

(SWQB) to conduct water-quality monitoring and assessment to determine if poor water quality

is contributing to the decline of Rio Grande silvery minnow populations in the Middle Rio 

Grande (MRG).

SWQB conducted quarterly sampling of water and sediment, toxicity tests, and annual fish tissue

collection and analysis at ten stations in the MRG selected by the MRGESACP. The survey

extended from Bosque del Apache (downstream of San Antonio), north to the Angostura

Diversion (upstream of Bernalillo), covering approximately 180 miles of river. In addition to the 

sampling conducted, SWQB compiled water chemistry data for sites on the MRG within the 

study area from other sources and earlier SWQB studies conducted from 2000 through 2008.

SWQB assessed the data against water quality standards criteria contained within the State of

New Mexico Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Surface Waters (20.6.4 New Mexico 

Administrative Code). Analysis of the data indicated dissolved oxygen levels were below the 

water quality criteria in the “Rio Grande (non-pueblo Alameda Bridge to Angostura Div)” and 

“Rio Grande (Isleta Pueblo to Alameda Bridge), aluminum concentrations were above the 

chronic aquatic life criteria in several locations, and water quality criteria for bacteria (E. coli) 

were exceeded in most of the area. A 2005 microbial tracking study indicated the bacteria are 

primarily from dogs and wildlife.

Sediment chemistry, fish tissue contaminant concentrations, and sediment toxicity data were 

summarized to provide additional information on chemical pollutants in the MRG that may 

affect the Rio Grande silvery minnow. In general, the results of the extensive water, sediment,

and fish tissue analyses performed for this study identified few water quality issues—notably 

elevated E coli; one sample with an ammonia concentration of 9.12 milligrams per liter (mg/L),

five times the acute criteria; low dissolved oxygen during brief periods of time; and some 

samples elevated in metals such as aluminum, copper, and chromium. 

New Mexico has adopted only one fish tissue-based criterion (methylmercury) in its water 

quality standards. The Rio Grande silvery minnow’s average adult body burden of mercury is 

about 0.05 microgram per gram (μg/g) wet weight mercury (Lusk et al. 2012).

The concentration of mercury in all but a few small, often ephemeral, streams in New Mexico is 

minute, averaging less than 2.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L) (NMED 2001). At this level, there is 

virtually no threat to humans or wildlife from direct contact with, ingestion of, most of the state's 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

15

waters. No water sample drawn from any major waterway in New Mexico has been found to 

contain mercury at a level that could pose any degree of direct risk to humans or wildlife

(NMED 2001).

Arkansas River Basin

The Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (305(b) Report) submitted to 

the EPA by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Water Quality Control 

Division (WQCD) summarizes the water quality conditions of the state’s waters. No impairment 

due to elevated mercury levels have been reported. Additionally, CDPHE also monitors metal 

toxicity levels of fish in reservoirs throughout the state in order to protect the public from 

consuming fish with elevated levels of toxic metals (refer to: https://www.epa.gov/wqc/nationalrecommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table#table) Human health advisories 

are posted when a pollutant level exceed the criteria level for aquatic life ambient water quality

as recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 1985). Aquatic life criteria for 

toxic chemicals are the highest concentration of specific pollutants or parameters in water that 

are not expected to pose a significant risk to the majority of species in a given environment. The 

mean acute and chronic toxicity levels of mercury for freshwater fishes is 1.4 μg/L and 0.77 μg/L

respectively (EPA 1985). Between 2006 and 2013, more than 48 fish tissue samples from a 

variety of fish species were collected from Runyon Reservoir within 5 miles of the GGC Pueblo 

Cement Plant. Of these 48 samples nearly all concentrations of mercury in tissue were less than 

0.10 ppm. The few exceptions were samples from longer lived and larger predatory high 

(walleye). Composite samples of rainbow trout were all less than 0.10 ppm. In nearby Pueblo 

Reservoir, of 20 fish tissue samples collected in 2014, all but 2 samples showed mercury 

concentrations less than 0.10 ppm. Two samples of spotted bass showed mercury levels at 0.11 

ppm and 0.13 ppm. Both reservoirs showed a decrease in mercury tissue concentrations over 

time.

In a 1993 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study, 95 percent (19 of 20) of the samples that were 

analyzed for dissolved and total-recoverable mercury had concentrations that were less than the

reporting limit (0.1 μg/L) (USGS 1993). Based on these results, arsenic, chromium, mercury, 

nickel, and selenium do not occur in large enough concentrations to pose a concern for the 

quality of water in the upper Arkansas River.

Continued rapid development is expected along Colorado’s eastern slope as the human 

population continues to grow. The State of Colorado expects the population of Front Range 

counties (including Boulder, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld) to increase by 

1.5 million people by 2035 (Colorado Demography Office 2008). The Arkansas and South Platte 

river drainages are the main sources of water for the eastern slope. In theory, demand for water 

within the range of greenback cutthroat trout habitat is expected to increase commensurate with 

population growth. Potential water diversions or depletions can reduce stream flow; fragment 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

16

stream habitat; restrict greenback cutthroat trout movement along stream corridors; and 

adversely impact water quality, aquatic food chains, and watershed conditions.

4.4 Existing and Reasonably Foreseeable Developments and Risks

Land use in and around the AA includes residential, commercial, developed and dispersed 

recreation, industrial/resource extraction, agriculture including grazing, and forest resources.

A complete description of the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 

habitat or range, or the recovery factors for each listed fish, is found in the following Notice 

5-Year Review of each species incorporated here by reference:

▪ Greenback cutthroat trout (USFWS 2009)

▪ Rio Grande silvery minnow (USFWS 2010)

▪ Colorado pikeminnow (USFWS 2011)

▪ Razorback sucker (USFWS 2012)
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

17

5. Species and Critical Habitat Considered

The USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation tool was used to review USFWS 

threatened and endangered species in La Plata County, Colorado; Pueblo County, Colorado; and 

Bernalillo County, New Mexico (USFWS 2017). Pueblo and Bernalillo counties were queried to 

assess if species were potentially present in the known areas of coal combustion from GCC

owned and operated cement plants. Table 5-1 presents the federally listed species with potential 

to occur in these counties, and describes each species habitat requirements and whether the 

habitat is present in the AA. There are 14 federally listed species with potential to occur in the 

three subject counties.

None of the listed species in La Plata County have suitable habitat in the project area or AA, near 

the King II Mine, or along CR 120 north to SH 140. The AA near the mine facility and along 

CR 120 includes a 2-mile buffer to account for noise, light, activity, and traffic impacts 

potentially affecting area biological resources. Several riparian obligate species, such as Yellowbilled cuckoo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and New Mexico jumping meadow mouse, are 

known to occur in La Plata County, with the nearest potential habitats along the La Plata River. 

The King II Mine is about 4.5 miles from the La Plata River with no noise, air, or human activity 

impacts from the mine anticipated to affect habitats along the La Plata River. CR 120, at its 

terminus with SH 140, is approximately 0.3 mile from the La Plata River. Coal trucks turning on 

to SH 140 are not expect to impact habitats along the La Plata River or listed species potentially 

present. The Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker are known to occur in the San Juan 

River downstream of the AA. These species are considered in this analysis due to the small 

contributions of mercury to the Animas River from combustion of King II Mine coal by the 

DSNGRR.

Of the listed species with potential to occur in Pueblo County, Colorado and Bernalillo County, 

New Mexico, only the Rio Grande silvery minnow and greenback cutthroat trout are brought 

forward for detailed impact analysis in this BA. These aquatic species are analyzed due to the 

potential of bioaccumulating mercury from combustion of coal at GCC cement plants. Other 

listed species with potential to occur within the subject counties, but eliminated from detailed 

impact consideration, are briefly discussed in the Section 6, Effects Analysis. In general, 

terrestrial species that are not further analyzed in this BA are eliminated because estimated 

releases of mercury from combustion during the cement-manufacturing process are too minute to 

measure any effects on the subject terrestrial species.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

18

Table 5-1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species listed for La Plata and Pueblo counties, Colorado and Bernalillo County, New Mexico

Species Status Habitat Potential to Occur 

in the Action Area

Eliminated 

from Detailed 

Consideration

Mammals

Canada lynx 

(Lynx canadensis)

T

(La Plata,

Pueblo)

Prefers mature subalpine/coniferous 

forests with downed trees for cover and 

denning. Closely associated with 

snowshoe hares, their preferred prey.

Has not been documented in the AA. The AA

does not have suitable habitat for residents 

given the elevation, forest structure, and lack 

of prey base. 

Yes

New Mexico meadow 

jumping mouse

(Zapus hudsonius luteus)

E

(La Plata,

Bernalillo)

Nests in dry soils, but uses moist, 

streamside, dense and tall 

riparian/wetland vegetation up to an 

elevation of about 8,000 feet.

Has not been documented in the AA. Suitable 

habitat occurs along rivers in La Plata and 

Bernalillo counties.

Yes

North American wolverine

(Gulo gulo luscus)

PT

(La Plata,

Pueblo)

Occurs in high elevation habitats (above 

9,000 feet) that receive enough winter 

precipitation to reliably maintain deep 

snow late into the warm season.

Not known from the AA. AA habitats are not 

suitable for this species, due to the low 

elevation.

Yes

Black-footed ferret 

(Mustela nigripes)

E

(Pueblo)

Once encompassed intermountain and 

prairie grasslands that extended from 

Canada to Mexico. Now considered 

extirpated.

This species only needs to be considered if 

incidental take provisions pursuant to Section 

10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act

apply to a reintroduced population of blackfooted ferrets.

Yes

Birds

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii 

extimus)

E

(La Plata,

Bernalillo)

Breeds in dense, shrubby riparian 

habitats, usually near surface water or 

saturated soil.

Suitable habitat occurs along the La Plata 

River and along the Rio Grande in Bernalillo 

County. No breeding birds known from the 

AA in La Plata County.

Yes

Mexican spotted owl 

(Strix occidentalis lucida)

T

(La Plata,

Bernalillo)

Nests in caves, cliffs, or trees in steepwalled canyons of mixed conifer 

forests.

Potential suitable habitat within the AA in La 

Plata and Bernalillo counties.

Yes
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

19

Species Status Habitat Potential to Occur 

in the Action Area

Eliminated 

from Detailed 

Consideration

Yellow-billed cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis)

T

(La Plata,

Bernalillo)

Breeds in riparian woodlands with 

dense understory vegetation. Rarely 

nests in habitat patches smaller than 

50 acres. Critical habitat designated 

along the Rio Grande.

Known yellow-billed cuckoo nesting habitat 

occurs along the Rio Grande in Bernalillo 

County. Only migration habitat occurs near 

the AA in La Plata County.

Yes

Fish

Rio Grande silvery minnow 

(Hybognathus amarus)

E

(Bernalillo)

Most often uses silt substrates in areas 

of low or moderate water velocity in the 

Rio Grande.

Known to occur with designated critical 

habitat along the Rio Grande approximately 

15 miles west of the Tijeras Cement Plant.

No

Greenback cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki 

stomias)

T

(Pueblo)

Inhabits cold-water streams and coldwater lakes with adequate stream 

spawning habitat present during spring.

Bear Creek, the only current known location 

of the species, is a high gradient, cold-water 

stream located on the east side of Pikes Peak 

within a drainage of naturally erosive Pikes 

Peak granite soil. Currently protected 

cutthroats also occur in Little Graneros and 

Apache Creeks approximately 30 miles 

southwest of Pueblo.

No

Colorado pikeminnow

(Ptychocheilus lucius)

E

(La Plata)

Occurs in large rivers with strong 

currents, deep pools, and quiet 

backwaters.

Occurs downstream in the San Juan River. 

Listed for La Plata County based on 

depletions to the Colorado River Basin. 

No

Razorback sucker

(Xyrauchen texanus)

E

(La Plata)

Occurs in medium to large rivers with 

silty to rocky substrates. Prefers strong 

currents and deep pools.

Occurs downstream in the San Juan River. 

Listed for La Plata County based on 

depletions to the Colorado River Basin.

No
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

20

Species Status Habitat Potential to Occur 

in the Action Area

Eliminated 

from Detailed 

Consideration

Plants

Knowlton’s cactus

(Pediocactus knowltonii)

E

(La Plata)

Occurs in alluvial deposits that form 

rolling, gravelly hills in piñon-juniper 

and sagebrush communities between 

6,200 and 6,400 feet. A type locality of 

the Los Piños River area.

No potential to occur in the AA. Nearest 

known populations are 30 miles to the east 

along the Los Piños River. 

Yes

Chapin Mesa milkvetch

(Astragalus schmolliae)

C

(La Plata)

Occurs in mature piñon-juniper 

woodland of mesa tops in the Mesa 

Verde area and the Ute Mountain Ute 

Tribal Park at elevations from 6,500 to 

7,500 feet.

Suitable habitat present in the AA in La Plata

County; however, nearest known populations

are 15 miles west of the AA in the Mesa 

Verde area.

Yes

Insects

Uncompahgre fritillary 

butterfly

(Boloria acrocnema)

E

(La Plata)

All known populations are associated 

with large patches of snow willow 

(which provide food and cover) above 

12,400 feet.

Has not been documented in the AA. The AA 

does not have suitable habitat for this species.

Yes

Key: E=endangered, T=threatened, C=candidate, PT=proposed threatened.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

21

5.1 Descriptions of Species and Critical Habitat Analyzed in Detail

5.1.1 Rio Grande Silvery Minnow

The Rio Grande silvery minnow was once one of the most widespread and abundant fish in the 

Rio Grande River basin of New Mexico, Texas, and into Mexico. The decline of the species has 

been attributed to modification of stream flows, stream channelization, channel desiccation by 

impoundments, water management practices, competition with and predation by non-native 

fishes, and reduced water quality (USFWS 1994, 1999b). 

Life History

The Rio Grande silvery minnow is a freshwater schooling fish species. It has a small, heavy body 

that is round to ovate in cross section and rarely exceeds 4 inches in length. It is light greenishyellow dorsally and light cream to white on its ventral side, with dorsal and pectoral fins rounded 

at the tips. 

The Rio Grande silvery minnow is a pelagic spawner, producing thousands of semi-buoyant, 

non-adhesive eggs that drift downstream while developing (USFWS 2007). Developing eggs and 

larvae drift passively with river currents for about 3 to 5 days (Platania and Altenbach 1998). 

Drift distances may cover more than 620 miles with elevated river flows during the spring 

spawning period. Spawning is associated with high-flow events—such as spring runoff or 

summer rainstorms—and typically occurs over a relatively brief period (1 month) in May or 

June, although spawning can occur later in the season. Spawning takes place in the water column 

when water temperatures range between 68°F and 75°F (USFWS 2007).

The Rio Grande silvery minnow feeds on algae, larval insect skins, and plant material scraped 

from bottom sediment (Sublette et al. 1990).

Habitat

Rio Grande silvery minnows prefer large streams with slow to moderate currents over a mud, 

sand, or gravel bottom. Habitat includes pools and backwaters of low-gradient creeks and small 

to large rivers (Page and Burr 2011). This riverine minnow occurs in perennial sections of the 

Rio Grande and associated irrigation canals (Sublette et al. 1990). Most often it occurs over silt 

substrates (much less often sand) and typically inhabits pools, backwaters, or eddies formed by 

debris piles; larger individuals use a broad spectrum of habitats, including main- and sidechannel runs, but this species rarely uses areas with high water velocities (USFWS 2007). The 

species most commonly occurs in depths of less than 8 inches in the summer and 12 to 16 inches

(median) in the winter; few individuals use areas with depths greater than 20 inches 

(USFWS 2007). Winter habitat tends to be near instream debris piles (USFWS 2007). 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

22

Distribution and Status

The species has been extirpated from most of its historic range and is now found only in the Rio 

Grande from below Cochiti Dam to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico. 

The silvery minnow is extirpated from the Pecos River and from the Rio Grande downstream of 

Elephant Butte Reservoir and upstream of Cochiti Reservoir (Bestgen and Platania 1991).

Designated Critical Habitat

The USFWS designated critical habitat for the Rio Grande silvery minnow in 2003 

(USFWS 2003). Critical habitat includes portions of the Middle Rio Grande River and the Jemez 

River through Socorro, Valencia, Bernalillo, and Sandoval counties, New Mexico. There are four 

primary constituent elements of critical habitat specific to Rio Grande silvery minnow, as 

described below: 

1. A hydrologic regime that provides sufficient flowing water with low to moderate currents 

capable of forming and maintaining a diversity of aquatic habitats such as, but not limited 

to, the following: backwaters, shallow side channels, pools, eddies, and runs of varying 

depth and velocity—all of which are necessary for each of the particular silvery minnow 

life-history stages in appropriate seasons;

2. The presence of low-velocity habitat within unimpounded stretches of flowing water of 

sufficient length that provide a variety of habitats with a wide range of depth and 

velocities;

3. Substrates of predominately sand or silt; and

4. Water of sufficient quality to maintain natural, daily, and seasonally variable water 

temperatures in the approximate range between 35°F and 85°F, and reduce degraded 

water conditions (decreased dissolved oxygen, increased pH, etc.) (USFWS 2003).

Threats

Throughout much of its historic range, the decline of the Rio Grande silvery minnow is attributed

primarily to destruction and modification of its habitat due to dewatering and diversion of water,

water impoundment, and modification of the river (channelization). Competition and predation

by introduced non-native species, water quality degradation, and other factors also have

contributed to its decline (USFWS 2010).

5.1.2 Greenback Cutthroat Trout

Greenback cutthroat trout have typically occupied relatively steep, cold-water streams and rivers 

and accessible high-mountain lakes throughout the South Platte and Arkansas river basins

(Young 2009). Though presumed to be extinct by 1937, several wild populations of what were 

thought to be greenback cutthroat trout were discovered in the South Platte and Arkansas river 

basins starting in the late 1950s. These discoveries launched an aggressive conservation 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

23

campaign that replicated those populations across the landscape. Efforts to establish new 

populations were successful and populations are expected to meet recovery plan goals and 

become delisted. However, recent genetic work on museum and extant populations suggest that 

the true native greenback cutthroat trout occurs only in a single stream, Bear Creek, outside their 

historic range just west of Colorado Springs. Recent studies revealed that approximately 750 

adult fish remain in Bear Creek and represent the last remaining individuals of the species.

Aggressive recovery efforts have been implemented to replicate this population, with the first 

reintroduction in the wild occurring in August 2014.

Life History

Greenback cutthroat trout opportunistically feed on a wide range of prey organisms, but a large 

percentage of the diet is terrestrial insects. Greenbacks also feed on crustaceans (e.g., freshwater 

shrimp), aquatic insects, and small fish. Spawning typically occurs from late May to mid-July in 

higher elevations. Male cutthroats first spawn at age 2, and females mature a year later. Females 

build an egg pit in gravel generally 3 to 8 inches deep and 1 foot in diameter. A 10-inch female 

lays about 800 eggs. Larger fish of about 4 to 7 pounds lay up to 6,000 eggs.

Habitat

Greenback cutthroat trout occur in steep, cold-water mountain streams and lakes with clear, 

well-oxygenated water (Young 2009).

Distribution and Status

Until recently, delineations of subspecies of cutthroat trout in the southern Rocky Mountains 

were believed to follow geographic boundaries within several states, with greenback cutthroat 

trout on the east side of the Continental Divide and Colorado River cutthroat trout (O. c.

pleuriticus) on the west side. Rio Grande cutthroat trout (O. c. virginalis) occur within the Rio 

Grande drainage; their range and genetic identity do not appear to be in question. 

Through the recent genetic (Metcalf et al. 2012) and meristic (Bestgen et al. 2013) studies that 

identified the native ranges of cutthroat in Colorado, we now know that greenbacks are native 

only to the headwaters of the South Platte River drainage in Colorado. Greenbacks were 

previously considered to be native also to the Arkansas River drainage (Behnke 1992). The 

original distribution of the greenback within the South Platte drainage is not precisely known due 

to its rapid decline in the 1800s. The loss of high-quality trout stream habitat through logging, 

livestock over-grazing, water diversions, mining, and municipal and industrial pollution is 

considered a contributing factor to the historical decline of the range of greenback. It is assumed 

that the original distribution included all mountain and foothill habitats of the drainage systems, 

including lower elevations than it occupies today (Behnke and Zarn 1976). The subspecies may 

have extended as far east as present day Greeley, Colorado, during the mid-1800s (WNTI 2007). 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

24

At this time, greenbacks are present in the wild only in Bear Creek (Pikes Peak), Rock Creek 

(Lost Creek Wilderness), and Herman Gulch (Clear Creek drainage) as well as Zimmerman Lake 

(headwaters of Poudre River). Bear Creek is located on the eastern side of Pikes Peak in the 

Arkansas River drainage, and therefore, outside its native range. The Bear Creek population is 

believed to be present at this location due to the stocking of ponds in 1882 at a guest hotel in the 

upper reaches of Bear Creek. Upper Bear Creek was likely fishless due to its location above a 

series of waterfalls (Metcalf et al. 2012). Zimmerman Lake is located at the headwaters of the 

Cache la Poudre River in the South Platte River drainage and was stocked in 2014 and 2015 with 

hatchery fish collected from Bear Creek. Greenbacks are also present in the Leadville National 

Fish Hatchery and several State hatcheries. At this time, other reintroduction projects are being 

planned for sites in the South Platte River drainage with hatchery fish collected from Bear Creek.

The Service listed the greenback cutthroat trout as an endangered species in 1967 (32 FR 4001). 

The Service downlisted the greenback to a threatened status in 1978 because of recovery efforts 

that removed non-native trout from suitable habitat, established captive brood stocks, 

reintroduced greenbacks, developed stable populations, and initiated catch-and-release fisheries 

(43 FR 16343). 

Taxonomy

When the greenback was first listed, morphology and meristic analyses wereqo a prominent 

genetic determinant for cutthroat trout subspecies, based on phenotypic expression, which 

included spotting patterns, number of scales, coloration, number of basiobranchial teeth, etc. 

(Policky et al. 2003). Some of the first genetic analysis completed was University of Montana’s 

electrophoresis work (Kanda and Leary 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2000). More recently, techniques 

for genetic analysis have focused on mtDNA and nuclear DNA (nDNA). With regard to 

taxonomy, Behnke (2004) has argued that genetics should not be the sole factor in determining 

taxonomic distinctions, and that morphological traits may sometimes be distinguishing factors. 

In a 2007 study, Metcalf et al. used molecular markers from the mitochondrial and nuclear 

genomes to analyze individuals from greenback and Colorado River cutthroat trout. 

Phylogenetic analysis of the combined cytochrome oxidase I (COI) and nicotinamide adenine 

dinucleotide dehydrogenase 2 (ND2) mitochondrial gene sequences (n=1530 base pairs) revealed 

two divergent lineages within the ranges of greenback and Colorado River cutthroat trout 

consisting of 10 unique haplotypes. Metcalf et al. (2007) determined that these two lineages 

corresponded with the two described subspecies. However, the divergent evolutionary lineages 

defined by mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers did not separate geographically on either 

side of the Continental Divide as expected. Results from that study identified five populations 

with what the authors felt were Colorado River cutthroat trout genetic markers on the east side of 

the Continental Divide and one population with what they felt were greenback genetic markers 

occurring on the West slope of Colorado, in what should be Colorado River cutthroat habitat. 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

25

A recently published genetic study conducted by researchers from the University of Colorado -

Boulder (Metcalf et al. 2012) compared mitochondrial DNA of extant cutthroat trout populations 

from Colorado with cutthroat trout museum specimens collected in the late 1800s, thereby 

providing an understanding of the native ranges of cutthroat trout in Colorado prior to major fish 

stocking efforts. Several significant conclusions resulted from this study, namely that the 

greenback is native only to the South Platte River drainage and that a different subspecies was 

native to the Arkansas River drainage. This subspecies, the yellowfin cutthroat trout (O. c. 

macdonaldi), is considered to be extinct (Metcalf et al. 2012; Wiltzius 1985). Another 

significant conclusion of the Metcalf et al. study (2012) is the identification of two distinct 

lineages of cutthroat trout on the West Slope of Colorado, one of which is the Colorado River 

cutthroat trout and the other is a newly identified lineage, which we temporarily refer to as the 

green lineage cutthroat, based on the map provided in the Metcalf et al. 2007 report in which 

these fish were shown in a green color. The common and scientific name will be described for 

the green lineage cutthroat in the near future. This study identified an additional cutthroat 

lineage; this lineage was located in the San Juan River drainage and is also considered to be 

extinct. Populations of the Colorado River cutthroats that are present on the east side of the 

Continental Dive are presumably due to stocking from West Slope sources in the past. 

Populations of the green lineage cutthroat trout are also present on the east side of the 

Continental Divide although uncertainty remains of the origin of these fish. 

A concurrent meristic study of cutthroat trout in Colorado (Bestgen et al. 2013) complemented 

the 2012 genetic study. The meristic study was conducted by researchers at the Larval Fish 

Laboratory at Colorado State University, and included cutthroat trout specimens collected from 

all major drainages in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico. Both meristic and genetic 

analyses were conducted on these specimens in a “double-blind” fashion in which neither group 

of researchers was aware of the origin of the specimens. The meristic study was completed in 

the spring of 2013 and a final report was presented to the Greenback Cutthroat Recovery Team 

in 2014. The observed meristic differences supported the genetic study while also providing an 

even greater refinement of cutthroat trout groups than previously identified through the genetic 

study.

Designated Critical Habitat

Critical habitat has not been designated for the greenback cutthroat trout.

Threats

The main reasons cited for the subspecies’ decline are hybridization, competition with nonnative salmonids, and overharvest. New threats have arisen or have become more prevalent and 

include increased human population growth within the range of the subspecies, along with 

potential for new water depletions; new introductions of non-native species; fragmentation and 

genetic isolation of small populations; the effects of fire and firefighting with chemical 

retardants; and the effects of global climate change. Additional threats exist with impacts limited 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

26

to specific populations (that do not occur at a range-wide level) including the ongoing negative 

effects of past mining operations on water quality; the impacts of grazing, logging, and road/trail 

construction/use on riparian habitat and streambanks, causing increased erosion, sediment 

deposition, water temperatures, and turbidity; and the co-occurrence of non-native salmonids 

with greenback populations.

5.1.3 Colorado Pikeminnow and Razorback Sucker

The Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker are included in this BA due to OSMRE’s 

obligation to consult with the USFWS on all discretionary OSMRE permitting actions within 

OSMRE’s authority that have the potential to deposit mercury in the San Juan River. In this case, 

the trigger for USFWS consultation is the release of less than 0.25 pound per year of mercury

from combustion of King II coal by the DSNGRR along the Animas River in Colorado, a 

tributary to the San Juan River. Descriptions of each species and their critical habitats along the 

San Juan River are detailed in the FCPP/NMEP BO (USFWS 2015) and incorporated in this BA 

by reference. 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

27

6. Effects Analysis

This section analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to each subject species and 

critical habitat, and describes the anticipated response (e.g., none, abandon the area, decrease 

foraging success, reduced fecundity, injury, death) from any likely exposure to the impacts. Also 

included is a cumulative effects analysis for actions that are likely to adversely affect listed 

resources reasonably certain to occur within the AA.

6.1 Summary of Impacts

6.1.1 Direct Air Quality Effects

Direct impacts to air quality from activities at the King II Mine would over time occur from 

increased fugitive dust associated with production and coal truck traffic increases as road 

improvements progressed through each phase. However, the region surrounding the Proposed 

Action is currently designated as in attainment for all criteria pollutants, meaning no violations 

of ambient air quality standards have been documented in the area. Regardless, no federally 

listed species are known to occur within the 2-mile area around King II Mine where direct air 

impacts would occur; therefore, no direct impacts to any federally listed species are expected to 

occur.

Several of the obligate riparian species such as yellow-billed cuckoo, southwestern willow 

flycatcher, and New Mexico jumping meadow mouse, are known to occur in La Plata County,

with the nearest potential habitats located along the La Plata River. The King II Mine is about 

4.5 miles from the La Plata River. No direct impacts from mine operations are expected to occur 

to these species or habitats along the La Plata River.

6.1.2 Indirect Air Quality Effects

Indirect air quality effects from the Proposed Action are generally related to coal transport and 

combustion and, to a lesser extent, the CR 120 improvements. The relatively small and 

geographically spread out mobile source emissions are a continuation of an existing activity and

are not anticipated to cause any concerns to local or regional air quality. Several thousand more 

vehicles, other than the coal trucks, travel project area roads and highway routes daily and air 

quality is being maintained. Additionally, mobile source emissions for the affected area have 

been evaluated on a regional scale by the Four Corners Air Quality Group. This evaluation and 

forecast for the Four Corners region, including the affected area and the rail terminal location, 

found that emissions levels forecast for a 2018 scenario would not exceed the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Given that the mobile source emissions levels from the 

Proposed Action are incorporated into the 2018 scenario, these modeling results support the 

conclusion there would be no significant indirect air quality effects for the Proposed Action. 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

28

The combustion-related indirect effects from stationary sources are either unknown or are 

currently regulated by agencies with authority to set limits and conditions to provide for 

compliance with the applicable Clean Air Act regulations. The air quality analysis in the EA is 

limited to disclosing emissions and the permits where all the compliance obligations for the 

known sources are contained—the GCC Pueblo, Colorado and Tijeras, New Mexico cement 

plants. The Proposed Action is not expected to change daily operations or the compliance 

obligations of these facilities. The Proposed Action would essentially represent a continuation of 

currently authorized activities. According to the monitoring data for the known downstream 

facilities (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2017), air quality has been meeting—and could 

be expected to continue to meet—the NAAQS. 

Even though La Plata, Bernalillo, and Pueblo counties would not exceed the NAAQS under the 

Proposed Action, the concentration, mobility, and toxicity of trace metals in biological systems 

are of general scientific and public interest. The cement plants in Tijeras, New Mexico and 

Pueblo, Colorado are expected to contribute mercury emissions from coal combustion. Mercury 

is dispersed by wind erosion and by percolating waters and instream flow (Roberts and 

Johnson 1978). Inorganic mercury is deposited on the landscape, transported from soils to 

wetlands and surface waters, and converted by bacteria to methylmercury—the organic form of 

mercury that is readily absorbed by fish and other organisms.

The GCC Rio Grande Pueblo plant (Table 6-1) has a permit (#98PB0893) condition that limits 

annual firing fuel (coal and tire-derived fuel) to no more than 198,418 tons on a rolling 12-month 

basis. King II currently supplies 105,000 tons of coal annually (approximately 53 percent by 

weight) to the facility, and expects this to remain constant going forward. The plant also burns 

natural gas when market conditions are favorable. The permit lists total site-wide emissions 

limits for the facility that cover numerous emissions sources and activities including the kiln, 

quarry operations, material transfer and storage, and other facilities equipment. 

Table 6-1. Pueblo Facility King II emissions (maximum tons per year)

PM10 PM2.5 CO NOX VOC SO2 CO2e

Hg

(pounds per year)

221 217 588 604 52 505 597,148 10-15

Source: BLM/OSMRE 2017.

Key: CO=carbon monoxide, CO2e=carbon dioxide equivalent, Hg=mercury, NOx=nitrous oxides, PM10=particulates less than 10 

microns in diameter, PM2.5=particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter, SO2=sulfur dioxide, VOC=volatile organic compound.

The GCC Rio Grande Tijeras plant (Table 6-2) has similar operations to that of the Pueblo 

facility and is covered under New Mexico Title V permit #532. The air permit and underlying 

construction permits provide for all the same source requirements (controls and monitoring) as 

the Pueblo facility and are available from the Albuquerque Environmental Health Department for 

public review.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

29

Unlike the Pueblo facility, the Tijeras kiln is fired entirely on coal (a minor amount of natural gas 

is used for startup). Similarly, the permit does not contain explicit limits for greenhouse gas and 

mercury emissions, but does provide for mercury-monitoring requirements and performancebased standards.

Table 6-2. Tijeras Facility King II emissions (maximum tons per year)

PM10 PM2.5 CO NOX VOC SO2 CO2e

Hg 

(pounds per year)

135 66 790 772 79 21 167,662 25

Source: BLM/OSMRE 2017.

Key: CO=carbon monoxide, CO2e=carbon dioxide equivalent, Hg=mercury, NOx=nitrous oxides, PM10=particulates less than 10 

microns in diameter, PM2.5=particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter, SO2=sulfur dioxide, VOC=volatile organic compound.

Mercury emissions from the DSNGRR are expected to be less than 0.25 pound per year

respectively and have no significant impacts.

These indirect sources would incrementally contribute greenhouse gas emissions to the 

biosphere, which could contribute to climate change. With respect to the indirect source’s 

impacts on climate change, neither the BLM nor OSMRE possesses appropriate tools or 

analytical methods to assess how these emissions could potentially affect the climate at local, 

regional, or global scales. Given the nature of the climate change issue (i.e., it is a cumulative 

problem) the impacts (described in Section 6.1.3, Cumulative Impacts) would be expected to be 

the same with or without the Proposed Actions effects on indirect sources

6.1.3 Cumulative Impacts

The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all state and private actions 

in the AA, as well as the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal projects in the AA that have 

already undergone formal or early Section 7 consultation.

Past, ongoing, and foreseeable activities in the cumulative impacts analysis area that have 

affected these species, or would in the future, include any activity that would affect the aquatic 

environment for the subject fish species. Reasonably foreseeable developments in the AA

include the following:

▪ Residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal development

▪ Road and utility construction 

▪ Oil and gas extraction 

▪ Hard-rock mining

▪ Coal, sand, and gravel mining
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

30

▪ Power generation

▪ Agriculture, including irrigation

▪ Livestock grazing

▪ Prescribed burning or other vegetation treatments 

▪ Wildfire

▪ Water impoundments 

The amount of development from future private and state actions cannot be quantified for this 

assessment, but it would be subject to federal, state, and local regulatory oversight and planning, 

which would avoid or minimize potential cumulative impacts.

Changes to surface water quality from development within the watersheds; livestock grazing;

and contamination from sewage treatment plants, mining, septic systems, and runoff from 

developed or cultivated land could affect all subject fish species and their designated critical 

habitats. In the future, population increases would also increase the amount of recreation (e.g., 

boating, fishing, off-highway vehicle use) resulting in non-point source pollution, the 

introduction of non-native species, and increased angling pressure. More water use would be 

expected as population in the AA continues to grow.

Global Climate Change

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) “Warming of the 

climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global 

average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global 

average sea level.” Average northern hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th 

century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and 

likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC 2007). It is very likely that over the past 

50 years, cold days, cold nights, and frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, and 

hot days and hot nights have become more frequent (IPCC 2007). It is likely that heat waves 

have become more frequent over most land areas, and the frequency of heavy precipitation 

events has increased over most areas (IPCC 2007). 

The IPCC (2007) predicts that changes in the global climate system during the 21st century are 

very likely to be larger than those observed during the 20th century. For the next two decades, a 

warming of about 0.36°Cper decade is projected (IPCC 2007). Afterwards, temperature 

projections increasingly depend on specific emission scenarios (IPCC 2007). Various emission

scenarios suggest that by the end of the 21st century, average global temperatures are expected to 

increase 1.08°F to 7.2°F, with the greatest warming expected over land (IPCC 2007). Localized

projections suggest the southwest may experience the greatest temperature increase of any area 

in the lower 48 states (IPCC 2007). The IPCC predicts that it is very likely hot extremes, heat

waves, and heavy precipitation will increase in frequency (IPCC 2007). There also is high 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

31

confidence that many semi-arid areas such as the western U.S. will suffer a decrease in water

resources due to climate change (IPCC 2007). Milly et al. (2005) project a 10 to 30 percent

decrease in precipitation in mid-latitude western North America by the year 2050, based on an 

ensemble of 12 climate models.

Recent studies have indicated that global warming has the potential to adversely affect river 

systems that support greenback cutthroat trout (Defenders of Wildlife 2002; Ficke et al. 2007). In 

general, threats from climate change could affect fish populations through reduction of 

precipitation, increase in fire, and increase in stream temperature. Higher temperatures in lentic 

systems (lakes) also could increase evaporation and result in lowered lake levels (Ficke et al. 

2007). This threat is common to all fish considered in this impact analysis.

Climatic variation associated with climate change may lead to reductions in quality of habitat for 

all fish species evaluated. The potential impacts from climate change that could affect these 

species in the AA include changes in snowpack, streamflow timing, and hydrograph evolution. 

Changes in the timing and magnitude of runoff include earlier runoff, warmer stream 

temperatures, and the spread of in-stream non-native species and diseases. Changes in 

streamflow intensity and timing may also affect riparian ecosystems.

6.2 Effects to Listed Species and Critical Habitats

There are no direct impacts expected to any federally listed species as a result of the proposed 

King II Mine lease modification or associated with revision and renewal of the mine plan permit.

There are indirect impacts to listed species associated with combustion of King II coal at GCC’s 

Pueblo, Colorado and Tijeras, New Mexico cement plants.

The following impact analysis for each affected species is based on the relatively small 

contributions of mercury to the AAs from combustion of King II Mine coal. Specifically, the 

release of 10 to 15 pounds per year of mercury from the GCC Pueblo plant, 25 pounds per year

from the Tijeras plant, and less than 0.25 pound per year from the narrow-gauge railroads. 

6.2.1 Rio Grande Silvery Minnow

New Mexico has adopted only one fish tissue-based criterion (methylmercury) in its water 

quality standards. For other parameters, SWQB used the USGS Biomonitoring of Environmental 

Status and Trends (BEST) Program (Schmitt 2004) screening levels for evaluation. USGS BEST 

mercury concentrations that affect fish health are 0.7-5.4 mg/kg wet weight. In 2008, the New 

Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Surface Water Quality Bureau (SWQB) concluded a 

study (NMED 2008) to provide baseline condition and trends for key water quality parameters in 

the Middle Rio Grande (MRG) as part of a comprehensive water quality monitoring and 

assessment program to elucidate relationships between water-quality and declines in silvery 

minnow populations. The study compiled water chemistry data for sites within the study area 

collected between 2000 through 2008.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

32

Measured concentrations of mercury in MRG fish tissue ranged from 0.012 to 0.093 mg/kg wet 

weight (NMED 2008). When compared to concentrations detected from the 1997-98 BEST 

study, mercury showed decreases in concentrations in the MRG over time. In addition, these 

baseline Hg concentrations do not exceed adult fish body burden benchmarks of 0.20 mg/kg wet 

weight (Beckvar et al. 2005 as cited in USFWS 2014) and 0.8 mg/kg wet weight (AECOM 2013 

as cited in USFWS 2014). These adult fish body burden benchmarks are intended to represent 

tissue burdens below which adverse effects in fish are unlikely (USFWS 2014).

The average adult body burden for mercury for the Rio Grande silvery minnow is about 

0.05 μg/g wet weight mercury (Lusk et al. 2012). The Tijeras plant mercury emissions would not 

likely increase those average concentrations above the 0.2 μg/g wet weight that is intended to be 

indicative of potential fish injury (Beckvar et al. 2005). 

Numerous studies have shown that within a species the older and larger fish have higher 

concentrations of mercury than younger and smaller fish (Huckabee et al 1979; Eisler 1987). 

In addition, studies suggest that predatory fish tend to have higher mercury levels than 

omnivorous or herbivorous species (ATSDR 1999; Eisler 1987). Hence, the likelihood of 

bioaccumulation of mercury in silvery minnow is further limited by their small size and short life 

span, and that they are non-piscivorous. Therefore, the determination of effect for the Proposed 

Action is may affect, not likely to adversely affect the Rio Grande silvery minnow.

There would be no impacts to critical habitat constituent elements for the Rio Grande silvery 

minnow in the Rio Grande due to coal combustion from the Tijeras cement plant. Constituent 

elements of critical habitat for this species pertain to hydrologic flow, the seasonality of flow, 

water temperature, and substrate materials. Small releases of mercury via cement plant emissions 

15 miles to the east would not change any these constituent elements; consequently, there would 

be no impacts to designated critical habitat of the Rio Grande silvery minnow.

6.2.2 Greenback Cutthroat Trout

The Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project was completed by the National Park 

Service in 2008 (Landers et al. 2008). From 2002 to 2007, researchers analyzed the

concentrations and biological effects of airborne contaminants in air, snow, water, sediments, 

lichens, pine needles, and fish in eight national parks, including Rocky Mountain National Park 

in Colorado. The study found that mercury levels in fish samples were low, although mercury

levels increased with increasing age of fish. Poorly developed testes and or intersex trout were 

found in five of the nine lakes tested, indicating that endocrine and reproductive disruption was 

occurring (Landers et al. 2008). As part of this study, a sample from a male greenback cutthroat 

trout collected in Twin Lakes in the 1800s was also examined and found to be an intersex fish, 

showing that this is not a new phenomenon and likely does not pose a significant threat to 

greenback recovery.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

33

The CDPHE evaluated Hg (Snake River cutthroat trout only) tissue concentrations in Snake 

River and Rio Grande cutthroat trout at the Eleven Mile, Rio Grande, and North Lake reservoirs 

in Colorado between 2008 and 2014 (CDPHE 2017 ). The mean Hg tissue concentrations for the 

Snake River cutthroat trout was 0.11 mg/Kg at Eleven Mile Reservoir (95 miles northwest of 

Pueblo). Rio Grande cutthroat trout sampled for Hg concentration at the Rio Grande Reservoir

(225 miles southwest) were found to be approximately 0.15 mg/Kg. The lowest concentration 

levels in the Snake River cutthroat trout were 0.41 mg/Kg sampled at North Lake, 90 miles south 

of Pueblo. (Lepak et al. 2012). These studies suggest Hg baseline concentration levels for the 

cutthroat trout are below the USGS BEST concentrations that affect fish health. In addition, 

these baseline Hg concentrations evaluated by CDPHE do not exceed adult fish Hg body burden 

benchmarks of 0.20 mg/kg wet weight (Beckvar et al. 2005) and 0.8 mg/kg wet weight (AECOM 

2013 as cited in USFWS 2014). These adult fish body burden benchmarks are intended to 

represent tissue burdens below which adverse effects in fish are unlikely (USFWS 2014).

In 2006, rainbow trout (a related salmonid species) were collected at Runyon Lake, Pueblo, 

Colorado.1 These trout samples (fillets) were analyzed for mercury. No rainbow trout samples 

exceeded the adult fish Hg body burden benchmark of 0.20 mg/kg wet weight. In 2013, several 

fish species were collected in Runyon Lake and Pueblo Reservoir, Pueblo, Colorado.2 These fish 

samples (fillets) were also analyzed for mercury. From these recently collected fish, no samples 

exceeded the adult fish Hg body burden benchmark of 0.20 mg/kg wet weight.3,4 

Because emissions of mercury from the Pueblo plant are about half of those from the Tijeras 

plant, and because known populations of greenback cutthroat trout are more than twice the 

distance from the source, it stands to reason that mercury concentrations in cutthroat trout tissue 

would not be elevated to a level causing injury or impairment to this species. Therefore, the 

determination of effect for the Proposed Action is may affect, not likely to adversely affect the 

greenback cutthroat trout.

6.2.3 Colorado Pikeminnow and Razorback Sucker

The effects of mercury deposition on these species is thoroughly documented in the 

FCPP/NMEP BO (USFWS 2015). The very small release of less than 0.25 pound per year of 

mercury associated with combustion of King II coal by the DSNGRR has been occurring for 

 

1 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/RunyonLake.pdf

2 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/RunyonLake.pdf 

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/PuebloReservoir.pdf

3 Note that fish collected and analyzed in 2013 included smallmouth bass, spotted bass, walleye, black crappie, saugeye, and 

channel catfish — none of these species are salmonids. 

4 Saugeye caught in 2006 were the only fish that slightly exceeded the adult fish body burden benchmark.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

34

over 100 years since the railroad began operations in 1882. The amount represents 

0.0005 percent of that emitted by the FCPP between 2000 and 2011. Accordingly, mercury

emissions from the DSNGRR represent a very small contribution to the water quality 

environmental baseline of the San Juan River. The continued release of this quantity of mercury

into the upper reaches of San Juan River Basin are not expected to represent a measurable 

contributing pollutant to the basin and downstream water quality. 

Therefore, the determination of effect for the Proposed Action on both species is may affect, not 

likely to adversely affect.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

35

7. Conclusion and Determinations of Effects

Due to small contributions of mercury to aquatic environments in the AA, the Proposed Action 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Rio Grande silvery minnow, greenback 

cutthroat trout, Colorado pikeminnow, and razorback sucker. There would be no impacts to

critical habitat for Rio Grande silvery minnow as there would be no changes to any of the 

constituent elements of the habitat. Table 7-1 summarizes the effects determinations for federally 

listed species include in the analysis.

Based on the absence of habitat in the AA, and because deposition of air pollutants would have 

no measurable effect on any of the listed terrestrial species, determinations of “no effect” were 

made for 10 of the 14 species listed in the AA. 

Table 7-1. Summary of effects determinations for federally listed species considered in the AA

Species

Status by County

(Where it is Known or 

Expected to Occur1)

Effects Determination

Mammals

Canada lynx

(Lynx canadensis)

Threatened

(La Plata, Pueblo) 

No effect – No habitat 

affected

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse

(Zapus hudsonius luteus)

Endangered

(La Plata, Bernalillo) No effect

North American wolverine

(Gulo gulo luscus)

Proposed Threatened

(La Plata, Pueblo)

No effect – No habitat 

affected

Birds

Mexican spotted owl

(Strix occidentalis lucida)

Threatened

(La Plata, Pueblo, Bernalillo)

No effect – No habitat 

affected

Southwestern willow flycatcher

(Empidonax traillii extimus)

Endangered

(La Plata, Bernalillo) No effect

Western yellow-billed cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus)

Threatened

(La Plata, Bernalillo) No effect

Fish

Colorado pikeminnow

(Ptychocheilus lucius) 

Endangered

(La Plata)

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

Greenback cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki stomias)

Threatened

(Pueblo) 

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

Razorback sucker 

(Xyrauchen texanus) 

Endangered

(La Plata)

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

Rio Grande silvery minnow 

(Hybognathus amarus)

Endangered

(Bernalillo)

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

Flowering Plants

Chapin Mesa milkvetch

(Astragalus schmolliae)

Candidate

(La Plata)

No effect – No habitat 

affected
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

36

8. Consultation and Coordination

Table 8-1 lists those individual and agencies consulted during the preparation of this BA.

Table 8-1. Individuals and agencies consulted for the assessment

Agency/Department Name

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement – Denver

Ed Vasquez

William Birchfield

Nicole Caveny

Nate West

Bureau of Land Management Chad Meister

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Region 2 David Campbell

Joel D. Lusk

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Region 6 Leslie Elwood

Creede Clayton
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

37

9. References

AECOM 2013. San Juan River Ecological Risk Assessment conducted in support of the Four 

Corners Power Plant and Navajo Mine Energy Project. AECOM, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Albeke, S. 2008. Greenback cutthroat trout spatial habitat analysis. Unpublished report 

provided to Bruce Rosenlund, May 28, 2008. 6 pp.

Arnold, L. R., R. F. Ortiz, C. R. Brown, and K. R. Watts. 2016. Groundwater and surface-water 

interaction, water quality, and processes affecting loads of dissolved solids, selenium, and 

uranium in Fountain Creek near Pueblo, Colorado, 2012-2014. Scientific Investigations 

Report 2016-5134. U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2016-5134. 

Available at: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20165134. Accessed June 15, 2017.

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. 2008. New Zealand Mudsnail (Potamopyrgus 

antipodarum). Available online at: http://www.anstaskforce.gov/spoc/nzms.php. 

Accessed on September 23, 2008.

Bash, J., C. Cerman, and S. Bolton. 2001. Effects of turbidity and suspended solids on 

salmonids. Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington. 74 pp.

Berns, C. R and R. W. Stogner Sr. 2017. The Niobrara Formation: as a challenge to water quality 

in the Arkansas River, Colorado, USA. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 12:181-

195.

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Greenback cutthroat trout. pp. 146-148 in Native trout of western North 

America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6, Bethesda, Maryland. 275 pp.

Behnke, R. 2004. Genetics: A double-edged sword. Trout, Winter 2004, pp. 59-61.

Behnke, R. 2007. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Trout, Winter 2008, pp. 56-58.

Behnke, R.J., and M. Zarn. 1976. Biology and management of threatened and endangered 

western trout. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-28. 45 pp.

Bestgen, K.R., K.B. Rogers, and R. Granger. 2013. Phenotype predicts genotype for lineages of 

native cutthroat trout in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Final Report to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, Denver Federal Center (MS 65412), Denver, 

CO. Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 177.

Bestgen, K. R. and S. P. Platania. 1991. Status and conservation of the Rio Grande silvery 

minnow, Hybognathus amarus. Southwestern Naturalist 36:225-232.

Colorado Demography Office. 2008. DOLA planning and management Region 10 

socioeconomic profile, West Central Colorado.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

38

Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE), 2017a. 

(https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/water-quality-standards) (Accessed June 15, 

2017). 

Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE), 2017b. Fish 

Consumption Data. Available at: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/wq-fishconsumption. Accessed June 15, 2017.

Defenders of Wildlife. 2002. Trout Salmon Streams Face Sharp Declines due to Hotter 

Temperatures. http://www.defenders.org/press-release/trout-salmon-streams-face-sharpdeclines-due-hotter-temperatures-new-study-predicts.

Dillon, T., N. Beckvar, and J. Kern. 2010. Residue-based mercury dose-response in fish: an 

analysis using lethality-equivalent test endpoints. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry. 29: 2,559-2,565.

Electric Power Research Institute. 2014. A case study assessment of trace metal atmospheric 

emissions and their aquatic impacts in the San Juan River Basin. Phase 1: Four Corners 

Power Plant. EPRI Draft Final Technical Report, March 2014, Palo Alto, California.

Ficke, A. D., C. A. Myrick, and L. J. Hansen. 2007. Potential impacts of global climate change 

on freshwater fisheries. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 17:581-613. DOI 10.1007/s11160-007-

9059-5.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for policymakers. 

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Avery, M. Tignor, and H.

L. Miller (eds). In Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of 

working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, New York.

Kanda, N., and R. Leary. 1999a. Unpublished report to Gary Dowler (CDOW) concerning 

eletrophoretic analysis of trout samples. 7 pp.

Kanda, N., and R. Leary. 1999b. Unpublished report to Jim Melby (CDOW) concerning 

eletrophoretic analysis of trout samples. 5 pp.

Kanda, N., and R. Leary. 1999c. Unpublished report to Greg Polizky (sic) (CDOW) concerning 

eletrophoretic analysis of trout samples. 4 pp.

Kanda, N., and R. Leary. 2000. Unpublished report to Gary Dowler (CDOW) concerning 

eletrophoretic analysis of trout samples. 8 pp.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

39

Landers, D. H. et al. 2008. The fate, transport, and ecological impacts of airborne contaminants 

in western national parks (USA). Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project 

Final Report: Volume 1. EPA/600/R-07/138. January 2008.

Lepak, J. M., M. B. Hooten, and B. M. Johnson. 2012. The influence of external subsidies on 

diet, growth and Hg concentrations of freshwater sport fish: implications for management 

and fish consumption advisories. Ecotoxicology.

Lukas, J., J. Barsugli, N. Doesken, I. Rangwala, and K. Wolter. 2014. Climate change in 

Colorado: A synthesis to support water resources management and adaptation. A report 

for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Western Water Assessment, Cooperative 

Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder. 

Lusk, J. D., A. P. Davis, M. J. Osborne, D. M. Papoulias, J. E. Woodland, and W. J. Remshardt.

2012. Rio Grande silvery minnow health study. U.S. Fish and Service, New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office Report, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Metcalf, J.L. 2007. Estimates of introgression for Columbine Creek, Rocky Mountain Park 

from microsatellite, aflp, and mitochondrial dna data. 12 pp.

Metcalf, J. L., V. L. Pritchard, S. M. Silvestri, J. B. Jenkins, J. S. Wood, D. E. Cowley, R. P. 

Evans, D. K. Shiozawa, and A. P. Martin. 2007. Across the great divide: genetic 

forensics reveals misidentification of endangered cutthroat trout populations. Molecular 

Ecology 16 (21):4445-4454.

Metcalf, J. L. , S. Love Stowell, C. M. Kennedy, K. B. Rodgers, D. McDonald, J. Epp, K. 

Keepers, A. Cooper, J. J. Austin, and A. P. Martin. 2012. Historical stocking data and 

19th century DNA reveal human-induced changes to native diversity and distribution of 

cutthroat trout. Molecular Ecology, 21: 5194–5207. 

Miller, L.D., Watts, K.R., Ortiz, R.F., Ivahnenko, T., 2010, Occurrence and distribution of 

dissolved solids, selenium, and uranium in groundwater and surface water in the Arkansas River Basin from the headwaters to Coolidge, Kansas, 1970–2009; U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5069, 56 p.

Milly, P. C. D., K. A. Dunne, and A. V. Vecchia. 2005. Global pattern of trends in streamflow 

and water availability in a changing climate. Nature 438: 347-350 (17 November 2005) | 

doi:10.1038/nature04312.

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). 2001. A white paper on mercury in New 

Mexico. S. Hopkins (ed.) and J. DeRose-Bamman (program manager). September 19, 

2001. Accessed May 15, 2017 at: https://www.env.nm.gov/swqb/Mercury

/WhitePaper.html.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

40

NMED. 2008.Water Quality Monitoring of the Middle Rio Grande. Annual Baseline Condition 

and Trends of Key Water Quality Parameters. October 2006 – July 2008. Final Report.

Osmundson, B. and J. D. Lusk. 2011. Field assessment of mercury exposure to Colorado 

pikeminnow within designated critical habitat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, 

Environmental Contaminants Program, Off-Refuge Investigations Report, Grand 

Junction, Colorado.

Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 2011. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of 

Mexico. Boston : Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 663p. 

Platania, S. P. and C. S. Altenbach. 1998. Reproductive strategies and egg types of seven Rio 

Grande Basin cyprinids. Copeia 1998:559-569.

Policky, G.A., J.L. Melby, G.S. Dowler, and D.A. Krieger. 2003. Greenback cutthroat trout 

recovery efforts, 2003 progress report, Southeast region, Colorado Division of Wildlife. 

Unpublished report. 37 pp.

Roberts, R. D. and M. S. Johnson. 1978. Dispersal of heavy metals from abandoned mine 

workings and their transference through terrestrial food webs. Environmental Pollution

16:293-310. 

Schmitt, C. J. 2004. Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, selenium, and zinc in fish 

from the Mississippi River basin, 1995: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 

90:289-321.

Sublette, J. E., M. D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University New 

Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

USFWS. 1992. San Juan River recovery implementation program. Accessed May 15, 2017 at:

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/sjrip/. 

USFWS. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to list the Rio Grande 

silvery minnow as an endangered species. Federal Register. Vol. 59.

USFWS. 1999a. Intra-service Section 7 consultation for minor water depletions of 100 acre-feet 

or less from the San Juan Basin. Regional Director, Region 2. Consultation Number: 

R/2/ES-TE CL 04-054. 

USFWS. 1999b. Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) draft revised recovery plan. 

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

USFWS. 2007. Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) recovery plan. Albuquerque, 

New Mexico.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

41

USFWS. 2009. Greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) 5-year review: 

summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office,

Lakewood, Colorado.

USFWS. 2010. Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) 5-year review: summary and 

evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, Lakewood, Colorado.

USFWS. 2011. Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) 5-year review: summary and 

evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, Lakewood, Colorado.

USFWS. 2012. Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) 5-year review: summary and evaluation.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, Lakewood, Colorado.

USFWS. 2014. Four Corners Power Plant and Navajo Mine Energy Project Biological 

Assessment. Final. Prepared for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement. U.S. Department of the Interior. August.

USFWS. 2015. Biological Opinion for the Four Corners Power Plant and Navajo Mine Energy 

Project. Consultation No. 02ENNM00-2014-F-0064. Issued April 8, 2015.

USFWS. 2017a. Information for planning and conservation. Threatened and endangered in La 

Plata County, Colorado; Pueblo County, Colorado; and Bernalillo County, New Mexico.

Accessed May 15, 2017 at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. 

USFWS. 2017b. Environmental Conservation Online System. Accessed May 15, 2017 at:

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National 

Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses (the 

Guidelines). Accessed at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-

02/documents/guidelines-water-quality-criteria.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Native Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species, 

32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final 

Rule Listing the Greenback Cutthroat Trout as a Threatened Species. 

43 FR 16343-16345, April 18, 1978. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1993. Water Resources Data, Colorado, Water Year 1993. 

Volume 1. Missouri River Basin; Arkansas River Basin; and Rio Grande Basin. Water 

Data Report CO-93-1, By :R.C. Ugland, B.J. Cochran, M.M. Hiner, and R.D. Steger

Western Native Trout Initiative (WNTI). 2007. Greenback cutthroat trout assessment. 6 pp.

Wiltzius, W.J. 1985. Fish culture and stocking in Colorado 1872-1978. Division Report, 

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

42

Young, M. K. 2009. Greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias): a technical 

conservation assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. Accessed April 20, 2017 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects

/scp/assessments/greenbackcutthroattrout.pdf.
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

A-1

Appendix A – Maps
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

A-2

Map A-1. Vicinity map
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

A-3

Map A-2. Project area map
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

A-4

Map A-3. Action Area associated with expansion of the coal lease by approximately 950.55 acres 

adjacent to the current King II Mine Lease COC-62920
Biological Assessment 

Federal Coal Lease Modification (COC-62920) and Federal Mine Permit (CO-0106A) Revision and Renewal

July 2017

A-5

Map A-4. Action Areas addressing indirect impacts from potential coal combustion emissions from 

the Proposed Action