West Elk Mining Plan Modification

Final Environmental Assessment

Prepared in cooperation with the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, US 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, and Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety

US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

PROGRAM SUPPORT DIVISION

1999 BROADWAY, SUITE 3320

DENVER, CO 80202

PHONE 303-293-5000

FAX 303-293-5032
Table of Contents

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 i

Table of Contents

Acronyms iv

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need.................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background..................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2.1 Previously Completed NEPA and Environmental Review Incorporated ................................... 4

1.3 Regulatory Framework and Necessary Authorizations.................................................................. 4

1.4 Purpose and Need.......................................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Issues 6

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ......................................................................................... 7

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Existing Operations ........................................................................................................................ 7

2.3 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ...................................................................................................... 9

2.3.1 Approved Activities Completed................................................................................................. 9

2.3.2 Methane Emission Control System ......................................................................................... 12

2.3.3 Lease Stipulations.................................................................................................................... 13

2.3.4 Fire Prevention and Protection Plan ....................................................................................... 13

2.3.5 Possible Mitigation Measures................................................................................................. 14

2.4 Alternative 2: No Action............................................................................................................... 15

2.5 Alternative 3................................................................................................................................. 16

2.6 Alternatives Considered but Not Studied in Detail...................................................................... 16

2.6.1 Methane Flaring Alternatives.................................................................................................. 16

2.6.2 Other Alternatives Considered but Dismissed ........................................................................ 19

2.6.3 Other Alternatives Specific to this Analysis............................................................................. 20

2.7 Alternatives Comparison.............................................................................................................. 21

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.................................................. 23

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 23

3.2 Past Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions...................................................................... 27

3.3 Air Quality and Climate ................................................................................................................ 27

3.3.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................................. 27

3.3.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 31

3.3.3 Alternative 2: No Action.......................................................................................................... 35

3.3.4 Alternative 3............................................................................................................................ 35

3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................. 36

3.4 Water (Quality and Quantity)....................................................................................................... 36

3.4.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................................. 36
Table of Contents

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 ii

3.4.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 41

3.4.3 Alternative 2: No Action.......................................................................................................... 42

3.4.4 Alternative 3............................................................................................................................ 43

3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................. 43

3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species........................................................................................... 43

3.5.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................................. 44

3.5.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 44

3.5.3 Alternative 2: No Action.......................................................................................................... 44

3.5.4 Alternative 3............................................................................................................................ 44

3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................. 45

3.5.6 Determination ......................................................................................................................... 45

3.6 Migratory Birds, Birds of Conservation Concern, and Raptors.................................................... 45

3.6.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................................. 45

3.6.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 45

3.6.3 Alternative 2: No Action.......................................................................................................... 46

3.6.4 Alternative 3............................................................................................................................ 46

3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................. 47

Chapter 4 Coordination and Consultation............................................................................................ 49

4.1 Agencies and People Consulted ................................................................................................... 49

4.2 Preparers and Participants........................................................................................................... 49

Chapter 5 References............................................................................................................................ 51

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Actions by Alternative ...................................................... 19

Table 2. Alternative Comparison in Lease Modification Areas................................................................... 21

Table 3. Resources Incorporated by Reference.......................................................................................... 24

Table 4. Regional Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Results........................................................................ 28

Table 5. Paonia (Monitor ID: 080290007) Air Quality Monitoring Results................................................. 28

Table 6. West Elk Emissions (Maximum TPY) ............................................................................................. 29

Table 7. West Elk Emissions 2-Year Scenario (Maximum TPY) ................................................................... 32

Table 8. Modeling Results for Bull Mountain Unit Alternative B Production Activities............................. 33

Table 9. Modeling Results for Bull Mountain Unit Alternative B Development Activities......................... 34

Table 10. West Elk Mine Emissions Comparison 2-Year Scenario (Maximum TPY).................................... 34

Table 11. West Elk MVB Emissions (Actual TPY)......................................................................................... 36

Table 12. Summary of Stream Monitoring Stations ................................................................................... 39

Table 13. Summary of Spring and Ponds Monitoring Stations................................................................... 40
Table of Contents

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 iii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Existing Approved Mine Plan ......................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3. Methane Ventilation Boreholes (MVB) and Pads........................................................................ 10

Figure 4. Minor Revisions for SS1 MVB and Road Map .............................................................................. 11

Figure 5. Water Resources.......................................................................................................................... 37

Appendices

Appendix A Plan to Address a Methane Flare System

Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

Appendix C Response to Comments on EA
Acronyms

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 iv

Acronyms

amsl above mean sea level 

APCD Air Pollution Control Division

ASLM Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals (USDOI)

BLM Bureau of Land Management (USDOI)

CAAQS Colorado Ambient Air Quality Standards

CDRMS Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

CH4 Methane

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalents

CRA Colorado Roadless Area

CRR Colorado Roadless Rule

DOI Department of the Interior (United States)

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GMUG Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest (USFS)

gpm gallons per minute

GWP Global Warming Potential

HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants

IWG Interagency Working Group

LAU Lynx Analysis Unit

MCC Mountain Coal Company

MLA Mineral Leasing Act

MPDD Mining Plan Decision Document

MR minor revision
Acronyms

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 v

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration 

MVB Mine Ventilation Borehole

N2O Nitrous Oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFS National Forest System

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NSO No Surface Occupancy

OSMRE Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (USDOI)

PM Particulate Matter

PM10 PM with diameter less than 10 micrometers

PM2.5 PM with diameter less than 2.5 micrometers

Ppb parts per billion

PR Permit Revision

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

ROD Record of Decision

SCC Social Cost of Carbon

SFEIS Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

tpy tons per year

UEIA US Energy Information Administration

USDA US Department of Agriculture

USFS US Forest Service (USDA)

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 1

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

The US Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

(OSMRE), Western Region Office, produced this environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate the impacts 

of a mining plan modification at the West Elk Mine, in Gunnison County, Colorado, near the town of 

Paonia (Figure 1). This EA has been prepared in cooperation with the US Forest Service (USFS) Paonia 

Ranger District, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG); the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM); and the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety (CDRMS). 

Mountain Coal Company, LLC (MCC), operator of the West Elk Mine, submitted a permit revision (PR-15) 

to the CDRMS, the regulatory authority for coal mines in Colorado, to revise Colorado Permit C-1980-

007 to modify its currently approved mining plan. The mining plan modification proposed to add 1,720 

federal coal acres to two federal coal leases, COC-1362 and COC-67232, which would include 54 acres of 

proposed surface disturbing activities to install mine ventilation boreholes (MVBs) and associated 

roadways, and a methane (CH4) emission control system which was submitted to the Mine Safety and 

Health Administration (MSHA) for approval (see Appendix A). 

OSMRE is required to evaluate the permit revision before making a recommendation to the DOI 

Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals Management (ASLM) to approve, disapprove, or approve 

with conditions, the proposed mining plan modification. The ASLM will decide whether the mining plan 

modification is approved, disapproved, or approved with conditions. If the ASLM approves the Proposed 

Action, it would authorize the mining of approximately 10.1 million tons of coal in Federal lease 

modifications COC-1362 and COC-67232, extend the West Elk Mine life by about 2 years, include 51

acres of surface disturbance (revised from PR-15), and combust methane with the methane emission 

control system.

As a federal agency, OSMRE is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and must 

conduct an environmental review of the Proposed Action which includes PR-15 and the MSHA 

application. NEPA requires federal agencies to disclose the potential environmental impacts of projects 

they authorize and to determine whether the analyzed actions would significantly affect the 

environment. The term “significantly” is defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.27, which 

requires considerations of both context and intensity. If OSMRE determines that the project would have 

significant impacts based on the analysis in the EA, it would prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS). If OSMRE determines that the potential impacts would not be significant, OSMRE would prepare a 

“Finding of No Significant Impacts” to document this finding, and, accordingly, would not prepare an EIS.

The impacts of the federal coal leases were analyzed in 2017 by the USFS in the Supplemental Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) for Federal Coal Lease Modifications COC-1362 and COC-67232

(including on-lease exploration plan) (USFS, 2017a). OSMRE and the BLM participated as cooperating 

agencies in the preparation of the SFEIS. 

This EA is prepared in accordance with NEPA as amended and the President’s Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508); DOI regulations for implementation of 

NEPA (43 CFR Part 46); DOI Departmental Manual Part 516; and OSMRE guidance on implementing 

NEPA, including the OSMRE Handbook on Procedures for Implementing NEPA (OSMRE, 2019a). 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 2

Figure 1. Project Location
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 3

1.2 Background

The West Elk Mine is an underground mine (room-and-pillar development and longwall retreat) that 

uses longwall mining technology and has been operating since 1982, mostly beneath National Forest 

System lands.

The USFS, BLM, and OSMRE have conducted multiple environmental reviews for decisions related to the 

lease modifications including the USFS decision to consent to BLM lease modification, and decisions 

approving exploration and the mining plan modification. CDRMS approved the permit revision that 

included the lease modifications on November 14, 2018 (CDRMS, 2018). Some of these earlier approvals 

have been litigated, resulting in additional analysis and decisions, summarized below:

• 2009 MCC’s parent company, Ark Land Company, LLC, requested modifications to increase the size 

of their federal coal leases.

• 2012 USFS and BLM conducted NEPA evaluations and approved the lease modifications (USFS, 

2012a; USFS, 2012b; BLM, 2012). 

• 2013 BLM conducted NEPA analysis on a coal exploration plan for the Sunset Trail Area (BLM, 

2013a) and issued a decision (BLM, 2013b).

• 2014, judicial review vacated these three agency decisions (USFS consent, BLM leasing decisions 

and BLM exploration decision) and the Colorado Roadless Rule’s North Fork Coal Mining Area 

exception.

• 2014 BLM cancelled the leases pursuant to the court order vacating the lease modifications.

• 2015 MCC and Ark Land, LLC resubmitted applications for lease modifications.

• 2017, USFS reinstated the coal mine exception to the Colorado Roadless Rule, 82 Fed. Reg. 9,973-

74 (exception effective April 17, 2017). BLM and USFS initiated leasing part of the Sunset Roadless 

and issued a SFEIS (USFS, 2017a) and Record of Decision (ROD) (USFS, 2017b; BLM, 2017).

• 2018, the ROD was again challenged, and the district court upheld the agency actions. The District

Court decision was then appealed to the Tenth Circuit. This case is pending in the Tenth Circuit. 

• 2018, MCC submitted an application for a permit revision (PR-15) to CDRMS and OSMRE 

determined that the activities proposed under PR-15 constituted a mining plan modification that 

would require a mining plan decision document (MPDD) and completed a NEPA adequacy review 

(OSMRE, 2018). 

• 2019, as the two federal coal lease modifications included in PR-15 were analyzed in the 2017 

SFEIS (USFS, 2017a) and OSMRE participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

SFEIS, OSMRE adopted the SFEIS and issued a ROD (OSMRE, 2019b) recommending approval of 

the mining plan modification. 

• 2019, several groups challenged the MPDD in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

On November 8, 2019 the court vacated the approved mining plan as well as OSMRE’s 

recommendation of approval; and remanded the ROD back to OSMRE for further consideration.

The court order rejected petitioners’ challenge to OSMRE’s assessment of the cumulative impacts 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 4

of the decision on climate, but it found for petitioners on two other claims of error: first, that the 

agency failed to properly consider an alternative requiring methane flaring as a condition of 

approving the mining plan modification; and second, that the agency failed to adequately consider 

effects on surface waters and fish in the vicinity of the mine.

• 2019, on November 19, MCC submitted a plan to flare methane to MSHA and CDRMS. CDRMS

approved a minor permit revision (No. 439) for the mobile MVB flaring units.

• 2019, on November 21, BLM advised CDRMS of BLM’s determination that the proposed minor 

revision (MR-439) to the mining plan would comply with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 

amended; all applicable requirements of both 43 CFR Subpart 3480; and the conditions and 

special stipulations of the federal leases involved. BLM also found that maximum economic 

recovery of the federal coal within the active federal leases COC-1362 and COC-67232 would be 

achieved (BLM, 2019).

Based on the District of Colorado’s November 8, 2019 decision, OSMRE has prepared this EA to address 

deficiencies found by the court and further, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9[c][1], because of new 

circumstances identified regarding OSMRE’s justification for excluding methane flaring from 

consideration as an alternative (see Section 1.5) and based on new information provided in the permit 

revision and additional information collected by OSMRE that is relevant to environmental concerns and 

has a bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9[c][2], OSMRE 

determined that the preparation of the EA would further the purposes of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321) by 

providing additional information on methane flaring options and analyzing potential impacts to air 

quality and climate change, water quantity, and wildlife and fish. The new or updated information 

includes a revised Ventilation Plan to address the addition of the methane emission control system, a 

revised Fire Management Plan (West Elk Mine, 2019b), and updated reports on existing hydrologic 

conditions and potential hydrologic impacts. The EA focuses on only those sections that the court 

identified as requiring updates and incorporates by reference the information from the SFEIS. 

1.2.1 Previously Completed NEPA and Environmental Review Incorporated

This EA is tiered to the descriptions and environmental analysis contained in the 2017 SFEIS (USFS, 

2017a) including the 2010 Biological Assessment (USFS, 2010), which was found by the District of 

Colorado to have adequately analyzed potential environmental consequences of the Proposed Action 

and Alternatives based on information available to the USFS at the time the SFEIS was prepared. The 

SFEIS is incorporated by reference into this EA in accordance with 40 CFR 46.135 and available (along 

with associated documents) at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=32459. 

1.3 Regulatory Framework and Necessary Authorizations

The extensive regulatory framework for management of coal leasing, mining, reclamation, and 

environmental protection are described in detail in Sections 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8 of the SFEIS (USFS, 2017a).

The major regulations (statutes) relevant to OSMRE’s evaluation of the Proposed Action are:

• Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as amended by the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 

1975, which authorizes the leasing of coal reserves and conditions of the leasing; 

• Energy Policy Act of 2005;
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 5

• Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) (in conjunction with the CDRMS as 

the regulatory authority).

For existing approved mining plans that are proposed to be modified, as is the case here, OSMRE 

prepares a MPDD for a mining plan modification in support of its recommendation to the ASLM, who 

will decide whether or not to approve the mining plan modification and whether or not additional 

conditions are needed. Pursuant to 30 CFR 746.13, the OSMRE‘s recommendation shall be based on:

• The permit application package including PR-15 and MR-439;

• Information prepared in compliance with NEPA, including this EA;

• Documentation assuring compliance with the applicable requirements of federal laws, regulations, 

and executive orders other than NEPA;

• Comments and recommendations or concurrence of other federal agencies and the public;

• Findings and recommendations of the BLM with respect to the Resource Recovery and Protection 

Plan, federal lease requirements, and the MLA;

• Findings and recommendations of the CDRMS with respect to the mine permit application and the 

Colorado State program; and,

• The findings and recommendations of the OSMRE regarding additional requirements of 30 CFR 

Chapter VII, Subchapter D.

1.4 Purpose and Need

As described in 40 CFR §1502.13, the purpose and need statement briefly specifies the underlying 

purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the

Proposed Action.

OSMRE’s purpose is to make a recommendation to the ASLM to approve, disapprove, or approve with 

conditions the proposed mining plan modification (for PR-15) as established by the MLA and the SMCRA

and the methane mitigation emissions control system submitted to MSHA. OSMRE is required to 

evaluate MCC’s permit revision before MCC may conduct underground mining and reclamation 

operations to expand the West Elk Mine on the two federal coal leases, COC-1362 and COC-67232.

This EA responds to the U.S. District Court’s November 8, 2019 Order remanding the ROD back to 

OSMRE for further consideration of methane flaring and impacts to water and fish from the mining plan 

modification. The court also vacated OSMRE’s recommendation to the ASLM and the ASLM’s MPDD and 

enjoined operations at the mine related to that decision until OSMRE completes the additional analysis

(see WildEarth Guardians et al. v. Bernhardt No. 19-CV-001920-RBJ, 2019 WL 5853870 (D. Colo. Nov. 8, 

2019). OSMRE is evaluating the implementation of the methane emission control system to combust 

methane gas from the MVBs consistent with the Order.

The need is to provide MCC the opportunity to recommend its exclusive rights to the coal resources 

within the Federal Coal Leases, COC-1362 and COC-67232, to extract coal from their leased federal coal 

under the MLA. 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 6

1.5 Issues

In accordance with 40 CFR 1501.1 and 1506.3, OSMRE has identified the following environmental issues

to further study to supplement the existing analysis completed in the SFEIS for the alternatives.

• Air Quality and Climate impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and effects on the 

GHG emissions from flaring, described in Section 3.3;

• Water Quantity impacts related to perennial and intermittent streams, described in Section 3.4; 

• Threatened and endangered species (including fish) impacts described in Section 3.5: and

• Migratory birds and birds of conservation concern impacts described in Section 3.6.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 7

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the alternatives analyzed in detail; the Proposed Action (Alternative 1), the No 

Action (Alternative 2), and Alternative 3 (a variation of the Proposed Action). In addition, it identifies 

alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. This chapter also describes the current 

operations, which explains the continuation of activities under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

2.2 Existing Operations

The West Elk Mine has been in operation since 1981 and encompasses about 13,358.4 acres of federal 

coal leases and 6,496.5 acres of fee coal lands (USFS, 2017a), including the lease expansion areas. MCC is 

in the process of mining E-Seam reserves in previously permitted portions of COC-1362 and COC-67232 

leases (Figure 2) (Figure 2 depicts the state of current and projected mining as of the State of Colorado’s 

consideration of Permit Revision 15. Mining since Figure 2 was prepared is described below). Prior to the

Judge’s Order on November 8, 2019, MCC mined approximately 330,800 tons from the northern-most 

modified portion of lease COC-1362 from extended longwall panel E8 per the approved Technical 

Revision No. 143 (TR-143). Per approved Technical Revision No. 144 (TR-144), about 32,600 tons were 

mined from modified federal lease COC-1362 by development exploration of longwall panel SS1. No coal 

was mined from modified lease COC-67232 under either TR-143 or TR-144. As of the date of this EA, 

mining of longwall panel E8 is nearly complete.

As described in the 2017 SFEIS (Sections 3.2 on pages 75 to 84), previously approved mining would 

continue including the activities related to mine ventilation such as installation of MVBs and their access 

roads in the parent lease areas of these modifications. Mining sequence will continue north to 

south/southeast across fee coal lands then developing and mining longwall blocks to the east across 

federal coal under National Forest System (NFS) lands. The currently approved operations include:

• Within a 1-mile area north of the project area (both developed and undeveloped), there are 58

approved Mine Ventilation Boreholes (MVB) on 46 drill pads. 

• Within a 2-mile radius of the proposed lease modification area, 133 MVBs (126 on Forest, 7 on 

private land) are approved. Construction and drilling on the future E9 through E14 panels have not 

been completed. MCC would continue to develop the drill pads and MVBs on the E9 through E14

longwall panels in preparation for mining (SFEIS Section 3.2 on page 76). 

• Reclamation associated with the E Seam MVB Project is following close behind development. West 

Elk Mine reports that all of the MVBs in panels E1 through E6 have been reclaimed except one in 

each panel that remains. Five MVBs remain available for flaring in panel E7, and 8 MVBs have 

been drilled in the E8 panel.

• Eleven exploration holes (6 north of and 5 west of the modification areas) are within 1⁄2 mile of the 

modification tracts; most were drilled in the 1990s to early 2000s. Some access roads are still 

visible. Post-mining reclamation success has returned lands to conditions consistent with Forest 

Plan Standards. Road closures and/or obliteration are preventing unauthorized vehicle use. 

Portions of old drill roads and some pads are currently being used for a mine methane ventilation

project (SFEIS Section 3.2 on page 76).
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 8

Figure 2. Existing Approved Mine Plan
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 9

Longwall mining operations under the lease areas without the modification as described results in MCC 

running out of longwall coal at the end of December 2019 when the currently approved longwall Federal 

coal is mined out. Following the end of all mining, MCC would implement the approved reclamation and 

closure plan.

2.3 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) is to approve the mining plan modification (PR-15), which proposes 

to add 1,720 acres of federal coal (Federal lease modifications COC-1362 and COC-67232), to the 

currently approved mining plan at the existing West Elk Mine. MCC would conduct mining using 

underground longwall mining techniques producing approximately 4.5 million tons of coal per year. The 

action would authorize the mining of approximately 10,100,000 tons of coal and extend the life the 

West Elk Mine by approximately 2 years. Alternative 1 is similar to Alternative 3 selected as the 

Preferred Alternative in the 2017 SFEIS. As described in the SFEIS (Section 2.2.3 beginning on page 39), 

Alternative 3 modified existing Federal coal leases COC-1362 and COC- 67232 by adding 800 and 920 

additional acres, respectively. The lease modifications assume underground mining in compliance with 

regulation. It is assumed that longwall mining practices would be used. Minor surface disturbance would 

occur on NFS lands as a result of subsidence (slight lowering of the land surface and possible temporary 

soil cracking along the outside edges of mined longwall panels) as the coal is removed. Other vegetation 

removal and soil disturbance would occur due to temporary road construction and well pad 

construction for drilling of MVBs which are required for safety of underground miners. Drilling MVBs 

without roads was considered in the SFEIS (Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2) and determined to be infeasible at 

this time (see Appendix B of the EA).

Based on Permit Revision PR-15 approved by CDRMS, the Proposed Action would include development 

of 43 MVBs within a two-mile radius of the proposed lease modification area (Figure 3). MCC has revised 

the number of MVBs to 39 since PR-15 was approved (Figure 4). Approved MVBs that have been or will 

be developed include well pads and access roads in the E1 through E12 longwall panels. Thirty-four MVB 

pads and 6.9 miles of road would be developed on Federal land and 5 MVB pads and about 1.5 miles of 

roads would be developed on MCC surface land. The construction of roads and MVBs would result in 

approximately 51 acres of surface disturbance. 

The Proposed Action would also include a voluntary measure to combust methane gas from the MVBs

as soon as technically feasible using one or two mobile flare units based on the MSHA application (West 

Elk Mine, 2019a) (see EA Section 2.3.2).

2.3.1 Approved Activities Completed

Alternative 3 in the SFEIS included some activities that were completed before the District Court 

decision, and therefore these actions reflect the current conditions and are elements of the no action 

alternative. Completed activities include:

• Leasing (Section 2.2.3.1 of the SFEIS). BLM approved the lease modifications for COC-1362 and 

COC-67232 on December 1, 2017 after USFS consented to the lease modifications. As part of its 

consent, the USFS prescribed stipulations for the protection of non-mineral (i.e. surface) resources 

(see EA Section 2.3.3).
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 10

Figure 3. Methane Ventilation Boreholes (MVB) and Pads
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 11

Figure 4. Minor Revisions for SS1 MVB and Road Map
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 12

• Exploration (Section 2.2.3.2 of the SFEIS) (first and second field season exploration drilling, predrilling activities, road construction, drill site construction, modifications to surveillance for water 

levels, drill hole abandonment, access). Table 2-3 of the SFEIS identified the sites, locations, 

temporary access road lengths, and estimated disturbed acreage of the 10 exploration sites 

proposed was 22.7 acres (includes 0.32 acres on parent lease for access road). The exploration 

area coincides with existing modified coal leases COC-1362 and COC-67232. Exploration activities 

were scheduled to be completed within two field seasons. Exploration activities were conducted 

in 2018 and included a total of 3.2 miles of road, of which 1.3 miles was on private property, and 

pads for three exploration holes which disturbed about 1.21 acres, consistent with the 2017 SFEIS. 

No further exploration within the federal lease modification areas is planned.

2.3.2 Methane Emission Control System

A “Plan to Address a Methane Flare System” has been submitted by MCC to the MSHA. MCC reduced 

the number of MVBs in SS1 through a minor revision (No. 435) to CDRMS which was approved on June 

25, 2019. The minor revision reduced the MVBs from 11 MVBs to 7 MVBs on SS1 panel (see Figure 4) 

and reduced the total acres of disturbance from 54 to 51. It is now expected that a total of 39 MVBs will 

be installed in accordance with West Elk Mine’s currently approved ventilation plan as panels are 

developed. Under the proposed revised ventilation plan submitted to MSHA, a mobile flare (trailer with 

equipment) would be placed at an individual MVB. If approved by MSHA, one to two mobile flares 

would be moved with the mobile exhauster units from MVB to MVB as the longwall mines from east to 

west in each longwall panel (see Figure 3). One flare will continue to combust methane as the mining

moves to the next area where the second flare will operate. The northern-most longwall panel (LWSS1) 

would be mined first and progress to the south from longwall panel LWSS1 to longwall panel of the 

panel LWSS4. Two mobile flares may be operating at one time. Each mobile unit would be operated for 

about one month or less, depending on the rate of longwall mining. An exhauster and flare may also be 

run on an adjacent panel if needed to reduce methane levels in the main mine ventilation circuit. MCC 

would implement flaring as soon as technically feasible. 

An operator responsible for the mobile flare unit would manually light a propane pilot light then activate 

the extraction system. Methane would be extracted using the exhauster currently in place or by a 

centrifugal blower system. The pilot light would ignite the flare. Electrical equipment on the flare trailer 

would monitor and record the methane concentration, along with the temperature, flow rate, quantity 

extracted, quantity flared, system operating time, and alarm conditions. Electrical equipment would be 

powered by a diesel generator or connected to the power grid, if available.

The flare would be shut off automatically if the methane concentration dropped below 30 percent, if the 

flare is less than 1400 degrees Fahrenheit for more than 10 minutes or if it is over 2000 degrees

Fahrenheit. The methane would then be discharged from the free vent stack on the exhauster or the 

vertical ventilation borehole until the flare is manually restarted. The data logging and communication 

system would remotely alert the operator, who would then travel to the flaring trailer and reignite the 

flare when conditions improve.

MCC anticipates that the flare would operate 95 percent of the time that the exhauster operates. A flare 

would not be running if the methane concentration is not at a level high enough to operate the 

exhauster pump (at least 25 percent methane), which would lead to incomplete combustion, or while 
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 13

the mobile flare is being moved from one MVB to the next. Also, no MVB exhausters and/or flares are 

needed to be run for one to three weeks when longwall equipment is being moved to a new longwall 

panel, depending on how long it takes to ramp up the longwall mining in the new panel. Moving to a 

new longwall panel would occur about every 9 to 10 months.

In December 2019, MCC submitted a revised flare plan to the MSHA, the agency tasked with ensuring 

conditions are safe for miners. MSHA is currently reviewing the methane emission control system 

proposed plan to include mobile mine ventilation flaring units. In order for the mobile flare units to be 

used by MCC, MSHA must approve MCC’s application. Safety precautions identified in the plan include:

• Locating the trailer and diesel generator at least 30 feet from the MVB, 

• Locating the flare stack at least 50 feet from the free vent stack,

• Removing dry trees and brush within 25 feet of the flare stack,

• Fencing and gates,

• Grounding of the trailer and diesel generator,

• An automatic fire suppression system on the diesel generator,

• Warning signs, and 

• Proper equipment maintenance.

2.3.3 Lease Stipulations

The lease modifications approved in 2017 included stipulations (see Table 2-1 of the SFEIS beginning on 

page 23). Appendix B lists the USFS, BLM, and CDRMS stipulations that apply to the lease modification 

and permit and where they originated.

2.3.4 Fire Prevention and Protection Plan

Per lease Stipulations, West Elk Mine has submitted the following Fire Prevention and Protection Plan, 

modified for the flaring (#14), for the mine ventilation flaring to the USFS and received approval (West 

Elk Mine, 2019b). Measures from the plan to protect the National Forest from fire related to the 

methane flaring include:

1. Operator will do everything reasonable within its power and shall require its employees, 

contractors, and employees of contractors to do everything reasonable within their power, both 

independently and upon request of the USFS to prevent and suppress fires on or near the lands 

to be occupied under this plan. In case of fire suppressed by MCC, the operator shall report its 

occurrence to the USFS immediately. In order to complete this contact, the USFS Montrose 

Dispatch at (970) 249-1010 or the USFS Paonia Ranger District office at (970) 527-4131, will be 

called and otherwise notified. 

2. Operator is responsible to ensure that each employee, subcontractor, or any other individual or 

company working on the project site is aware of the provisions of this fire prevention and 

protection plan, is familiar with the location and proper use of firefighting equipment, and 

conducts themselves in a fire-safe manner. 

3. No material shall be disposed of by burning in open fires during the closed season established by 

law or regulation, or during periods of high to extreme fire danger, without a written permit 
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 14

from the USFS. Additional restrictions may apply depending on Forest conditions (i.e., Stage 1, 2, 

and 3 restrictions). 

4. Exhaust systems of vehicles shall have an acceptable muffler and shall be in proper working 

condition. Chain saws and similar small motorized equipment shall be equipped with spark 

arresters, if required by the USFS. 

5. Fire extinguishers shall be provided as follows: Type ABC: One 20-pound per pickup, and one 20-

pound per each drill rig and truck over 1 ton gross vehicle weight. One 20-pound per dozer, 

motor patrol, scraper, or other earth-moving equipment while in operation. 

6. MCC shall provide a fire box trailer complete with 4 axes, 4 long-handled shovels, 4 picks, and 4 

5-gallon containers of emergency water. 

7. Vehicles and earthmoving equipment will be parked only in disturbed areas. 

8. Smoking will be allowed only in enclosed vehicles and enclosed cabs of earthmoving equipment 

on NFS lands. 

9. The MVB drilling operations will have available a water tank of not less than 300-gallon capacity 

with a pump capable of pumping 20 gallons per minute at 100 pounds per square inch and not 

less than 300 feet of hose. 

10. Welding activities include; electric arc welding, arc or gas-cutting or heating, gas welding, 

grinding of metal, use of any flammable gas, carbon or hydrocarbon fuel for heating or forging 

metal. No welding shall be conducted on NFS lands without the Operator's completed Hot Work 

Permit. 

11. Operator’s personnel will attend the fueling of tractors or other equipment. Personnel will 

exercise extreme caution and will watch for fire starts and be ready to take immediate fire 

suppression action. Personnel will carry a shovel and have a 20-pound fire extinguisher (full and 

in good operating condition) immediately available. Personnel will be in good physical condition 

and able to fight fires. Personnel have had training in basic fire fighting and shall immediately 

contact the USFS Montrose Dispatch or the USFS Paonia Ranger District office if a fire is 

discovered. 

12. Operations may be suspended if inspection by a USFS officer reveals non-compliance with the 

provisions of this fire prevention and protection plan. 

13. MCC shall, on an as-needed basis, contract helicopter or other necessary services that will 

supply access to the MVBs should normal access be cut-off by either smoke or fire. 

14. The mobile flare unit connected to the mobile MVB exhauster system will be stabilized with 

outriggers and will be located at least 25 feet from the edge of the cleared MVB pad and/or dry 

trees and brush will be removed that same distance. 

2.3.5 Possible Mitigation Measures

A potential mitigation measure for the Proposed Action would be based on the air quality and climate 

change analysis in Section 3.3 of this EA to make the voluntary measure from MCC to flare methane a 

mandatory requirement. This option would only be viable if MSHA approves a flaring proposal. This 

would require MCC to use the portable methane flare on all MVBs developed over the four panels 
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 15

included in PR-15 within the lease modifications. If extraordinary circumstances occur including (but not 

limited to): mechanical issues with the portable flare or lower concentrations of methane or impacts to 

worker or environmental safety, the mitigation measure would not be imposed. OSMRE could

recommend this mitigation measure and could make a recommendation to the ASLM to approve the 

MPDD with conditions, which would have to be implemented before mining begins. However, MCC has 

already taken steps to implement flaring at West Elk Mine through the submittal of an application to 

MSHA and moving through the process to get an air permit from Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment (CDPHE). 

If flaring is mandated, MCC would not be eligible for carbon credits under the California Air Resource 

Board Mine Methane Capture Compliance Offset Protocol (Air Resources Board, 2014). Without the 

carbon credits the use of the portable methane flares would no longer be economically feasible for 

MCC. Under the BLM lease stipulations included in the Lease Modifications, MCC cannot be required to 

flare methane if flaring would not be economically feasible. Therefore, if OSMRE recommended this 

mitigation measure as part of the ASLM’s approval of the MPDD and made flaring mandatory MCC 

would need to cease mining operations after currently approved reserves are mined out and continue

with reclamation, until preparations could be made to mine other already permitted coal or alternative 

arrangements to flare methane could be made.

On December 9, 2019, OSMRE received a concurrence letter from USFS which added the following 

measures to the existing lease stipulations from the 2017 SFEIS (see Appendix B for existing lease 

stipulations). 

1. Inclusion of the Fire Prevention and Protection Plan (see above).

2. Inclusion of perch deflecting devices on mobile flare units to protect birds.

2.4 Alternative 2: No Action 

The No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) would be for the OSMRE to recommend not approving the 

MPDD. No additional surface disturbance, mining or methane release from additional mining would 

occur in the lease modification areas. The SFEIS predicted mining would cease in approximately 2.7 

years (from April 2017). MCC has indicated the No Action would result in the West Elk Mine running out 

of minable coal in December 2019, resulting in a temporary shutdown lasting several months until other 

permitted reserves can be developed and the longwall equipment can be moved.

The current ventilation plan that would continue until the end of December 2019 in the lease areas uses 

MVBs above longwall panels to exhaust methane when it reaches specified concentrations, similar to 

the description in the Proposed Action, without the mobile flare. Typically, one MVB ventilates the panel 

after longwall mining passes under it and the rubblized zone (caved area or gob) forms behind the 

borehole, releasing the methane trapped in the native rock materials. An exhauster pump unit (powered 

by methane) operates to remove methane on the MVB until the longwall passes under the next 

borehole and the gases build up enough to keep the exhauster on this new MVB running. At this point, 

the exhauster on the last MVB is shut-off and the methane allowed to build-up in the rubblized zone to 

an inert level required in MCC’s MSHA-approved plan, to well-above the 5 percent to 15 percent

explosive range of methane. 
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 16

2.5 Alternative 3

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), except the voluntary flaring to reduce 

methane release is excluded. Alternative 3 is similar to the Alternative 3 considered in the SFEIS (Section 

2.2.3 of the SFEIS). The lease stipulations discussed in Section 2.3.3 would apply, but the methane 

emission control system discussed in Section 2.3.2 and #14 of the Fire Prevention and Protection Plan 

discussed in Section 2.3.4 would not apply.

The mining plan modification would add 1,720 acres of federal coal acres, to the currently approved 

mining plan at the West Elk Mine. The mining would be conducted using underground longwall mining 

techniques producing approximately 4.5 million tons of coal per year. The action would authorize the 

mining of approximately 10,100,000 tons of coal, extending the life the West Elk Mine by about 2 years.

Methane would be released from the mine and exhausted into the atmosphere as described in the No 

Action Alternative (Section 2.4). This alternative remains viable if MSHA does not approve the flaring 

plan due to safety concerns and continues to meet OSMRE’s purpose and need. 

2.6 Alternatives Considered but Not Studied in Detail

This section summarizes other alternatives OSMRE considered for the mining plan modifications at the 

West Elk Mine but dismissed them from further consideration. When an alternative is considered but 

not analyzed in detail, NEPA requires a brief description and explanation as to why they were eliminated 

from detailed study (40 CFR 1502.14). An alternative may be eliminated from detailed study if:

• It is ineffective (does not respond to the purpose and need for the proposed action); 

• It is technically or economically infeasible (considering 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; 

• Its implementation is remote or speculative; 

• It is substantially similar in design to an alternative that is analyzed; or 

• It would result in substantially similar impacts or more adverse impacts to an alternative that is 

analyzed. 

2.6.1 Methane Flaring Alternatives

On November 19, 2018, a report presented by Tetra Tech was submitted to BLM which provided an 

updated methane management alternatives evaluation. OSMRE received a copy of this report and 

completed an independent review and evaluation. OSMRE considered this report along with other 

sources of available information as cited below. Based on this independent review, OSMRE concluded 

that there are no other feasible alternatives. As stated in the Tetra Tech report, evaluation of any 

alternatives for managing the methane released from the West Elk Mine requires the following 

considerations:

• Miner safety and mine safety regulations;

• Methane concentrations; and

• Estimates of expected gas ventilation rate for the lease modifications.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 17

Unlike neighboring mines (e.g. Oxbow), where gob methane is being collected from an inactive mine, 

West Elk Mine cannot ventilate more methane than is necessary, as doing so has potential to 

compromise the safety of the mine and its miners (Tetra Tech, 2018).

No other flaring options were identified that would meet the purpose and need and provide better

environmental or safety protections over the voluntary methane flaring included in the Proposed Action.

2.6.1.1 Enclosed Flares at Fixed Locations

West Elk Mine vents methane out of its individual MVBs for 1 to 2 months before the long wall reaches 

the MVB, and venting continues for several months after the long wall progresses past the active 

venting MVB. Over the course of mining a long wall panel, multiple MVBs are installed, operated, and 

then plugged to help vent the mine. The number of MVBs actively venting varies depending on the gob 

gas characteristics, and mining rate. At West Elk Mine there are typically two active MVBs in use at any 

given time. Using a fixed flare to control the methane from active MVBs would require a system of 

pipelines to transport gas from the active MVBs to the fixed flare location(s). Equipment would be 

needed at each MVB to collect the gas and place it in the pipeline. The pipeline would then need to be 

moved or a new pipeline constructed every 1 to 2 months as the longwall proceeds. As burying the 

pipeline for such a short-term use would create additional ground disturbance and the need for 

reclamation following use, the pipeline would most likely be temporarily placed on the surface between 

MVBs. Locating the pipeline on the surface would expose it to weather and nefarious activity that could 

cause the pipeline to be damaged and leak methane, a potentially hazardous situation.

This alternative was not considered in detail because the environmental and public safety impacts would 

be greater than those of the mobile flaring option in the proposed action. Maintenance and monitoring 

activities for the pipeline and equipment would be greater and equipment at each MVB would still be 

needed, producing no additional environmental protections. It is unlikely that a fixed flare would 

increase the amount of methane that would be combusted, given the exhausters would likely be the 

same, and there is more potential for methane to be lost from the pipeline than the mobile flares 

proposed.

2.6.1.2 Open “Candlestick” Flares

The proposed action includes an enclosed ground flare. Another option would be to use a flare that is 

above ground and open (known as a candlestick flare). Open candlestick flares are cheaper than the 

enclosed flare and could presumably be mounted on a trailer to be mobile or used at a fixed location.

An open flare is subject to dramatically decreased methane combustion efficiency in windy conditions. 

The efficiency of open flares cannot be monitored as accurately as enclosed flares (United Nations, 

2016). 

This alternative is not considered in detail because the environmental impacts would be much greater 

than those of the enclosed flare options. Open flares are visible and would have additional visual quality 

impacts (United Nations, 2016). An open flame in the National Forest would have significant potential 

for wildfire ignition which could have devastating secondary impacts such as extreme cost of fire 

suppression (a liability to the mining company), potential risk to life and property, impacts from wildfire 

on vegetation, water quality, wildlife, air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and visual impacts 

for decades.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 18

2.6.1.3 Controlling Methane from the Ventilation System Alternatives

The coal mine methane expected to be liberated during the longwall mining process at the West Elk 

Mine is emitted through either the ventilation air shafts, which maintains the air quality in the mine by 

forcing fresh air through the underground mine then out a ventilation shaft; or the MVBs, which extract 

methane from the area that has collapsed after longwall coal extraction, called the gob area.

Currently, approximately 70 percent of the total coal mine methane emitted comes from the ventilation 

air shafts, and approximately 30 percent is from the MVBs. Section 3.4.2.1 of the SFEIS beginning on 

page 107 discusses amount of methane released by the West Elk Mine since monitoring began in 2012 

and Figure 3-7 shows the general trends for annual VAM and MDW methane releases vs. production.

The ventilation air has a very low, concentration of methane (less than 0.11 percent methane on 

average since 2014) and a much higher air volume (about 1,665 million cubic feet per day). The MVB air 

has higher concentrations of methane (averaging around 57 percent), but a much lower volume (1.3 

million cubic feet per day).

Flaring technology is better suited for gas streams with higher concentrations of combustible

constituents, as is the case for the MVBs, but it is not appropriate for gas streams with methane 

concentrations below 25 to 30 percent and hence not appropriate for controlling the dilute 

concentrations of methane emitted through the ventilation air shafts. Thermal oxidation is better suited 

for controlling emissions from a high volume, low concentration gas stream. OSMRE considered an 

alternative that would use regenerative thermal oxidation to control the methane from the forced air 

ventilation system; either by oxidizing the methane in the ventilation air stream directly, or by first using 

the MVB gas to enrich the ventilation shaft air stream methane concentrations before directing it 

through an oxidation system. This alternative was not studied in detail because of technical constraints, 

as well as safety and environmental impacts. 

Regenerative thermal oxidation is the only commercially operational technology capable of using coal 

mine ventilation air as a primary fuel when the methane concentrations are below 1.5 percent. Even 

then, in order to sustain the oxidizer’s operation, the methane air concentrations need to be at least 

0.25 percent. Since the existing West Elk Mine ventilation air shaft methane concentrations are less than 

0.11 percent, the ventilation air stream would have to be supplemented to reach at least 0.25 percent 

methane. Conceivably, the ventilation air could be enriched with methane by collecting and transporting 

the gas from the MVBs to where the ventilation air is emitted. See the discussion under the “Enclosed 

Flares at Fixed Locations” alternative discussion above.

Evaluations (Tetra Tech, 2018) have demonstrated that it is not technically feasible to collect all the MVB 

methane, pipe it down to the mine entrance and blend the MVB flow with the ventilation shaft air to 

achieve a combined methane concentration level high enough to sustain oxidizer operations. There is 

not enough volume of MVB flow to enrich the concentrations to 0.25 percent. At best, it may be 

possible to increase the combined air concentrations to about 0.16 methane, well below the minimum 

0.25 percent needed for sustaining the oxidizer operation. The West Elk Mine would need to collect 5 to 

6 times more gas from the MVB system than is anticipated in order to raise the combined gas 

concentrations to 0.25.

Achieving 5 to 6 times more MVB gas production would require West Elk Mine to operate the MVBs in a 

manner designed to maximize methane collection from the gob. This would be a significant departure 

from how the mine is ventilated currently. It is likely enough methane would not be available. At West 
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 19

Elk Mine the MVBs are used only “as needed” to keep excess methane generated in the gob from 

reaching the in-mine ventilation circuits. Intentionally venting the MVBs more aggressively to collect 

more methane, beyond the minimum amount required, can draw in oxygen from the underground

ventilated atmosphere into the gob areas, increasing the potential for spontaneous combustion. West 

Elk Mine is constrained in their ability to ventilate more methane from the MVBs than is necessary, lest 

they compromise the safety of the mine and their miners. Therefore, this alternative would not be 

technically feasible due to the potential mine safety impacts.

2.6.2 Other Alternatives Considered but Dismissed

2.6.2.1 Prohibit Construction of Roads in the Lease Areas

An alternative which prohibited construction of roads in the lease areas was considered but eliminated 

from further study in the SFEIS (USFS, 2017a) as Alternative 2. The alternative was eliminated from 

further study because it followed the provisions of the 2001 Colorado Roadless Rule. USFS determined 

that without the ability to construct temporary roads to access the lease modification areas there would 

be impacts to worker safety. In addition to worker safety impacts, this alternative was eliminated from 

further study because the 2001 Colorado Roadless Rule is no longer in effect and was replaced with 

2012 Colorado Roadless Rule. Section 2.3.1 of the SFEIS details why this alternative was eliminated.

This Alternative would not meet OSMRE’s Purpose and Need described in Section 1.4 of the EA and 

would prevent MCC from exercising rights to its valid Federal Coal Leases.

2.6.2.2 Lease only COC-1362

Under this alternative, USFS and BLM would have consented/leased the proposed modification to COC1362 only, while not consenting to proposed modification to lease COC-67232. This alternative was fully 

considered in this analysis in the SFEIS (as Alternative 4). The analysis compared: reasonably foreseeable 

surface disturbance; amount of expected coal to be recovered; and extension of mine life of the 

Alternatives. The SFEIS analyzed the effects of post-lease surface activities under the 2012 Colorado 

Roadless Rule including temporary road construction in the Sunset Colorado Roadless Area. The onlease exploration activities would remain similar to the Proposed Action except roads would stop at the 

lease modification boundary (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Actions by Alternative

Action Proposed Action Lease Only COC-1362 Difference

Estimated Foreseeable Surface Disturbance (acres) 72 66 -6

Estimated Coal (tons) 10,100,000 9,265,000 -835,000

Estimated Foreseeable Extension of Mine Life (years) 1.6 1.4 -0.2

Considering the relatively small environmental footprint difference between Alternatives 3 and this 

alternative, and the temporary nature of the expected post-lease disturbance and past reclamation 

success at the West Elk Mine, this alternative would have substantially similar impacts as the Proposed 

Action and Alternative 3. 

This alternative would not meet OSMRE’s Purpose and Need as described in Section 1.4 of the EA and 

would prevent MCC from exercising its existing valid Federal Coal Leases issued by the BLM and 

consented to by USFS. 
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 20

2.6.3 Other Alternatives Specific to this Analysis

Alternatives specific to this analysis that were considered, but that would not be analyzed in detail, are 

discussed in Section 2.3 of the SFEIS along with rationale for dismissal and included:

• Helicopter drill MVBs in roadless area

• MVBs using horizontal boreholes or directional drilling technology

o Directionally Drill MVBs from Outside Roadless

o Use Horizontal Boreholes or Longhole Horizontal Boreholes

• Consideration of other mining methods

• Mitigate the potential GHG emissions of the project by requiring MCC to use MVB to combust 

methane in ventilation air

• Mitigate the potential GHG emissions of the project by requiring MCC to purchase carbon credits 

or do off-set mitigations

• Mitigate the potential GHG emissions of the project by requiring MCC to use other potential 

methane mitigation measures

o Methane Capture to Power On-Site Heaters

o MVB Emissions Capture

o MVB Capture, Electricity Production

o MVB Capture, Sale Gas

o Flaring (MVB Emissions) (see above)

o Thermal Oxidation (ventilation and MVB Emissions)

• Prevent all future disturbances from road construction, methane drainage well pads and the like 

in Roadless Areas

• Shrink the boundaries of the lease to conform to the area where the coal will be mined 

underground

• Protect values of the area by using this set of stipulations for the Proposed Action

o No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations prohibiting road and MVB well pad construction 

within 1⁄4 mile of the hiking route known as “Sunset Trail,” which traverses the lease 

modification, to protect recreational values.

o NSO stipulations prohibiting road and MVB well pad construction for all areas within 1⁄4 mile of: 

(a) all lynx denning habitat; (b) all lynx winter foraging habitat; and (c) all lynx foraging habitat 

which is adjacent to lynx denning habitat.

o NSO stipulations prohibiting road and MVB well pad construction for all areas within 1⁄4 mile of 

a water influence zone.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 21

o NSO stipulations prohibiting road and MVB well pad construction for all areas within 1⁄2 mile of 

the West Elk Wilderness boundary, to protect roadless, wildlife, scenic, and other values.

o NSO stipulations prohibiting road and MVB well pad construction within 1⁄4 mile of any old 

growth forest to prevent fragmentation.

o Until the Forest Plan is amended to address new information about the threat of climate 

change, the GMUG should protect existing mature forest through an NSO stipulation.

o NSO stipulations prohibiting road and MVB well pad construction within 1⁄2 mile of any raptor 

nest site.

o NSO stipulations prohibiting road and MVB well pad construction on slopes greater than 40% 

to protect soils and prevent erosion.

• For Exploration, use helicopters to transport drill rig

• For Exploration, do not consider redundant access

• For Exploration, analyze only the holes proposed to be drilled during the first field season.

2.7 Alternatives Comparison

Table 2 summarizes the activities and impacts in the mining plan modification area (see Figure 1) of the 

alternatives considered in detail in the EA.

Table 2. Alternative Comparison in Lease Modification Areas

Feature Proposed Action No Action Alternative 3

Underground mining Removal of 10,100,000 tons of 

coal for 2 years

Removal of no coal 

from lease 

modification areas

Same as Proposed Action

Methane management Voluntary methane flaring using 

mobile flares

No methane flaring No methane flaring

Issue Proposed Action No Action Alternative 3

Air Quality and Climate –

Methane emissions (tons 

per year)

15,679 0 26,050

Air Quality and Climate –

CO2 emissions (tons per 

year)

52,527 0 37,462

Air Quality and Climate –

100-year CO2e emissions 

(tons per year)

616,015 0 975,451

Air Quality and Climate –

20-year CO2e emissions 

(tons per year)

1,416,859 0 2,303,981

Water Quantity Reduction in flow in some 

springs are expected to be longterm but minor because of the 

small flow volumes and possible 

seasonal flows from subsidence 

No mining-induced 

effects

Same as Proposed Action.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 22

Feature Proposed Action No Action Alternative 3

cracks.

Water depletion of ~4.5 acrefeet from the NFS from drilling

No impact from the methane 

flares.

Water Quality No impact on stream or spring 

water quality

No impacts Same as Proposed Action

Fish and Wildlife –

Impacts on Threatened 

and Endangered Species

No additional impact from 

mobile flares. Subsidence of 

surface topography and the 

installation of MVBs and roads, 

totaling 1,221 acres of lynx 

habitat within the Lynx Analysis 

Unit.

No changes in current 

habitat or population 

conditions of Canada 

lynx.

Subsidence of surface 

topography and the 

installation of MVBs and 

roads, totaling 1,221 

acres of lynx habitat 

within the Lynx Analysis 

Unit.

Impacts on the 4 Colorado River 

fish are depletions of 4.5 acrefeet of water from drilling

No effect on the 4 

Colorado River fish, no 

water depletions.

Same as Proposed Action

Fish and Wildlife –

Impacts on Migratory 

Birds, Birds of 

Conservation Concern, 

and Raptors

Potential injury or fatality if birds 

attempt to perch on the flare 

stack when operating (1 to 2 

months). Short-term alteration 

of habitat from clearing 

vegetation around MVBs.

Some alteration of up to 75 

acres of bird habitat in the shortterm from the installation of the 

MVBs and roads on individual 

migratory birds, especially 

passerines and other birds that 

uses aspen, spruce-fir, and oak 

for nesting.

No long-term direct or indirect 

effects.

No change in current 

habitat or population 

conditions.

Habitat effects are the 

same as Alternative 1.

No effects from flaring.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 23

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the existing conditions and presents the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts from implementation of the Proposed Action and Alternatives. The scope of this EA is limited to 

the issues discussed in Section 1.5 and discloses impacts related to those issues. Within this section, the 

terms “effects” and “impacts” are used interchangeably. Each resource analysis discusses direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects. Direct effects are those that would occur at the same time and place as 

the project. Indirect effects are caused by the alternatives, but that occur later or at a greater distance 

from the actions. Cumulative effects are those impacts which result from the incremental impact of an 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Impacts are 

described by level of significance: 

• No Impact: No discernible or measurable impacts. 

• Negligible Impact: Impacts in the lower limit of detection of an impact that could cause an 

insignificant change or stress to an environmental resource or use. 

• Minor Impact: Impacts that potentially could be detectable but slight. 

• Moderate: Impacts that potentially could cause some change or stress to an environmental 

resource, but the impact levels are not considered major.

• Major: Impacts that potentially could cause significant depletion, change, or stress to resources or 

stress within the social, cultural, and economic realm.

Another factor in the significance is the timeframe when impacts would occur. The impacts identified as 

short-term would be expected to last throughout the development, mining, and active reclamation 

periods. Impacts identified as long-term would last beyond the reclamation period.

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over time (40 CFR 1508.7). Naturally occurring events are not considered actions, for example, a 

wildland fire is not an action; however, the effects of fire suppression or rehabilitation are actions that 

would be considered. Cumulative impact analysis areas are defined for each resource, depending on the 

extent of potential indirect impacts and are defined in each resource section.

The following resources have been eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA because the resource 

was adequately analyzed in the SFEIS (USFS, 2017a). Table 3 lists the resources incorporated by 

reference, the SFEIS section that is incorporated, a summary of the impacts on those resources from 

approval of the MPDD and a description of why the impacts were not analyzed in detail in this EA. The 

No Action impacts would be the same as those evaluated for the No Action in the SFEIS. The impacts 

from Alternative 3 in the EA would be the same as the impacts evaluated in Alternative 3 in the SFEIS. 

Table 3 notes where and why the impacts from the Proposed Action evaluated in the EA would be the 

same as Alternative 3 evaluated in the SFEIS and are incorporated by reference into this EA.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 24

Table 3. Resources Incorporated by Reference

Resource SFEIS Section Summary from SFEIS - Alternative 3 

(Roadless)

Justification

Topographic & 

Physiographic 

Environment

Section 3.5

Pg. 130

Subsequent mining may result in surface 

subsidence of up to 8 feet and 1,077 acres 

(includes ~357 acres on private and 

adjacent parent leases).

Impacts from the proposed action 

and alternatives in the EA would be 

the same as the impacts described in 

the SFEIS.

Geology Section 3.6

Pg. 135

Subsidence may aggravate existing 

geologic hazards, create surface cracks, 

and cause localized seismic events. Lease 

stipulations should minimize effects.

Mining of coal would reduce future 

recoverability of oil and gas resources. 

The quantity of coal mined in 

Alternative 1 and 3 in the EA is equal 

to the quantity analyzed in the 

SFEIS. Voluntary flaring to reduce 

methane release does not impact 

the geology.

Soils Section 3.7

Pg. 143

Cracks and other self-healing surface 

expressions of subsidence. Approximately 

72 acres may see some soil loss and 

reduced productivity due to post-lease 

surface disturbance. Lease stipulations 

and best management practices should 

minimize effects. Additionally, 

approximately 63 acres of soils may be 

disturbed on parent leases and adjacent 

private lands because of the COC-1362 

lease. 

No additional soil disturbance would 

occur from Alternative 1 than was 

evaluated in Alternative 3 the SFEIS. 

The mobile flares would be placed 

on previously disturbed areas.

Vegetation Section 3.9

Pg. 168

Subsidence is expected to have minimal 

disturbance on vegetation. Post-lease 

surface disturbance is expected to remove 

vegetation from up to 72 acres. 

Reclamation requirements will ensure 

that appropriate species are used to 

revegetate the area and return it to 

productivity. Additionally, approximately 

63 acres of vegetation may be removed 

on parent leases and adjacent private 

lands because of the COC-1362 lease 

modification. 

Vegetation removed during drill pad 

construction was evaluated in the 

SFEIS. Because the mobile flares 

would be placed on this previously 

disturbed area there would not be 

any additional impacts to 

vegetation. The size of the drill pads 

analyzed will accommodate the 

requirements to clear dead 

vegetation from near the flare.

Forest Service 

Sensitive 

Wildlife Species

Section 3.11

Pg. 194

American marten, pygmy shrew, northern 

goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided 

flycatcher, flammulated owl, Hoary bat, 

Monarch butterfly, western bumble bee, 

American three-toed woodpecker, 

northern leopard frog, and purple martin-

“may adversely impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a loss of viability in 

the planning area nor cause a trend 

toward federal listing.”

The impacts on USFS sensitive 

species would be the same as 

described in the SFEIS except birds, 

which are analyzed in Section 3.6 of 

the EA.

Forest Service 

Sensitive Plants

Section 3.12

Pg. 216

Colorado tansy aster-no effect. 

Rocky Mountain thistle-not known to date 

in lease modification area, but habitat 

Per the SFEIS there is only one 

sensitive plant species that would 

likely occur at or near the proposed 

action and no occurrences of this 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 25

Resource SFEIS Section Summary from SFEIS - Alternative 3 

(Roadless)

Justification

may be enhanced from disturbance 

associated with post-lease development. 

species have been documented in 

the project area and it is unlikely to 

occur in the project area. The 

project area evaluated in the SFEIS is 

the same as the Alternative 1 project 

area. 

Forest Service 

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Section 3.13

Pg. 218

Elk, Merriam’s wild turkey, and red-naped

sapsucker-negative effects are of short 

duration and magnitude and do not result 

in a forest-wide decrease in trends or 

deter from meeting the MIS objectives in 

the Forest Plan. (Other MIS species are 

addressed as Sensitive Species).

The 1982 Planning Rule 36 CFR 

219.19(a)(6) related to Management 

Indicator Species requires the USFS

to produce a unique list of species to 

represent Forest communities or 

ecosystems. No new species have 

been added to this list since the 

SFEIS was published.

Range 

Resources

Section 3.15

Pg. 229

Post-lease development may result in 

short-term forage loss, subsidence (1,077 

acres) damage to stock ponds, altered 

fences, filled-in cattle guards, grazing 

management/ distribution problems, 

cattle drift onto private land, and noxious

weeds. Following best management 

practices and coordination with Range 

Conservationist/ permittees when post 

lease development will minimize these 

effects. 

Forage will be removed in the short-term 

from about 72 acres, but conversion to 

forbs will enhance grazing once reclaimed. 

Additional 63 acres of predominantly 

oakbrush and aspen may be removed 

from parent leases and adjacent private 

lands due to lease modification. 

The surface disturbance for the 

Alternative 1 is the same as 

Alternative 3 in the SFEIS therefore 

there are no additional impacts.

Recreation Section 3.16

Pg. 233 

No change to recreation opportunities 

available. Subsidence cracks may form on 

a non-motorized, non-system trail but 

would be expected to be minor. Postleasing development may improve access 

on NFS Road 710 and cause big game to 

temporarily move out of the area. 

Alternative 1 is the same as 

Alternative 3 evaluated in the SFEIS

with the exception of the voluntary 

use of mobile flares which would 

have no additional impacts on 

recreation.

Transportation 

System

Section 3.17

Pg. 239

No subsidence-related damage to system 

roads would occur from mining coal in the 

lease modifications. 

Post-lease development traffic on NFS

Roads 711 and 710 in the lease would be 

consistent with current activities. 

New post-lease roads would not be open 

to the public consistent with recent Travel 

The project area evaluated in the 

SFEIS is the same as the Alternative 

1 project area therefore the road 

systems in the vicinity of the project 

area were sufficiently evaluated in 

the SFEIS.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 26

Resource SFEIS Section Summary from SFEIS - Alternative 3 

(Roadless)

Justification

Management Plan. 

Roadless Section 3.18

Pg. 243

Roadless character and values will be 

managed consistent with Colorado 

Roadless Rule. Short- term impacts to 

Sunset CRA will occur, but return to 

baseline conditions (i.e., roadless) after 

well pad and temporary road reclamation. 

Post-lease activities may disturb up to 72 

acres on lease modifications within Sunset 

roadless and an additional ~28 acres on 

parent leases in Sunset CRA. 

The SFEIS evaluated the 3 Colorado 

Roadless Areas affected by the 

project. The project area evaluated 

in the SFEIS is the same as the 

Alternative 1 project area and there 

are no additional Colorado Roadless 

Areas affected.

Heritage 

Resources

Section 3.19

Pg. 262

No potential to affect cultural resources. 

On-the-ground surveys will be needed for 

site-specific ground-disturbing activities 

and is enforced by the Forest Service 

standard lease stipulation.

Surveys for exploration have been 

completed with no potential to affect 

cultural resources. 

The SFEIS evaluated the Heritage 

Resources within the lease 

modification area is the same as the 

Proposed Action project area.

OSMRE is re-initiating Section 106 

consultation under the National 

Historic Preservation Act with 

Colorado State Historic Preservation 

Office for the Proposed Action 

including the mobile methane flares; 

however, OSMRE does not 

anticipate any additional impacts 

not previously analyzed under the 

SFEIS.

Visuals Section 3.20

Pg. 263

No major impacts to visual resources are 

expected from subsidence or subsidencerelated events. Post-leasing development 

is not likely to be seen from public 

travelways, but topographic and 

vegetative screening will also prevent 

visual intrusion.

The project area for visual resources

analyzed in the SFEIS is the same as 

the Proposed Action project area.

Socioeconomic

s

Section 3.21

Pg. 271

The mining sector and associated rents, 

royalties, and payments to states/ 

counties would be extended in proportion 

to the quantity of federal coal mined. 

Operations would be extended 

approximately 1.4 years directly (and 2.7 

years cumulatively which includes fee 

reserves). 

A total of $255.8 million in royalty 

revenue would be collected by the 

Federal government over the 10.9 years 

of coal production, which is $69.2 million 

more than what would be collected under 

the No Action Alternative. 

The SFEIS evaluated Socioeconomic 

resources for Alternative 3 which is 

similar to Alternative 1 in this EA, 

with the exception of voluntary 

flaring. The mine life extension 

would, however be 2 years, instead 

of the 2.7 years.

Source: Table 2-6 Comparison of Alternatives. Alternative 3 pages 66-73 (USFS, 2017a).
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 27

3.2 Past Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are described in detail in the 2017 SFEIS (USFS, 

2017a) in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 on pages 75 to 93 and the reasonably foreseeable mine plan for 

Alternative 3 is detailed in the 2017 SFEIS (USFS, 2017a) in Sections 3.3.2 on pages 90 to 91.

3.3 Air Quality and Climate

3.3.1 Affected Environment

The directly affected area for the air quality analysis is described in Section 3.3.1.1 below. Indirect 

effects associated with coal transport and combustion occur at numerous locations. The exact rail 

transportation routes are not known due to the various coal consumers and potential routes that could 

be used. The Cumulative Effects study area is consistent with the area analyzed in the Colorado Air 

Resources Management Modeling Study (Ramboll Environ, 2017).

The SFEIS describes the existing air quality and climate conditions in Section 3.4.1 beginning on page 93. 

Air quality is determined by the quantity of pollutants released near and up wind of the region and is 

highly dependent on the chemical and physical properties of the pollutants as well as the area’s terrain 

and weather. A brief summary of these determining factors is in Sections 3.3.1.2 through 3.3.1.7 below.

3.3.1.1 Airshed for Analysis

The affected area for the air quality analysis of the direct effects of the Proposed Action includes 

northern Delta and Gunnison counties, although most direct air quality impacts would be limited to the 

vicinity of the mine within the North Fork Valley.

All geographical regions in the U.S. are assigned an air quality priority Class (I, II, or III) which describes 

how much degradation to the existing air quality is permitted within the area under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting rules. Class I areas are areas of special national or regional 

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.

The project area is in a Class II area as codified in the Colorado State PSD permitting rules. The closest 

Class I areas to the mine are the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, roughly 24 miles away to 

the west, and the West Elk Wilderness which is about 6 miles to the east from the mine (USFS, 2017a).

3.3.1.2 Regulatory Requirements

Regulatory requirements include both state and federal ambient air quality standards. The Clean Air Act

also regulates air pollution in classes which are governed by the PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21). 

The SFEIS describes regulatory requirements for the Proposed Action in detail, including the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Section 3.4.1.1 page 93), hazardous air pollutants (Section 

3.4.1.1 page 97), greenhouse gasses (Section 3.4.1.3), airshed classifications and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) (Section 3.4.1.5), and emissions source classifications (Section 3.4.1.5). 

3.3.1.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants

The majority of the HAPs emitted from the West Elk Mine are the result of the off-road heavy 

equipment. The major source threshold for HAPs is 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or 25 tpy of 

aggregate HAPs (40 CFR 63.2). The largest component of HAPs emissions from these diesel engines is 

typically benzene compounds. These pollutants are not expected to be emitted in quantities greater 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 28

than 0.1 tpy (based on typical emissions factors), and thus analysis of HAPs will not be discussed further

in this EA.

3.3.1.4 Regional Air Quality

Regional air quality monitoring data was evaluated in the SFEIS (Section 3.4.1.1 page 97) and Table 4

shows annual ambient air quality monitor data for potential pollutants of concern from monitors 

located near the affected area. In 2018 the BLM installed an air monitor at Paonia Highschool, which is 

approximately 9 miles from the West Elk Mine, and monitoring began in April 2018. Table 6 shows the 

annual ambient air quality monitor data for the Paonia monitor. 

Table 4. Regional Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Results

Pollutant Averaging Time County 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Percent of 

NAAQs

Delta 49 54 73 53 47 37

PM10 24-hour (μg/m3) Gunnison 97 76 72 89 60 53

Mesa 45 34 35 44 38 26

PM2.5 Annual (μg/m3) Mesa 7.4 6.8 6.4 5.7 5.9 54

24-hour (μg/m3) Mesa 21 21 21 16 16 54

O3 8-hr (ppm) Gunnison 0.063 0.068 0.062 0.065 0.069 93

Mesa 0.062 0.065 0.063 0.064 0.069 92

CO 8-hr (ppm) Mesa 0.9 0.9 1 0.9 0.8 10

1-hr (ppm) Mesa 1.7 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.1 4

Source: (USEPA, 2019)

Notes: 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 analysis. Percent NAAQS is the average of the available 5-year monitoring history. 

Table 5. Paonia (Monitor ID: 080290007) Air Quality Monitoring Results

Pollutant Averaging Time Form

2018

(April-Dec)

2019

(Jan-March)

Percent of 

NAAQS

PM10 24-hour (μg/m3) 1st Max 75 26 34

PM2.5

24-hour (μg/m3) 98th percentile 21 10.8 45

Annual (μg/m3) Annual Mean 6.2 3.5 40

O3 8-hr (ppm) Annual 4th Max 0.054 0.054 77

NO2

1-hour (ppb) 98th percentile 12.2 12 12

Annual (ppb) Annual Mean 2.2 2.1 4

Source: (USEPA, 2019)

Notes: Percent NAAQS is the average of the available 2-year monitoring history.

ppb = parts per billion

The primary pollutants of concern for the Proposed Action are fugitive particulate matter (PM), nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and greenhouse gasses (GHGs) (as determined from the emissions 

inventory presented below and based upon CDPHE issued permits for the facility). The area monitors 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 29

show that ozone (O3)levels are relatively close to the 2015 EPA standard in Gunnison and Mesa 

counties. The O3NAAQS is the 4th high averaged over 3 years. The highest 3-year average is 65.3 ppb for 

both the Gunnison and Mesa sites from 2016 to 2018, which is approximately 93 percent of the 

standard. The Paonia monitor shows that the O3 levels in the affected area (Delta County) are much 

lower than the levels in Gunnison and Mesa counties, the 4th high averaged over the two years the 

monitor has been operational is 54 ppb, approximately 77% of the standard. The data shows that air 

quality within the region is generally considered good, and the area is currently in attainment status for 

all criteria pollutants. The monitoring data 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 (USEPA, 2019). Monitoring data is limited, 

and all pollutants are not monitored at all monitoring locations, thus data for a pollutant may not be

available for all portions of the affected environment. The 2011 and 2014 National Emissions Inventory 

Data for Delta and Gunnison counties is in Section 3.4.1.3 of the SFEIS on page 99.

3.3.1.5 Existing Emission Sources

Emissions sources are regulated according to their type and classification and generally fall into two 

broad categories, stationary and mobile. Stationary sources are in a fixed location, are non-moving and 

fall into two categories, point sources and fugitive emissions. Point source pollutants are released 

through vents or stacks and fugitive emissions are emissions that do not pass through a vent or a stack. 

Major sources are stationary sources that emit, or have 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. The West Elk Mine is classified as a synthetic minor source and has been issued Air 

Pollution Control Division (APCD) permits for its surface facility operations (summarized in Table 6).

Table 6. West Elk Emissions (Maximum TPY)

Source Permit, PM10 PM2.5 VOC NOX CO SOX

Multiple – Point1 09GU1382 60.3 --- --- --- --- ---

Multiple – Fugitive1 09GU1382 27.9 --- --- --- --- ---

Emergency Generator2 10GU1130 0.72 0.72 1.79 12.36 15.23 0.33

Rock Dust Silo3 13GU1462 0.06 0.06 --- --- --- ---

Emergency Generator4 13GU1463 0.005 0.005 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.005

Emergency Engine5 14GU0697.XP 0.053 0.053 0.54 3.7 0.086 0.0037

Emergency Generator6 16GU0031.XA 0.27 0.27 0.3 3.7 0.82 0.0037

Fuel Tanks7 93GU886.XA --- --- 1.99 --- --- ---

Totals 89.7 1.1 4.7 20.0 16.2 0.06

Source: (CDPHE, 2019)

1 Emissions based on permit limits.

2 Emissions based on 1/22/2015 APEN Update.

3 Emissions based on 1/9/2018 APEN Update.

4 Emissions based on 2/15/2013 APEN Revision.

5 Emissions based on 3/1/2019 APEN Update.

6 Emissions based on 11/3/2015 APEN.

7 VOC data is based on maximum APEN exemption amount of 2 tons per year.

PM is the highest emitted criteria pollutant from stationary sources at the West Elk Mine. Sources of PM

include various coal handling equipment such as conveyors and transfers, coal storage silos and feeders, 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 30

coal storage and refuse piles, coal mine ventilation shafts, a coal preparation plant, coal hauling 

operations, an emergency generator, and miscellaneous exempt sources (such as heating equipment 

and fuel storage tanks). The APCD permits limit emissions of PM by setting various process limitations. 

The mine’s primary permit, 09GU1382 (CDPHE APCD, 2010), limits the total amount of material handled 

(coal and refuse) to 8.5 million tons per year, the total quantity of refuse material from the coal 

preparation plant and reclaim tower is limited to 1 million tons per year, truck hauling from the ROM 

stockpile to off-site locations is limited to 0.5 million tons per year, and the amount of coal that can be 

processed by the coal preparation plant is limited to 4.5 million tons of coal per year. The primary 

permit also has set limits for the sizes of coal stockpiles and the hours of operation of maintenance 

activities on the main stockpiles, silo stockpiles, and refuse piles. This permit contains a fugitive dust 

control plan requirement which applies to all the coal processing, handling, and management activities. 

The fugitive dust control plan includes applying water to active stockpiles (including any areas subject to 

vehicular activity), treating unpaved haul roads with chemical stabilizers and watering as needed, and 

keeping total disturbed areas at any one time to a minimum. The permit for the Rock Dust Silo, 

13GU1462 (CDPHE APCD, 2016), limits the rock dust to 25,000 tpy. 

The CDRMS Mining and Reclamation plan requires general air pollution control measures to comply with 

the applicable APCD permits and to minimize or eliminate fugitive particulate matter, which include 

applying water to any active unpaved roadways, parking areas, refuse disposal area, and could include 

compacting and spraying of coal stockpiles when necessary. Additionally, the regularly travelled gravel 

roads on the mine site are treated at least once a year with magnesium chloride for dust suppression.

Drilling technology used to drill MVBs the diameter and depth needed for MVBs also requires 

construction of drill pads and the use of heavy equipment. MVBs are on the landscape an average of 2

to 3 years with an active life of 1 to 3 months, then decommissioned, and the land surface is reclaimed 

and returned to pre-mining land use.

3.3.1.6 Climate

The primary natural and synthetic GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide 

(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. GHGs allow heat from the sun to pass 

though the upper atmosphere and warm the earth by blocking some of the heat that is radiated from 

the earth back into space. As GHG concentrations increase in our atmosphere they impact the global 

climate by further decreasing the amount of heat that is allowed to escape back into space. Many GHGs 

are naturally occurring in the environment; however, human activity has contributed to increased 

concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is emitted from the combustion of fossil fuels (i.e., 

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 results from livestock and other agricultural practices 

and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. Methane is also emitted during the 

production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and 

industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. Fluorinated gases, while 

not abundant in the atmosphere, are powerful GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial 

processes and are often used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons, 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and halons).

All the different GHGs 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. This EA uses both 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 31

the 20-year and the 100-year time interval to evaluate both the short term and long-term impacts. CO2 

has a GWP of 1, and so for the purposes of analysis a GHGs GWP is generally standardized to a CO2

equivalent (CO2e), or the equivalent amount of CO2 mass the GHG would represent. Methane has a 

current 100-year GWP estimated to be between 28 (gas alone) and 36 (with climate feedbacks), and a

20-year GWP between 84 (gas alone) and 87 (with climate feedbacks) (USEPA, 2017). CH4 emitted today 

remains in the atmosphere for about a decade on average, which is why the 20-year time interval is 

appropriate for evaluating short term impacts. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 265–298 times that of 

CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, 

thus the 100-year GWP is appropriate for evaluating short term impacts for N2O. 

NAAQS do not exist for GHGs. In its Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse 

Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (FR EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171), the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) determined that GHGs are air pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean 

Air Act. GHGs’ status as pollutants are due to the added long-term impacts they have on the climate 

because of their increased concentrations in the earth’s atmosphere. Ongoing scientific research has 

identified that anthropogenic GHG emissions impact the global climate. Industrialization and the 

burning of fossil fuels have contributed to increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere. GHGs 

are produced from both the direct process of coal mining as well as from the combustion of the mined 

coal. The amount of GHG emissions associated with both processes varies greatly based on mining 

techniques and combustion methodologies used.

The EPA has promulgated rules to regulate GHG emissions and the industries responsible under the 

Mandatory Reporting Rule (74 FR 56260, 40 CFR 98) and the Tailoring Rule (70 FR 31514, 40 CFR 51, 52, 

70, 71). Under the EPA’s GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule, coal mines subject to the rule are required to 

report emissions annually in accordance with the requirements of Subpart FF. Subpart FF is applicable 

only to underground coal mines and is not applicable to surface coal mines. Under the provisions of the 

Tailoring Rule (and a subsequent Supreme Court decision), a facility would be subject to PSD permitting 

if it has the potential to emit GHGs in excess of 100,000 tpy of CO2e and the facility exceeded the PSD 

major source threshold for a criteria pollutant. For existing facilities this review would take place during 

any subsequent modifications to the facility.

The current and historic climate attributes of the North Fork Valley and state of Colorado are described

in detail in Section 3.4.1.6 of the SFEIS beginning on page 103.

3.3.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

3.3.2.1 Direct Effects

The proposed lease modifications would result in a continuation of the existing activity currently 

occurring at the mine location for an additional 2 years and will not increase the intensity of operations 

above the levels in Table 7. Additional mobile emission sources would include 2 mobile flares, their 

associated flare pilots, and the diesel generators used to power the methane flares. There are also three 

existing permitted stationary sources that were not evaluated in the SFEIS, which include two 

emergency generators (permits 13GU1463 and 16GU0031.XA) and one emergency engine 

(14GU0697.XP).

The emissions for existing permitted sources have been updated, the emissions for stationary point and 

fugitive sources (permit 09GU1382) and mobile underground and surface emissions have been updated 

to reflect mining of 10.1 million tons over two years. Emissions for the Rock Dust Silo are based on the 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 32

Table 7. West Elk Emissions 2-Year Scenario (Maximum TPY)

Source Permit PM10 PM2.5 VOC NOX CO SOX CO2 CH4 N2O 100-year 

CO2e

20-year 

CO2e

Multiple – Point1 09GU1382 54.33 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Multiple – Fugitive2 09GU1382 23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

EmergencyGenerator2 10GU1130 0.72 0.72 1.79 12.36 15.23 0.33 -- -- -- -- --

Rock Dust Silo2 13GU1462 0.06 0.06 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Emergency Generator2 13GU1463 0.005 0.005 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.005 -- -- -- -- --

Emergency Engine2 14GU0697.XP 0.053 0.053 0.54 3.7 0.066 0.0037 -- -- -- -- --

Emergency Generator2 16GU0031.XA 0.27 0.27 0.3 3.7 0.82 0.0037 -- -- -- -- --

Fuel Tanks3 93GU886.XA -- -- 1.99 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mobile - Underground4 NA 8.07 7.83 12.37 56.73 47.76 0.77 3,586 0.19 0.03 3,602 3,611

Mobile - Surface4 NA 1.19 1.15 1.45 16.42 7.68 0.26 1,195 0.02 0.01 1,198 1,199

Misc. Heaters5 NA 2.04 2.05 1.47 27.49 22.08 0.67 32,682 0.61 0.58 32,887 32,908

VAM5 NA -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 15,566 -- 560,376 1,354,242

(2) Mobile – Flares6 NA -- -- -- 10.19 26.81 15,056 112.04 0.29 17,952 24,899

(2) Flare Generators7 NA 0.06 0.06 0.53 1.11 9.73 0.02 -- -- -- -- --

Total 89.80 12.20 20.55 131.82 130.26 2.06 52,527 15,679 0.91 616,015 1,416,859

1 Emissions based on mining of 10.1 million tons over two years and permit limits for the coal preparation plant and mine ventilation shafts.

2 Emissions based on permit limits.

3 Emissions based on maximum APEN exemption amount of 2 tons per year.

4 Emissions based mining of 10.1 million tons over two years.

5 Source Table 3.7 SFEIS page 103.

6 NOx, CO, CO2, and CH4 emissions calculated using the maximum rated capacity of the flares (5 CRR 1001-5 Part A I.B.7.). Manufacturing data supplied by MCC for two 15.3 

MMBtu/hour flares with 98% destruction efficiency operating 8760 hours per year and an assumed methane concentration of 63%. Emission factor from Table 1.4-4 of AP-42 used 

to calculate N2O emissions.

7 Emissions based on emission factors from EPAs Potential to Emit Calculator for Engines (EPA, 2016) for two 144-kw generators.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 33

25,000 tpy processing limit and emissions for emergency permit and heaters were not updated because 

the emissions are dependent on hours of operation and not mining production rate. 

The Marshall County Mine in West Virginia is currently the only active coal mine in the US known to 

OSMRE as using flaring technology to control methane emissions from MVBs. The emissions from the 

flares at the West Elk Mine are based on flare manufacturing data supplied by MCC and are similar in 

design to the flares at the Marshall County Mine. The size of the diesel generators necessary to power 

the flares are anticipated to be between 22 and 144 kw. The emissions were calculated using EPAs 

Potential to Emit Calculator for Engines (EPA, 2016) using the 144-kw generator size. The pilot light will 

only operate to ignite and reignite the flare as needed, and emissions are considered to be negligible.

The majority of the PM emissions for the West Elk Mine are dependent upon coal mining production 

rate, therefore the total annual emissions for the proposed action are less than the particulate matter 

emissions evaluated for Alternative 3 in the SFEIS. In section 3.4.2.1 of the SFEIS beginning on page 105 

it was determined that the area around the mine can be expected to remain within ambient air quality 

standards for PM10 therefore there are no additional air impacts from PM10 emissions for the proposed 

action. 

AERMOD was used to model the maximum potential near-field impacts for the nearby Bull Mountain 

Unit (an oil and gas project) (BLM, 2016). Based on this modeling, NOx emissions from the mine would 

be below the deposition data analysis threshold and would not significantly impact the West Elk 

Wilderness Area.

The total NOx emissions in Table 7 are comparable with the Bull Mountain FEIS Alternative A total 

production NOx emissions of 190 tpy. The AERMOD results are shown in Table 8. The maximum 

predicted concentration of NO2 when added to the 1-Hour and Annual background concentrations of 21

and 1.9 μg/m3

, respectively, are less than the applicable NAAQS and Colorado Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (CAAQS). Although the direct modeled NO2 concentrations in Table 8 show that NO2 levels 

could exceed the annual increment value, West Elk Mine would only be increasing the total annual 

NOX emissions by approximately 11 tpy, therefore annual NO2 concentrations are anticipated to be 

below the applicable PSD Class II increments for NO2. The highest 1-Hour and annual average NO2

concentrations at the Paonia air monitor (Table 5) are 12.2 and 2.2 μg/m3 respectively, therefore the 

NO2 background concentrations used in the Bull Mountain analysis are a valid representation of the 

background concentrations in the West Elk Mine area.Based on this incremental comparison there 

would be no additional direct air impacts from NO2 emissions associated with the Proposed Action.

Table 8. Modeling Results for Bull Mountain Unit Alternative B Production Activities

Pollutant

Averaging 

Period 

Maximum 

Concentration

(μg/m3)

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

)

Total 

Concentration

(μg/m3)

NAAQS/CAAQS 

(μg/m3

)

PSD Class II 

Increment 

(μg/m3

)

NO2 1-Hour 159.1 21 180.1 188 --

Annual 38.6 1.9 40.5 100 25

CO 1-Hour 775.4 1150 1,925.4 40,000 --

8-Hour 481.1 1150 1,631.1 10,000 --

Source: Table 4-15 Bull Mountain Unit FEIS (BLM, 2016)
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 34

The total CO emissions (development and production) modeled for Alternative B in the Bull Mountain 

FEIS (BLM, 2016) were 130 tpy, the results for development activities are shown in Table 9 and 

production activities are shown in Table 8. When maximum modeled concentrations from the modeled 

scenarios are added to representative background concentrations, total ambient air concentrations are 

less than the applicable NAAQS and CAAQS, no PSD increments have been established for this pollutant.

Although the CO emissions for the proposed action are higher than 130 tpy, the combined direct 

modeled concentrations for the 1-Hour and 8-Hour averaging period are 10 percent and 33 percent of 

the NAAQS respectively. Therefore, the direct air impacts from CO emissions associated with the 

Proposed Action are anticipated to be negligible.

Table 9. Modeling Results for Bull Mountain Unit Alternative B Development Activities

Pollutant Averaging 

Period 

Maximum 

Concentration

(μg/m3)

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

)

Total 

Concentration

(μg/m3)

NAAQS/CAAQS 

(μg/m3

)

CO 1-Hour 775.1 1150 1,925.1 40,000

8-Hour 480.9 1150 1,630.9 10,000

Source: Table 4-14 Bull Mountain Unit FEIS (BLM, 2016)

Flaring of coal mine methane converts the methane to carbon dioxide (CO2). Total emissions for the 

Proposed Action and Alternative 3 in this EA are compared in Table 10 and show that voluntary flaring of 

methane from the MVBs would result a carbon dioxide equivalency emissions decrease of 58 percent

based on the 100-year global warming potential coefficient and 63 percent based on the 20-year global 

warming potential.

Table 10. West Elk Mine Emissions Comparison 2-Year Scenario (Maximum TPY)

Pollutant Proposed Action (Flaring) Alternative 3 (Venting) % Change (Alternative 3 –

Alternative 1)a

PM10 89.80 89.74 0%

PM2.5 12.20 12.14 0%

VOC 20.55 20.02 3%

NOX 131.82 120.53 9%

CO 130.26 93.73 28%

SOX 2.06 2.04 1%

CO2 52,527 37,462 29%

CH4 15,679 26,050 -66%

N2O 0.91 0.63 31%

100-year CO2e 616,015 975,451 -58%

20-year CO2e 1,416,859 2,303,981 -63%

a Assumes flaring begins when mining is initiated. A delay in beginning flaring could increase the methane released by

approximately 864 tons per month.

3.3.2.2 Indirect Effect

The indirect effects of coal transport from the region are analyzed and disclosed in Section 3.4.2.2 of the 

SFEIS beginning on page 109. Indirect effects associated with coal transport and combustion of the coal 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 35

occur at numerous locations. Transportation of coal by train would result in emissions of pollutants such 

as CO, SO2, NOx, PM, and VOCs. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the electric 

power sector accounted for about 92.6 percent of the total U.S. coal consumed in 2018 (US EIA, 2019)

Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that the coal from the West Elk Mine would be shipped to and 

consumed by a coal-fired power plant, however, it is not possible to determine in advance where this 

coal will be consumed because it is unknown where the coal will be delivered until the quarter before it 

gets delivered.

Emissions from transportation by train was evaluated in the SFEIS and concluded that impacts on local 

or regional air quality would not exceed those already authorized and would be in compliance with all 

applicable standards regulating their operations. The GHG emissions from coal combustion would 

contribute to potential climate change impacts.

Based on the enclosed flare and the prevention measures identified in Section 2.3.4, during the 2 years 

of operating the flares, it is unlikely that there will be any potential for wildland fire ignitions to increase 

and there would be no subsequent additional impacts on air quality or GHG emissions from wildland fire 

due to the flaring.

3.3.3 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the no action alternative, the OSMRE would recommend not approving the MPDD. No additional 

mining or methane release would occur in the lease modification areas.

3.3.3.1 Direct Effects

Because there would be no mining and no venting or flaring there would not be any air emissions until 

operations resumed in other permitted areas.

3.3.3.2 Indirect Effect

Because there would be no mining and no venting or flaring there would not be any air emissions until 

operations resumed in other permitted areas.

3.3.4 Alternative 3

3.3.4.1 Direct Effects

Except for the GHG emissions, the direct impacts for Alternative 3 will be the same as the impacts for 

the Proposed Action shown by the emissions comparison in Table 10. The area around the mine would

be expected to remain within ambient air quality standards for PM10, NOx, and CO, and no other criteria 

pollutant emissions associated with the mine’s stationary sources would be considered to have the 

potential to significantly degrade area air quality. 

Methane from the MVBs will be vented directly to the atmosphere. The actual methane emissions from 

MVBs over the past 5 years and the carbon dioxide equivalency emissions can be seen in Table 11

below. Based on the 5-year average carbon dioxide equivalency emissions would be 201,797 tpy using 

the 100-year global warming potential coefficient and 487,676 using the 25-year global warming 

potential coefficient. When compared to the emissions at lowest flaring efficiency of 95% for the 

proposed action, the carbon dioxide equivalency emissions are approximately 5 and 7 times higher for 

the 100-year and 25-year global warming potential coefficients respectively. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 36

Table 11. West Elk MVB Emissions (Actual TPY)

Year CH4

1 100-year CO2e2 20-year CO2e3

2014 10,667 384,029 928,069

2015 7,487 269,521 651,342

2016 5,110 183,972 444,598

2017 2,680 96,482 233,166

2018 (thru Aug) 2,083 74,982 181,206

Average 5,605 201,797 487,676

1 Total MVB Methane converted to tons (Tetra Tech, 2018)

2 100-year GWP = 36 (USEPA, 2017)

3 20-year GWP = 87 (USEPA, 2017)

3.3.4.2 Indirect Effect

Indirect effects would be the same as for the Proposed Action (Alternative 1).

3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts

The SFEIS includes a cumulative Colorado Air Resources Management Modeling Study (CARMMS)

analysis in Section 3.4.5.1 beginning on page 133. Further discussions of potential cumulative effects 

were provided in Section 3.4.5 of the SFEIS and are incorporated herein to this analysis.

3.4 Water (Quality and Quantity)

Section 3.8.1 of the SFEIS discusses the affected environment of the study area required to address 

impacts from the proposed lease modifications and subsequent mining, including identification of local 

drainages and the areas expected to be directly affected by subsidence. Discussion and analysis of 

Sections 3.8.1 through 3.8.4 of the 2017 SFEIS are accepted for this analysis except where specified, 

modified or discussed in the sections below. Information presented below is based on additional data, 

clarification of data, or additional information obtained since publication of the SFEIS. Primarily this 

update to the water resources affected environment and impact analysis is largely based on information 

provided in Exhibit 71 of the permit (HydroGeo, 2016) which provided hydrologic characterization of the 

proposed lease areas and proposed changes in the monitoring plans for the West Elk Mine. The Exhibit

was prepared to support Technical Revision 139 of the CDRMS permit and is based on hydrologic 

monitoring stations established in 2018 and data reported (HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019).

3.4.1 Affected Environment

Water resources are discussed in the SFEIS in Section 3.8. The analysis area for water is depicted on

Figure 5. For reference, a general summary of these descriptions is provided for surface water in Section 

3.4.1.1 and for groundwater, including seeps, in Section 3.4.1.2.

3.4.1.1 Surface Water

The proposed project area and proposed lease modification areas occur within the North Fork of the 

Gunnison River basin (USFS, 2017a). The primary drainage affected would be the East Fork of Minnesota 

Creek whose tributaries drain west from the proposed lease modifications, and Deep Creek which drains 

northeast from the lease modification areas. Both Minnesota Creek and Deep Creek flow to the North 

Fork of the Gunnison River which joins the mainstem of the Gunnison River downstream of Hotchkiss.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 37

Figure 5. Water Resources
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 38

For clarity and for the purposes of this EA, the regulatory definition of ephemeral, intermittent, and 

perennial stream from CDRMS’s Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal 

Mining Section 1.04 are used as follows:

(42) "Ephemeral stream" means a stream which flows only in direct response to precipitation in 

the immediate watershed or in response to the melting of a cover of snow or ice, and which has 

a channel bottom that is always above the local water table.

(69) "Intermittent stream" means a stream or reach of a stream that is below the local water 

table for at least some part of the year, and obtains its flow from both surface runoff and 

ground water discharge.

(84) "Perennial stream" means a stream or part of a stream that flows continuously during all of 

the calendar year as a result of ground water discharge or surface runoff. The term does not 

include intermittent stream or ephemeral stream.

The SFEIS identified and quantified lengths of perennial and intermittent stream reaches, which drain 

the proposed lease modification areas on Figure 3-20. This figure appeared to show limited perennial 

stream reaches occurring on South Prong Creek and Horse Creek extending into the lease modification 

areas. Based on Exhibits 71 and 71A, South Prong Creek and its tributaries in the area of the proposed 

lease modifications are narrow with very steep gradients with some reaches of perennial flow.

In July of 2018, MCC established four surface water monitoring stations in this drainage (HydroGeology 

Solutions, Inc., 2019). Two stream stations, one at the mouth of the north fork of South Prong Creek, 

and one at the mouth of the south fork of South Prong Creek will be monitored for flow and water 

quality six times per year for at least five years (Figure 5). Both of these stream stations are west of the 

proposed lease boundary. An additional station (Stream ST-SW-1) located on an unnamed tributary to 

South Prong Creek will also be monitored instantaneously six times per year. This stream is located 

within the COC-1362 lease area. The six instantaneous monitoring dates occur from April through 

September and are designed to document the rising limb, the peak flow period, and the falling limb of 

the annual runoff hydrograph and potential changes in water quality associated with these flow 

regimes. Winter conditions limit access to these sites and monitoring will not occur. After five years, 

these stations will be monitored three times per year for flow, pH and specific conductivity (total 

dissolved solids), and once per year for water quality analytes.

In September 2018, a flume for continuous flow monitoring was installed at a fourth stream monitoring 

station on South Prong Creek downstream of the confluence of the north and south fork tributaries. This 

station is west of the proposed lease modification boundary (HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019). A 

description of the four stream monitoring stations is provided in Table 12 and the station locations are 

depicted on Figure 5.

MCC reported continuous flow from the flume at the South Prong Creek monitoring station from 

September 9, 2018 through September 30, 2018 (HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019). The average flow 

during this period was 0.27 cubic feet per second (cfs) (121 gallons per minute [gpm]) with a minimum 

flow of 0.18 cfs (81 gpm) and a maximum flow of 0.43 cfs (193 gpm). Data have not been reported for 

the 2019 water year which ended September 30, 2019. Continuous monitoring will establish 

characteristic annual flow regimes and could be used to monitor potential impacts to this creek from 

future mining and subsidence upstream.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 39

Table 12. Summary of Stream Monitoring Stations

Station Name Location Description Latitude 

(NAD 83)

Longitude 

(NAD 83)

South Prong Creek Upstream of Confluence with Minnesota Creek 38.839794 -107.451729

North Fork of South Prong Creek 0.5 miles upstream of South Prong Creek Station 38.839970 -107.444520

South Fork of South Prong Creek 0.5 miles upstream of South Prong Creek Station 38.839974 -107.444393

Stream ST-SW-1 Unnamed Tributary to South Prong Creek 1.5 

miles upstream of South Prong Creek Station

38.833121 -107.426038

Source: (HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019)

MCC reported instantaneous flow data from the south fork tributary station of South Prong Creek of 

0.52 cfs (237 gpm), 0.22 cfs (101 gpm), and 0.26 cfs (118 gpm) for July 19, 2018, August 30, 2018, and 

September 25, 2018, respectively (HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019). Stream flows were reported at 

station ST-SW-1 of 0.02 cfs (7.75 gpm), 0.02 cfs (8.75 gpm), and 0.03 cfs (12.98 gpm) on these same 

sampling dates. Flow for the north fork station of South Prong Creek was reported as “dry” for these 

sampling dates. Future instantaneous flow measurements on these tributaries will assist in documenting 

annual flow regimes in these channels during ice free periods. An evaluation of monthly total 

precipitation for these dates from a meteorological station immediately north of Paonia, CO shows that 

precipitation during the summer and fall of 2018 were near long-term averages for these months.

The limited monitoring on the south fork tributary station and at station ST-SW-1 shows that flow exists 

during ice-free periods. Based on the low flow volumes reported in the fall of 2018, the channel 

descriptions provided, and the narrow steep gradients of these and other drainages in the area 

(HydroGeo, 2016), it is unlikely that continuous flow in these channels is maintained during the winter

and it would consequently qualify as an intermittent stream.

No hydrologic monitoring stations have been established on Horse Creek and a description of the Horse 

Creek channel has not been provided in any project reports that were reviewed for this analysis. Figure

2 illustrates that the proposed long wall panels associated with the Proposed Action will not extend 

underneath the area occupied by Horse Creek. In evaluating potential mining induced impacts to stream 

channel parameters, MCC did not identify the Horse Creek basin as an area that could currently be 

affected by mining subsidence (Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 2018). This evaluation was based on 

expected panel development and exploration conducted through 2018 (Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 

2018). Considering the watershed size, stream characteristics, geologic material, and aspect are 

substantively similar to what is exhibited in the adjacent South Prong Creek tributaries; it is likely that 

Horse Creek is an intermittent stream as defined by the CDRMS coal rules.

3.4.1.2 Groundwater, Seeps, Springs and Stock Ponds

A summary of the groundwater resources that could be affected by the proposed lease modifications 

and subsequent proposed mine project were described in Section 3.8.1.6 of the SFEIS. A summary of 

that discussion is provided as follows. Shallow groundwater resources in the proposed lease 

modification areas are limited due to geologic controls. The relatively steep terrain and stream profiles 

of drainages result in relatively thin alluvial/colluvial deposits which are confined in the bottom of 

drainages. Most groundwater that is expressed in seeps or springs is associated with these shallow 

alluvial/colluvial systems and is not hydrologically connected with deeper bedrock aquifers (USFS, 

2017a). There is not an approved definition for ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial springs in CDRMS’s 

approved coal rules or in Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Extrapolating the definition utilized 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 40

for streams, ephemeral springs would not exist because a spring is exclusively associated with the 

discharge of groundwater. Stock ponds are filled by natural surface water runoff or are fed by local 

seeps or springs (HydroGeo, 2016).

A spring/seep survey of the Sunset Trails area was completed in 2011, and added to the PAP as Exhibit 

19E with the approval of PR-15. MCC established one spring monitoring station and three stock pond 

monitoring stations in the proposed lease modification areas (HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019)

(Table 13 and Figure 5). MCC has not reported the installation of alluvial/colluvial monitoring wells in 

the proposed lease modification areas.

Table 13. Summary of Spring and Ponds Monitoring Stations

Station 

Name

Location Description Latitude 

(NAD 83)

Longitude 

(NAD 83)

Spring ST-S-1 1 mile upstream of the North Fork of South Prong Creek Station 38.847033 -107.434802

Pond ST-P-1 Headwaters of Unnamed Tributary to Lick Creek 38.848707 -107.424765

Pond ST-P-2 Upland area to the north of South Prong Creek 38.842051 -107.426975

Pond ST-P-3 Upland area to the north of South Prong Creek 38.841420 -107.424671

Source: (HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019)

Similar to the surface water monitoring stations, Spring ST-S-1 will be monitored for flow and water 

quality six times per year from April through September for at least five years. The three stock pond 

stations will be monitored for depth and water quality for these same six sampling events.

MCC reported instantaneous flow from Spring ST-S-1 of 0.2 gpm on July 19, 2018 and “seep” (zero gpm) 

for the August 29, 2018 and September 25, 2018 sampling dates (HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019). 

The water depth in Pond ST-P-1 was reported as 2 feet on August 29, 2018 and 0.91 feet on September 

25, 2018. No data were reported for the July 19, 2018 sampling date. Pond ST-P-2 was reported as “dry”

for all three sampling dates. Pond ST-P-3 was reported as “damp” for the July 29, 2018 and August 29, 

2018 sampling dates. This pond was reported as “dry” on September 25, 2018. Data have not been 

reported for the 2019 water year which ended September 30, 2019. Monitoring of these stations is 

ongoing and future instantaneous flow measurements on Spring ST-S-1 and the three stock ponds will 

assist in documenting annual flow regimes and water quality during ice-free periods and would be used 

to monitor potential impacts to these water resources from future mining and subsidence.

3.4.1.3 Water Quality

Water quality in the North Fork of the Gunnison River is considered suitable for a variety of uses with 

relatively low concentrations of total dissolved solids, nitrate, nitrite, and metals (USFS, 2017a). Water is 

considered of the calcium-bicarbonate type. Water quality monitoring for the West Elk Mine has shown 

little variation by season except for a general increase in total suspended solids and sediment load 

associated with spring runoff (USFS, 2017a). Impacts to the overall water quality of the North Fork and

Gunnison River from previous and current mining activities have been minor or negligible (USFS, 2017a).

Reported water quality for the 4 stream stations, 3 pond stations, and the spring station that were 

established in July 2018 show similar water quality that has been reported for other West Elk Mine 

monitoring stations. Water quality is of the calcium-bicarbonate type and is generally low in total 

dissolved solids and conductivity, nitrate and nitrite, and metals (HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019). 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 41

Monitoring of these stations is ongoing and future water quality measurements on these monitoring 

stations would be used to monitor potential water impacts from future mining and subsidence.

3.4.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

3.4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Subsidence

Impacts from subsidence as a result of the proposed alternative are discussed in detail in Section 3.3.1.2 

of the SFEIS (USFS, 2017a). Primary impacts on water resources are changes in topography (via minor 

lowering of the land surface) and the potential propagation of tension fractures into colluvium, alluvium, 

and weathered bedrock. Projected subsidence associated with authorizing the lease modifications and 

subsequent mining under the proposed action is expected to affect a maximum of about 1,077 acres, 

including approximately 618 acres on lease modification COC-1362 and approximately 103 acres on 

lease modification COC-67232, as well as approximately 357 acres of adjacent private lands and federal 

lands made accessible via the lease modifications (USFS, 2017a).

Past observations at the West Elk Mine have shown that impacts associated with surface tension cracks 

from subsidence are more prevalent on ridges and steeper slopes with outcrop areas that are generally 

associated with brittle bedrock (USFS, 2017a). Subsidence cracks that develop in alluvium or colluvium 

tend to self-heal due to sloughing and natural filling by soil material. Subsidence could affect surface 

water channels and basins and increase rates of erosion from changes in topography and erosion of 

channel substrates via cutting or lateral movement because of localized changes in the channel gradient. 

Soil erosion within drainage basins and channel substrates and resultant sediment loading may be 

increased until ground movements and a change in the local topography associated with subsidence 

stabilizes. These impacts would be considered minor and short-term, lasting a few years after the 

subsidence occurred. Channel gradient and substrate changes would be considered permanent but 

would have minimal long-term impact on channel geomorphology and function (Wright Water 

Engineers, Inc., 2018). These impacts would not be expected to affect the overall hydrologic balance of 

the North Fork of Gunnison River watershed; no indirect impacts would be expected (Wright Water 

Engineers, Inc., 2018). However, under the existing Subsidence Control Plan associated with the CMDRS 

permit, MCC would design and apply mitigation efforts, as needed, if stream channels are impacted by 

subsidence to ensure that flow continues in the channel.

Subsidence and the propagation of fracture cracks have the potential to affect spring and seep flow in

the lease modification areas. As discussed, most groundwater that is expressed as seeps or springs are 

associated with shallow alluvial/colluvial systems that are not hydrologically connected with deeper 

bedrock aquifers. While changes in topography may alter spring locations a few feet either vertically, 

horizontally, or both, long-term changes in spring flow would not be expected if the shallow aquifer 

(alluvium/colluvium) would be minor.

Flows in many area springs has been reduced due to drought conditions since 2000 (USFS, 2017a; 

HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019). However, observation of spring flow hydrographs from previously 

mined areas at the West Elk Mine suggest that the flow in some springs have been directly affected by 

mining and subsidence (HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019), rather than climate. This suggests that the 

alluvium or colluvium associated with these springs has been substantially affected by mining and 

subsidence. Similar impacts could occur to some springs in the proposed lease modification area. These 

impacts would be expected to be long-term but minor because of the small flow volumes and possible 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 42

seasonal flows. Impacts would likely be local to specific springs that are directly disrupted by subsidence 

cracks and do not recover or heal over time. No indirect impacts to the overall water balance of the 

watershed would be expected. As previously noted, MCC has established a monitoring station (Spring 

ST-S-1) which exhibited intermittent flows in 2018.

Subsidence could affect stock water ponds if cracks directly affect a localized feeder ditch or spring. As 

discussed in Section 3.8.3.1 of the SFEIS, effects would likely be mitigated by the self-healing 

characteristics of the underlying soil or alluvium. These impacts would be minor and short-term. 

Damage to stock ponds or their related drainages could be readily repaired (USFS, 2017a). 

Impacts on stream or spring water quality are not expected from mining activities or subsidence in the 

proposed lease modification areas. Historic monitoring of spring and surface water quality in active 

mining areas has shown some slightly elevated concentrations of dissolved solids and suspended solids

but these values have been attributed to seasonal variations in climate and drought conditions and not 

related to mining (HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019).

Section 3.8.1.7 of the SFEIS noted some potential impacts on groundwater quality based on effects 

observed from other mines in the region. However, only minor changes to observed groundwater 

quality has been historically observed at the West Elk Mine. These changes were noted as likely caused 

by increased sedimentation in the wells and not associated with mining activities (HydroGeology 

Solutions, Inc., 2019). For this reason, no impacts on groundwater quality would be expected from 

mining activities and subsidence in the proposed lease modification areas.

Methane Emission Control System

The addition of the voluntary flaring of methane to the proposed action does not change potential 

impacts on water resources due to land disturbance from those described in the 2017 SFEIS. The 

proposed methane flare system (truck trailer) would be located at least 30 feet from the MVB and the 

flare stack would be located at least 50 feet from the free vent stack. The assumption of 1 acre of 

disturbance for the drill pad and MVB in the SFEIS was conservative so no further analysis will be 

required and there would be no additional disturbance impacts.

If a diesel generator and fuel is stored on site, there is a potential for minor fuel spills; however, 

methods of containment and mitigation of spills would be outlined in the Spill Prevention Containment 

and Countermeasures Plan for the West Elk Mine. An update to this plan may be required by CDRMS as 

a part of final permitting. No discernable impacts to water resources would be expected from potential 

spills of petroleum-based products.

Section 3.8.3.1 in the SFEIS characterized the water usage for drilling as a water depletion from the 

National Forest for mining that would be minor (~4.5 acre-feet) and short-term.

3.4.3 Alternative 2: No Action

3.4.3.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no mining-induced effects on water resources in the 

modifications area. Current ongoing activities in the watershed as well as natural variation in spring, 

seep, and stream flow would continue to occur based on climatic variations and other USFS

management activities. The no action alternative would not cause additional disturbances and would 

have no effect on surface water, seeps and springs or groundwater.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 43

3.4.4 Alternative 3

3.4.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 3, impacts to water resources would be the same as those described for the Proposed 

Action. The Reasonably Foreseeable Mining Alternative described in the SFEIS indicated that MVBs 

would need to be established over the life of mining. Not all MVBs would be constructed at the same 

time so construction of drill pads and associated access roads would occur, be used, and reclaimed 

throughout the mine life. As described for the proposed action, implementation of the mobile methane 

flare system would not increase the area of disturbance and potential impacts to water resources from 

runoff and erosional processes above those previously analyzed in the SFEIS.

As in the Proposed Action, drilling the MVBs would result in a water depletion from NFS for mining that 

would be relatively minor (~4.5 acre-feet) and short-term.

3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts

Leasing and the subsequent mining of coal in the proposed lease modification areas would extend the 

life of the West Elk Mine by 2 years. Mining and associated subsidence would increase the regional area 

(total acreage) of potential and realized impacts to water resources as described in Section 3.4.2.1. 

However, the SFEIS (Section 3.8.5, page 164), indicates that current mining activities at the West Elk 

Mine have historically had no discernable effects to stream morphology, erosion rates, or suspended 

sediment loads. Subsidence induced impacts to the quantity and quality of water resources have 

historically been minimal (HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019). Further discussions of potential 

cumulative effects of the proposed action were provided in Section 3.8.5 of the SFEIS and are 

incorporated herein to this analysis.

3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

This analysis relies on the SFEIS, previous consultations with the USFWS and existing reports and 

documentations. OSMRE obtained a list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in the 

proposed project location, and/or may be affected by the proposed project on February 25, 2019 (USDI, 

2019). There were no changes to the species originally evaluated for this project. On December 9, 2019, 

USFWS confirmed that the consultation is current and no further consultation was necessary (USFWS, 

2019). A description of those species can be found in the SFEIS, Section 3.10. There is still only one 

federally listed species that has the potential to be found in the project area, the Canada lynx. There are 

four Colorado River fish that occur downstream in the watershed: Colorado pikeminnow, razorback 

sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail chub. Fish surveys conducted by the USFS in November 2019

determined that there were no fish present in South Prong Creek and that the habitat would not 

support overwintering fish (Woody, 2019). Greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia stomias) is 

identified on the IPAC lists. There is no critical habitat identified for greenback cutthroat and no suitable 

habitat (perennial streams of sufficient flow and gradient to support for over-wintering) within the 

action area. Other nearby populations of greenback cutthroat trout are in Hoodoo Creek and cannot be 

affected by mining in the Lease Modifications (see SFEIS, page 832) (USFS, 2017a).

None of these fish exist in the project area; however, they do occur downstream and designated critical

habitat does occur off-site in the lower Gunnison River and the Colorado River.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 44

3.5.1 Affected Environment

There is no change to the affected area previously analyzed for Canada lynx - the Mount Gunnison Lynx 

Analysis Unit. A full description of the affected environment and environmental baseline can be found in 

Section 3.10.1.2 of the SFEIS, including listing status, forest plan direction, acres of suitable habitat 

(SFEIS Table 3-26), breeding habitat, tolerance of human activities, risks, core areas, critical habitat, and 

habitat conditions. The affected environment for the Colorado River fish includes the project area as 

well as the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers downstream.

3.5.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

3.5.2.1 Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

The addition of voluntary flaring of methane to the Alternative 3 analyzed in the SFEIS would not change 

any of the surface impacts analyzed in Section 3.10.1.4. Flaring of methane would not have any known 

impacts on Canada lynx. The direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action include both the 

subsidence of surface topography and the installation of MVBs and roads, totaling 1,221 acres of lynx 

habitat within the Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU). Because the lease modification was approved with the 

following stipulation for Canada lynx “Winter access will be limited to designated routes,” (Section 

2.2.2.1 of the SFEIS), winter access (snowmobile) for operation and maintenance of the methane 

emissions control system (potential need to ignite the flare) has been addressed. The direct and indirect 

effects are described on pages 189-191 of the SFEIS. The addition of voluntary flaring would not result in 

any additional effects.

For the four Colorado River fish, the proposed action analyzed in the SFEIS (Appendix A, Criterion 9, 

page 542), implementation of the proposed action in this analysis is expected to result in depletions of 

4.5 acre-feet of water (SFEIS, Table 2-6, page 68). These impacts would only occur during the drilling of 

the MVBs and are expected to be short-term. The addition of voluntary flaring would not result in any 

additional effects.

3.5.3 Alternative 2: No Action

3.5.3.1 Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

There is no change to the analysis of direct and indirect effects of the no action alternative on the 

Canada lynx. In summary, the direct and indirect effects of the no action alternative would not change 

current habitat or population conditions of the Canada lynx in the short term. Long-term changes would 

continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetation types, and other 

actions within the project area. The full analysis can be found in Section 3.10.1.3 of the SFEIS.

There is no change to the analysis of direct and indirect effects of the no action alternative on the four 

Colorado River fish or their designated critical habitat. The no action alternative would not result in any 

additional water depletions.

3.5.4 Alternative 3

3.5.4.1 Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

For the Canada lynx, Alternative 3 in this analysis remains the same as Alternative 3 analyzed in the 

SFEIS (Section 3.10.1.3, pages 189-191). In summary, effects to lynx would come about by both 

subsidence of surface topography that may result in landslides and other surface changes in addition to 

the installation of MVBs and associated roads. These disturbances total a maximum of 1,221 acres of 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 45

lynx habitat within the LAU. There are no changes to direct or indirect effects to the Canada lynx. A full 

description of the impacts associated with this alternative can be found in the SFEIS. 

For the four Colorado River fish, the proposed action analyzed in the SFEIS (Appendix A, Criterion 9, 

page 542), implementation of Alternative 3 is expected to result in depletions of 4.5 acre-feet of water 

(SFEIS, Table 2-6, page 68). These impacts would only occur during the drilling of the MVBs and are 

expected to be short-term.

3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative Effects under NEPA

There is no change to the cumulative effects addressed in the SFEIS, Section 3.10.1.6, pages 191-192.

Cumulative Effects under ESA

There is no change to the cumulative effects addressed in the SFEIS, Section 3.10.1.6, page 193.

3.5.6 Determination

There is no change to the “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” Canada lynx determination 

made in the previous consultation. There is no change to the “may affect and is likely to adversely 

affect” the bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, the humpback chub, and the razorback sucker and the “may 

affect and is likely to adversely affect” designated critical habitat for these fish species downstream. A 

letter was sent to the USFWS on November 19, 2019, confirmation was received on December 9, 2019 

(USFWS, 2019).

3.6 Migratory Birds, Birds of Conservation Concern, and Raptors

In compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Acts, the SFEIS 

considered the impacts of modifying coal leases on migratory birds, bird species of conservation concern 

in the Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau region, and Land Bird Conservation Plan created by the 

Colorado Partners in Flight (Section 3.14, pages 226-228). This analysis will also address raptors because 

of the addition of voluntary flaring to the proposed action.

3.6.1 Affected Environment

Potential habitat for birds in the lease modification area is limited because of the high elevation which 

places much of the area above many habitat types. The SFEIS reports that according to literature and 

local data, there is breeding habitat for the golden eagle, flammulated owl, Williamson’s sapsucker, and 

Virginia’s warbler in the analysis area. Surveys conducted by Western Biology in spring and early 

summer 2019 encountered Cooper’s and red-tailed hawks in addition to a number of migratory birds 

(Western, 2019). Active nests were located for Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, and common raven.

3.6.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

3.6.2.1 Direct Effects and Indirect Effect

The proposed action in this analysis is the same as the proposed action considered in the SFEIS with the 

addition of voluntary flaring of liberated methane from MVBs. The addition of voluntary flaring of 

methane does not change any of the surface impacts analyzed previously in Section 3.14.3 of the SFEIS. 

Post-lease development has the potential to alter up to 75 acres of bird habitat in the short term 

associated with the installation of the MVBs and associated roads while exploration for coal has the 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 46

potential to impact an additional 22.7 acres of habitat. These effects have the potential to impact 

individual birds, especially passerines and other birds which utilize aspen, spruce-fir, and oak for nesting.

The addition of voluntary flaring of methane from the MVBs could create additional impacts for 

migratory birds, bird species of conservation concern, and especially raptors beyond those analyzed in 

the SFEIS. Methane flaring is commonly used in association with oil and gas development and solid 

waste landfill operations. While there is still little in the way of systematic analysis of impacts from these 

facilities, there is anecdotal evidence of impacts on birds. 

Safety controls that would automatically shut off the mobile flare should certain thresholds be reached 

(described in detail in Section 2.3.2) mean that operation of the flare could be intermittent. MCC 

estimates that the flares would operate 95 percent of the time. Birds could be badly burned or killed 

should they attempt to perch on the operating flare stack (KCWC and EDM, 2013). Raptors in particular 

seek elevated structures from which to perch and hunt, and the 33-feet flare stack described in Chapter 

2 would likely be an attractive perch.

In addition to potential impacts to birds that might perch on the flare stack, there has also been at least 

one documented occurrence of migrating songbirds flying into or near a gas flare at a liquid natural gas 

processing facility in New Brunswick, Canada, and being injured or killed (Mandel, 2013). Methane flares 

can burn at 1,700° Fahrenheit and flames would not be visible due to enclosure (KCWC and EDM, 2013). 

The 2013 incident in New Brunswick is not well understood (Mandel, 2013). 

There is the potential for effects to migratory birds, bird species of conservation concern, and raptors 

associated with the proposed action. Indirect effects to birds include alteration to habitat, up to 100 

acres, in the analysis area from clearing trees and vegetation for the drill pads. This has the potential to 

impact individual birds in the short term, particularly those that utilize aspen, spruce-fir, and oak for 

nesting. Once the MVBs are no longer needed, the areas will be reclaimed (as described in the SFEIS, 

Section 3.3.2.2, page 90) and vegetative succession will proceed. Direct effects could include injury or 

death to individual birds during the short-term operation of the flare but with the installation of the 

perch deflectors’ impacts would be moderate. There would not be long-term direct effects to birds 

associated with the proposed action.

3.6.3 Alternative 2: No Action

3.6.3.1 Direct Effects and Indirect Effect

There is no change to the analysis of direct and indirect effects of the no action alternative on migratory 

birds, BOCC, or raptors as presented in the SFEIS (page 227). In summary, the direct and indirect effects 

of the no action alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of any of the bird 

species in the short term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, 

current succession of vegetation types, and other actions within the project area. The full analysis can 

be found in Section 3.14.2 of the SFEIS.

3.6.4 Alternative 3

3.6.4.1 Direct Effects and Indirect Effect

There are no changes to the direct or indirect effects associated with Alternative 3, which was presented 

as the proposed action in the SFEIS (Section 3.14.3, pages 227-228). In summary, leasing was not 

expected to have any effect to birds analyzed, and post-lease development has the potential to impact 

bird species analyzed. Stipulations in the lease require breeding bird surveys and include timing 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 47

restrictions where needed for specific species. The SFEIS found that there would be some alteration of 

up to 75 acres of bird habitat in the short term associated with the installation of the MVBs and 

associated roads. This was expected to impact individual migratory birds, especially passerines and 

other birds which utilize aspen, spruce-fir, and oak for nesting. Exploration for coal was anticipated to 

impact 22.7 acres of habitat. The complete analysis can be found in Section 3.14.3).

3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts

There is no change to the cumulative effects analysis presented in the SFEIS (Section 3.14.5, page 228). 

Natural processes and management activities in the vicinity of the analysis area will continue to impact 

migratory birds wherever removal or habitat conversions occur. Cumulative effects would be minor.

Chapter 4 Coordination and Consultation

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 49

Chapter 4 Coordination and Consultation

4.1 Agencies and People Consulted

The following agencies and people were consulted in the preparation of this EA.

• USFS – Levi Broyles, Niccole Mortenson

• BLM – Amy Carmichael, Doug Siple, Christina Stark, Forrest Cook

• CDRMS – Leigh Simmons, Jason Musick, James Stark

• USFWS – J. Creed Clayton

• Colorado State Historic Preservation Office – Steve Turner and Lindsay Johansson 

• Tribes - Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Comanche Nation 

of Oklahoma, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Crow Nation, Eastern Shoshone Tribe (Wind River 

Reservation), Fort Sill Apache Tribe, The Hopi Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Kewa Pueblo, Kiowa 

Tribe of Oklahoma, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Navajo Nation, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Ohkay Owingeh (Pueblo of San Juan), Osage Nation, Paiute 

Indian Tribe of Utah, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo de Cochiti, Pueblo of 

Isleta, Pueblo of Jemez, Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of San 

Felipe, Pueblo of San Ildefonso, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Santa Ana, Pueblo of Santa Clara, 

Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo of Tesuque, Pueblo of Zia, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, San Juan Southern Paiute 

Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Three 

Affiliated Tribes, Ute Indian Tribe (Uintah & Ouray Reservation), Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Wichita 

& Affiliated Tribes, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation.

4.2 Preparers and Participants

The following people prepared this EA or provided important oversight and review.

• Gretchen Pinkham, OSMRE, Natural Resource Specialist. Project Lead.

• Ed Vasquez, Ph. D., OSMRE, Ecologist, Section 7 Lead.

• Flynn Dickinson, OSMRE, Hydrologist.

• Jeremy Iliff, OSMRE, Archaeologist, Section 106 Lead.

• Cameo Flood, Tetra Tech, Inc., Senior NEPA Project Manager. Alternatives descriptions, NEPA 

review.

• Kristin McClure, Tetra Tech, Inc. Environmental Engineer. Air and Climate impacts, Cumulative 

Effects.

• Timothy Reeves, Tetra Tech, Inc., Principal Hydrologist/Water Quality Specialist. Water Quality and 

Quantity impacts

• Sarah Beck, Tetra Tech, Inc. Wildlife and Fish Biologist. Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Migratory Birds, Birds of Conservation Concern and Raptors impacts.

References

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 51

Chapter 5 References

Air Resources Board, 2014. California Air Resources Board Compliance Offset Protocol Mine Methane 

Capture Project. Available at: 

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2013/capandtrade13/ctmmcprotocol.pdf [Accessed 12 

December 2019].

BLM, 2012. Record of Decision for the Federal Coal Lease Modification COC-1362 and COC-67232 for the 

West Elk Mine Near Somerset, CO. Available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/nepa/77898/104247/127815/COC1362_ROD_DOI-BLM-CO-SO50-2012-

0013_122712.pdf [Accessed 26 November 2019].

BLM, 2013a. Sunset Trail Area Coal Exploration Plan Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-CO-S050-2013-

0027 EA. Available at: 

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/

www/nepa/68608_FSPLT3_2868105.pdf [Accessed 26 November 2019].

BLM, 2013b. Sunset Trail Area Coal Exploration Plan Decision Record, Montrose, Colorado: USDOI 

Bureau of Land Management, Uncompahgre Field Office.

BLM, 2016. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Bull Mountain Unit Master Development Plan 

Volume I, Montrose, CO: BLM.

BLM, 2017. Record of Decision. DOI-BLM-CO-Sofo-2016-0042-EIS. United States Forest Service 

Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) for Federal Coal Lease 

Modifications COC-1362 & COC-67232 (including on-lease exploration plan). Available at: 

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/nepa/94746/127905/155605/West_Elk_ROD_-

_Signed_by_ASLM_12.15.2017.pdf [Accessed 26 November 2019].

BLM, 2019. Permit Boundary Expansion - Proposed Mine Revision 439 to add Mobile Flares on Mine 

Ventilation Borehole Sites (MVBS) - West Elk Mine - PN C-1980-007 - PR-15. Montrose, CO: 

Bureau of Land Management, Uncompahgre Field Office.

CDPHE APCD, 2010. Colorado Environmental Records. Available at: 

https://environmentalrecords.colorado.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/Record?q=recContent%3a09

GU1382%2bAnd%2b%28recOwner%3d9%29&sortBy=&pageSize=15&start=16 [Accessed 2 

December 2019].

CDPHE APCD, 2016. Colorado Environmental Records. Available at: 

https://environmentalrecords.colorado.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/Record?q=recContent%3A1

3GU1462%2BAnd%2B%28recOwner%3D9%29&sortBy= [Accessed 2 December 2019].

CDPHE, 2019. CDPHE Colorado Environmental Records. Available at: 

https://environmentalrecords.colorado.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/Record?q=containerEx:1067

5 [Accessed 11 December 2019].

CDRMS, 2018. Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, Mountain Coal Company, LLC File No. C1980-007, Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, 

Mining and Safety.
References

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 52

EPA, 2016. Potential to Emit Calculator for Engines. Available at: 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-

07/engines_ci_pte_calculator_version_1.0_0.xlsx [Accessed 11 12 2019].

HydroGeo, 2016. Exhibit 71 Hydrologic characterizations of the South of the Divide/Dry Fork Lease Areas 

and Hydrologic monitoring plans for Mountain Coal Company, LLC., Crested Butte, CO: 

HydroGeo, Inc. Surface and Groundwater Hydrology.

HydroGeology Solutions, Inc., 2019. Technical Memo, West Elk Mine, Summary of Water Year 2018 

Surface Water and Groundwater Quantity and Quality Data. June, Crawford.CO: 

Hydrogeology Solutions, Inc.

KCWC and EDM, 2013. Methane burner impacts on raptors. Available at: 

https://www.keepingcompanywithkestrels.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/MethaneBurner-Impacts-on-Raptors.pdf [Accessed 2019].

Mandel, J., 2013. Gas flare draws thousands of birds to their deaths, and ignites questions. Available at: 

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1059988683 [Accessed 2019].

OSMRE, 2018. Worksheet NEPA Adequacy Review Form. Mining Plan Modification for West Elk Mine 

Federal Coal Lease Modifications COC-1362 and COC-67323. Available at: 

https://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/westElkMine/adoption/documents/190315_West_

Elk_Mine_NEPA_Adequacy_Review_Form.pdf [Accessed 23 November 2019].

OSMRE, 2019a. Handbook on Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Available at: https://www.osmre.gov/LRG/docs/directive995_NEPAHandbook.pdf [Accessed 

21 November 2019].

OSMRE, 2019b. Record of Decision. Federal Coal Lease Modification COC-1362 & COC-67232. Available 

at: 

https://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/westElkMine/adoption/documents/190315_West_

Elk_Mine_Record_of_Decision.pdf [Accessed 23 November 2019].

Ramboll Environ, 2017. Colorado Air Resource Management Modeling Study (CARMMS) - CARMMS 2.0 

Final Report. Available at: https://www.blm.gov/download/file/fid/22876 [Accessed 11 

December 2019].

Tetra Tech, 2018. West Elk Mine Updated Methane Management Alternatives Evaluation, Englewood, 

CO: Tetra Tech, Inc.

United Nations, 2016. Best Practice Guidelines for Effective Methane Drainage and Use in Coal Mines. 

Second edition. Available at: 

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/cmm/docs/BPG_2017.pdf [Accessed 23 

November 2019].

US EIA, 2019. Annual Coal Report 2018, Washington, DC: US Energy Information Administration.

Available at: https://www.eia.gov/coal/markets/ [Accessed 12 December 2019].

USEPA, 2017. US EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Understanding Global Warming Potentials. Available 

at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials [Accessed 

25 November 2019].
References

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 53

USEPA, 2019. AQS Data Mart. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data [Accessed 12 

December 2019].

USFS, 2010. Biological Assessment for Federal Coal Lease Modifications COC-1362 & COC-67232, 

Gunnison County, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and 

Gunnison National Forests, Paonia Ranger District.

USFS, 2012a. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Federal Coal Lease Modifications COC-1362 & COC67232., Gunnison County, Colorado: USDA Forest Service.

USFS, 2012b. Record of Decision. Federal Coal Lease Modifications COC-1362 & COC-67232. Available 

at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/68608_FSPLT2_264087.pdf [Accessed 

26 November 2019].

USFS, 2017a. Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement. Federal Coal Lease Modifications 

COC-1362 & COC-67232 (including on-lease exploration plan). Available at: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/68608_FSPLT3_4051445.pdf [Accessed 21 

November 2019].

USFS, 2017b. Final Record of Decision. Federal Coal Lease Modifications COC-1362 & COC-67232. 

Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/68608_FSPLT3_4111330.pdf

[Accessed 26 November 2019].

USFWS, 2019. West Elk EA -- Section 7 Consultation Review by 12/5. Email from J. Creek Clayton 

(USFWS) to Gretchen Pinkham (OSMRE). Grand Junction, CO: US Fish and Wildlife Service.

West Elk Mine, 2019a. Plan to address a methane flare system submitted to Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Somerset, CO: Mountain Coal Company.

West Elk Mine, 2019b. Fire Prevention and Protection Plan for Mine Ventilation Borehole Drilling and 

Flaring Operations, Somerset, CO: Mountain Coal Company, LLC.

Woody, M., 2019. Sunset Trail Lease Mod - Email. Delta, CO: USFS.

Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 2018. Exhibit 55B Stream Channel Parameters and Changes due to MiningInduced Subsidence, Revised, Glenwood Springs, CO: Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 A-1

Appendix A Plan to Address a Methane Flare System
Appendix A Plan to Address a Methane Flare System

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 A-1
Appendix A Plan to Address a Methane Flare System

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 A-2
Appendix A Plan to Address a Methane Flare System

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 A-3
Appendix A Plan to Address a Methane Flare System

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 A-4
Appendix A Plan to Address a Methane Flare System

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 A-5
Appendix A Plan to Address a Methane Flare System

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 A-6
Appendix B

Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-1

Table B- 1. USFS Lease Stipulations for Protection of Non-Mineral (Surface) Resources

Resource Area Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Specific to Lease 

Modifications

Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

The USFS is responsible for assuring that the 

leased lands are examined to determine if 

cultural resources are present and to specify 

mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any 

surface-disturbing activities on the lands 

covered by this lease, the lessee or operator,

unless notified to the contrary by the USFS, 

shall:

• Contact the USFS to determine if a site 

specific cultural resource inventory is 

required. If a survey is required then:

• Engage the services of a cultural resource 

specialist acceptable to the USFS to conduct 

a cultural resource inventory of the area of 

proposed surface disturbance. The 

operator may elect to inventory an area 

larger than the area of proposed 

disturbance to cover possible site 

relocation which may result from 

environmental or other considerations. An 

acceptable inventory report is to be 

submitted to the USFS for review and 

approval at the time a surface disturbing 

plan of operation is submitted.

• Implement mitigation measures required 

by the USFS and BLM to preserve or avoid 

destruction of cultural resource values. 

Mitigation may include relocation of 

proposed facilities, testing, salvage, and 

recordation or other protective measures. 

All costs of the inventory and mitigation will 

be borne by the lessee oroperator, and all 

The USFS is responsible for assuring that the 

leased lands are examined to determine if 

cultural resources are present and to specify 

mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any 

surface-disturbing activities on the lands 

covered by this lease, the lessee or operator, 

unless notified to the contrary by the USFS, 

shall:

• Contact the USFS to determine if a site 

specific cultural resource inventory is 

required. If asurvey is required then:

• Engage the services of a cultural resource 

specialist acceptable to the USFS to conduct 

a cultural resource inventory of the area of 

proposed surface disturbance. The 

operator may elect to inventory an area 

larger than the area of proposed 

disturbance to cover possible site 

relocation which may result from 

environmental or other considerations. An 

acceptable inventory report is to be 

submitted to the USFS for review and 

approval at the time a surface disturbing 

plan of operation is submitted.

• Implement mitigation measures required 

by the USFS and BLM to preserve or avoid 

destruction of cultural resource values. 

Mitigation may include relocation of 

proposed facilities, testing, salvage, and 

recordation or other protective measures. 

All costs of the inventory and mitigation will 

be borne by the lessee oroperator, and all 

Use language from parent leases 

(required Standard Notice for Lands 

under the Jurisdiction of the 

Department of Agriculture.)
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-2

Resource Area Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Specific to Lease 

Modifications

data and materials salvaged will remain 

under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

Government as appropriate.

• The lessee or operator shall immediately 

bring to the attention of the USFS and BLM

any cultural or paleontological resources or 

any other objects of scientific interest 

discovered as a result of surfaceoperations 

under this license, and shall leave such 

discoveries intact until directed to proceed 

by USFS and BLM.

data and materials salvaged will remain 

under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

Government as appropriate.

• The lessee or operator shall immediately 

bring to the attention of the USFS and BLM

any cultural or paleontological resources or 

any other objects of scientific interest 

discovered as a result of surfaceoperations 

under this license, and shall leave such 

discoveries intact until directed to proceed 

by USFS and BLM

Endangered or 

Threatened 

Species

The USFS is responsible for assuring that the 

leased land is examined prior to undertaking 

any surface-disturbing activities to determine 

effects upon any plant or animal species listed 

or proposed for listing as endangered or 

threatened, or their habitats. The findings of 

this examination may result in some 

restrictions to the operator's plans or even 

disallow use and occupancy that would be in 

violation of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 by detrimentally affecting endangered or 

threatened species or their habitats. 

The lessee/operator may, unless notified by 

the USFS that the examination is not necessary, 

conduct the examination on the leased lands at 

his discretion and cost. This examination must 

be done by or under the supervision of a 

qualified resource specialist approved by the 

USFS. An acceptable report must be provided 

to the USFS identifying the anticipated effects 

of a Proposed Action on endangered or 

threatened species or their habitats.

The USFS is responsible for assuring that the 

leased land is examined prior to undertaking 

any surface-disturbing activities to determine 

effects upon any plant or animal species listed 

or proposed for listing as endangered or 

threatened, or their habitats. The findings of 

this examination may result in some 

restrictions to the operator's plans or even 

disallow use and occupancy that would be in 

violation of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 by detrimentally affecting endangered or 

threatened species or their habitats. 

The lessee/operator may, unless notified by 

the USFS that the examination is not necessary, 

conduct the examination on the leased lands at 

his discretion and cost. This examination must 

be done by or under the supervision of a 

qualified resource specialist approved by the 

USFS. An acceptable report must be provided 

to the USFS identifying the anticipated effects 

of a Proposed Action on endangered or 

threatened species or their habitats.

Use language from parent leases, 

required Standard Notice for Lands 

under the Jurisdiction of the 

Department of Agriculture.
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-3

Resource Area Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Specific to Lease 

Modifications

If there is reason to believe that USFS Sensitive 

species, Threatenedor Endangered species of

plants or animals, or migratory bird species of 

high Federal interest are present, or become 

present in the lease area, the Lessee/Operator 

shall be required to conduct an intensive field 

inventory of the area to be disturbed and/or 

impacted. The inventory shall include species 

or groups of species identified by the USFS, and 

will be conducted to by a qualified specialist. A 

report of findings will be prepared and 

provided to the USFS. A plan will be made that 

recommends protection for these species or 

action necessary to mitigate the disturbance

consistent with the Forest Plan. The cost of 

conducting such

inventory, preparing reports 

and carrying out mitigation measures shall be 

borne by the Lessee/Operator.

Ifthere isreason to believe that Sensitive, 

Threatened or Endangered species of plants or 

animals, or migratory bird species of high 

Federal interest are present, or become 

present in the lease area, the Lessee/Operator 

shall be required to conduct an intensive field 

inventory of the area to be disturbed and/or 

impacted. The inventory shall be conducted by

a qualified specialist, and a report of findings 

prepared. A plan willbe made that 

recommends protection for these species or 

action necessary to mitigate the disturbance. 

The cost of conducting such inventory, 

preparing reports and carrying out mitigation 

measures shall be borne by the 

Lessee/Operator.

Use language from parent leases, 

required Standard Notice for Lands 

under the Jurisdiction of the 

Department of Agriculture.

Canada Lynx To comply with the USDA USFS Conservation 

Agreement with US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), to follow the conservation measures 

in the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment 

and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000), the 

following special constraints will apply if 

surface use on the lease is proposed in lynx 

habitat: 

• Winter access will be limited to designated 

routes.

• Further, should surface disturbing 

operations be proposed on the lease in lynx 

habitat, the following special constraints 

may apply, depending on site-specific 

To comply with the Canada Lynx Assessment 

and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000), the 

following special constraints will apply if postlease surface use is proposed in lynx habitat: 

• Winter access will be limited to designated 

routes. 

Further, should post-lease operations be

proposed on the lease in lynx habitat, the 

following special constraints may apply,

depending on site-specific circumstances: 

• Remote monitoring of the development 

sites and facilities may be required to

reduce snow compaction.

• A reclamation plan (e.g. road reclamation 

To comply with the GMUGForest Plan 

2008 amendment, the following special

constraints will apply ifsurface use on 

the lease is proposed in lynx habitat: 

• Winter access will be limited to 

designated routes. 

Further, should surface disturbing 

operations be proposed on the lease in 

lynx habitat, the following special 

constraints will apply: 

• Remote monitoring of the 

development sites and facilities will 

be required to reduce snow

compaction.
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-4

Resource Area Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Specific to Lease 

Modifications

circumstances:

• Remote monitoring of the development 

sites and facilities may be required to

reduce snow compaction.

• A reclamation plan (e.g. road reclamation 

and vegetation rehabilitation) for sites and 

facilities that promotes the restoration of 

lynx habitat may be required.

• Public motorized use on new roads 

constructed for project- specific purposes 

will be restricted.

• Access roads will be designed to provide for 

effective closures and will be reclaimed or 

decommissioned at project completion if 

they are no longer needed for other 

management objectives.

• New permanent roads will not be built on 

ridge tops or in saddles, orin areas

identified as important for lynx habitat 

connectivity. New roads will be situated 

away from forested stringers.

and vegetation rehabilitation) for sites and 

facilities that promotes the restoration of 

lynx habitat may be required.

• Public motorized use on new roads 

constructed for project- specific purposes 

will be restricted.

• Access roads will be designed to provide for 

effective closures and will be reclaimed or 

decommissioned at project completion if 

they are no longer needed for other 

management objectives.

• New permanent roads will not be built on 

ridge tops or in saddles, orin areas

identified as important for lynx habitat 

connectivity. New roads will be situated 

away from forested stringers.

• If post lease surface use occurs in lynx 

habitat, the Lessee will be required to 

submit an annual report to the USFS and 

USFWS of allactivities having

• occurred in lynx habitat.

• A reclamation plan (e.g.road 

reclamation and vegetation 

rehabilitation) for sites and facilities 

that promotes the restoration of 

lynx habitatwill be required.

• Public motorized use on new roads 

constructed for project-specific 

purposes will be restricted.

• Access roads will be designed to 

provide for effective closures and 

will be reclaimed or

• decommissioned at project 

completion if they are no longer 

needed for other management 

objectives.

• New permanent roads will not be 

built on ridge tops or in saddles, if 

possible, or in areas identified as 

important for lynx habitat 

connectivity. New roads will be 

situated away from forested

stringers, if possible.

Raptors For raptors (except American kestrel)the 

Lessee will be required to:

• Conduct surveys for nesting raptors on the 

lease prior to development of any surface 

facilities, and

• No surface activities will be allowed within 

1⁄4 mile radius of active nest sites between 

the dates of February 1 and August 15, 

unless authorized by the USFS on asitespecific basis.

For raptors (except American kestrel)the 

Lessee will be required to:

• Conduct surveys for nesting raptors on the 

lease prior to development of any surface 

facilities, and

• No surface activities will be allowed within 

1⁄2-mile radius of active nest sites between 

the dates of February 1 and August 15, 

unless authorized by the USFS on asitespecific basis.

Use combined language from COC67232 and COC-1362 which reflects 

Forest Plan standards as well as 

guidelines from the Biological 

Evaluation for this project:

• Conduct surveys for nesting raptors 

on the lease prior to development 

of any surface facilities, and

• No surface activities will be allowed 

within 1⁄2-mile radius of active nest 

sites between the dates of February 
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-5

Resource Area Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Specific to Lease 

Modifications

• No surface activities will be allowed within 

1-mile radius of active bald eagle or 

peregrine falcon nest sites between the 

dates of February 1 and August 15, unless 

authorized by the USFS on a site-specific 

basis

1 and August 15, unless authorized 

by the USFS on a site-specific basis.

• No surface activities will be allowed 

within 1-mile radius of active bald 

eagle or peregrine falcon nest sites 

* between the dates of February 1 

and August 15, unless authorized by 

the USFS on a site-specific basis.

(* No bald eagle or peregrinefalcon 

nest site habitat has been identified 

within the lease modifications as 

indicated in the Biological Evaluation 

prepared for this

analysis.)

Big game winter 

range

In order to protect big game wintering areas, 

elk calving areas, and other key wildlife habitat 

and/or activities, specific surface use may be 

curtailed during specific times of year. Specific 

time restrictions for specific species will be 

evaluated by the USFS at the individual project 

stage, and any additional site specific 

conditions of use developed at that time.

In order to protect big game wintering areas, 

elk calving areas, and other key wildlife habitat 

and/or activities, specific surface use may be 

curtailed during specific times of year. Specific 

time restrictions for specific species will be 

evaluated by the USFS at the individual project 

stage, and any additional site specific 

conditions of use developed at that time.

Use language from parent leases.

Water 

depletions

In the future, if water to be used for mine 

related activities is taken from a source that is 

not considered to be non-tributary waters by 

the USFWS, or which exceeds a depletion 

amount previously consulted upon, the 

permitting agency must enter into consultation 

with the USFWS to determine appropriate 

conservation measures to offset effects to 

listed fish and critical habitat in the upper 

Colorado River Basin.

In the future, if water to be used for mine 

related activities is taken from a source that is 

not considered to be non-tributary waters by 

the USFWS, or which exceeds a depletion 

amount previously consulted upon, the 

permitting agency must enter into consultation 

with the USFWS to determine appropriate 

conservation measures to offset effects to 

listed fish and critical habitat in the upper 

Colorado River Basin.

Based on the CRR Section 7 

consultation effort for the CRR’s North 

Fork Coal Mining Area in 2016, the 

USFS took on the responsibility for 

reinitiating consultation if minor water 

depletion caps were exceeded. The 

USFS wants to ensure the lessee 

provides the necessary information 

from monitoring and reporting to 

determine if minor water depletion 

caps are exceeded, and, in the highly 
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-6

Resource Area Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Specific to Lease 

Modifications

unlikely event that the depletion caps 

were exceeded, the lessee would meet 

any additional conservation measures 

the USFWS might require. This updated 

stipulation provides clarification to the 

process that has been occurring on the 

parent leases regarding water 

depletion. Changes to stipulation are in 

italics. 

In the future, if water to be used for 

mine related activities is taken from a 

source that is not considered to be nontributary waters by the USFWS, or 

which exceeds a depletion amount 

previously consulted upon, the surface 

management agency must enter into 

consultation with the USFWS to 

determine appropriate conservation 

measures to offset effects to listed fish 

and critical habitat in the upper 

Colorado River Basin. The lessee shall 

monitor and report all depletions to the 

Forest Service. Notwithstanding the fact 

that the surface management agency 

has the obligation to consult, the Lessee 

has the obligation to comply with all 

appropriate conservation measures to 

offset effects to listed fish and critical 

habitat in the upper Colorado River 

Basin in the event the depletion 

threshold is exceeded and additional 

reasonable and prudent actions are 

required.

Breeding birds If surface disturbance is proposed on the lease, If surface disturbance is proposed on the lease, Use language from COC-1362 parent 
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-7

Resource Area Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Specific to Lease 

Modifications

the lessee/operators will be required to

conduct breeding bird surveys priorto surface

disturbance as prescribed by the USFS.

the lessee/operators will be required to

conduct breeding bird surveys prior to surface 

disturbance.

lease on both modifications.

Geologic 

hazards

No surface occupancy would be allowed in 

areas of high geologic hazard or high erosion 

potential, or on slopes which exceed 60%.

No surface occupancy would be allowed in 

areas of high geologic hazard or high erosion 

potential.

Use language from parent lease COC1362 on both modifications.

Special interdisciplinary team analysis and 

mitigation plans detailing construction and 

mitigation techniques would be required on

areas where slopes range from 40-60 percent. 

The interdisciplinary team could include 

engineers, soil scientist, hydrologist, landscape 

architect, reclamation specialist and mining

engineer.

Special interdisciplinary team analysis and 

mitigation plans detailing construction and 

mitigation techniques would be required on

areas where slopes range from 40-60 percent. 

The interdisciplinary team could include 

engineers, soil scientist, hydrologist, landscape 

architect, reclamation specialist and mining

engineer.

Use language from parent leases.

Baseline 

Information

The operator/lessee would be requiredto 

perform adequate baseline studies to quantify 

existing surface and subsurface resources. 

Existing data can be used for baseline analyses 

provided that the data is adequate to locate, 

quantify, and demonstrate interrelationships 

between geology, topography, hydrogeology, 

and hydrology. Baseline studies are critical to 

the success of future observation and 

assessment of mining related effects on 

resources.

The operator/lessee would be requiredto 

perform adequate baseline studies to quantify 

existing surface and subsurface resources. 

Existing data can be used for baseline analyses 

provided that the data is adequate to locate, 

quantify, and demonstrate interrelationships 

between geology, topography, hydrogeology, 

and hydrology. Baseline studies are critical to 

the success of future observation and 

assessment of mining related effects on 

resources in the Dry Fork lease tract.

Use language from parent leases.

Monitoring 

Program

The operator/lessee would be requiredto 

establish or amend a monitoringprogram to be 

used as a continuing record of change over 

time of area resources in order to assess 

mining induced impacts. The monitoring

program shall provide the procedures and 

methodologies to adequately assess 

interrelationships between geology, 

The operator/lessee of the lease tract would be 

required to establish or amend a monitoring 

program to be used as a continuing record of 

change over time of area resources in order to 

assess mining induced impacts. The monitoring 

program shall provide the procedures and 

methodologies to adequately assess

interrelationships between geology, 

Use language from parent leases.
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-8

Resource Area Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Specific to Lease 

Modifications

topography,

hydrogeology, and hydrology identifiedin the 

baseline assessment to mining activities on the 

lease area. The monitoring program shall 

incorporate baseline data so as to provide a 

continuing record over time.

topography, hydrogeology, and hydrology 

identified in the baseline assessment to mining 

activities in the lease tract area. The 

monitoring program shall incorporate baseline 

data so as to provide a continuing record over 

time.

Riparian, 

wetland or 

floodplain

Surface use or disturbances (except for surface 

subsidence and resource monitoring purposes 

defined in the approved mining permit) will 

avoid riparian, wetland or floodplain areas, and 

a buffer zone surrounding these areas (the 

definition of riparian areas and appropriate 

buffer zone will beconsistent with that defined 

in the USFS Manual and Water Conservation 

Practices Handbook. Wetland definition will 

follow Army Corps of Engineers guidelines) 

unless no practical alternatives exist.

Surface use or disturbances (except for surface 

subsidence and resource monitoring purposes 

defined in the approved mining permit) will not 

be permitted in riparian, wetland or floodplain 

areas, or within a buffer zone surrounding 

these areas (the definitionof riparian areas and 

appropriate buffer zone will be consistent with 

that defined in the USFS Manual and Water 

Conservation Practices Handbook. Wetland 

definition will follow Army Corps of Engineers 

guidelines) unless no practical alternatives

exist.

Use language from parent leases.

Subsidence If subsidence adversely affects surface 

resources in any way (including, but not limited 

to a documented water loss), the Lessee, at 

their expense will be responsible to: restore 

stream channels, stock ponds, protect stream 

flow with earthwork or temporary culverts, 

restore affected roads, or provide other 

measures to repair damage or replace any 

surface water and/or developed ground water 

source, stock pond, water conveyance facilities, 

with water from an alternate source in 

sufficient quantityand quality to maintain 

existing riparian habitat, livestock and wildlife

use, or other land uses as authorized by 36 CFR

251.

If subsidence adversely affects surface 

resources in any way (including, but not limited 

to a documented water loss), the Lessee, at 

their expense will be responsible to: restore 

stream channels, stock ponds, protect stream 

flow with earthwork or temporary culverts, 

restore affected roads, or provide other 

measures to repair damage or replace any 

surface water and/or developed ground water 

source, stock pond, water conveyance facilities, 

with water from an alternate source in 

sufficient quantityand quality to maintain 

existing riparian habitat, livestock and wildlife

use, or other land uses as authorized by 36 CFR

251.

Use language from parent leases.
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-9

Resource Area Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Specific to Lease 

Modifications

The Lessee/Operator shall be responsible for 

monitoring, repairing and/or mitigating 

subsidence effects on existing facilities under 

Special Use Permit with the USFS. Monitoring, 

repair and/or mitigation, if needed, would be 

performed at the Lessee’s expense. These 

requirements will be coordinated with the 

District Ranger and the Special Use Permittee.

The Lessee/Operator shall be requiredto 

perform the following with respect to 

monitoring, repairing and/or mitigating 

subsidence effects on existing facilities under 

Special Use Permit with theUSFS. Monitoring, 

repair and/or mitigation will be performed at 

the Lessee’s expense. The Lessee may request 

variations on timing for surveys, monitoring 

and reporting. Approving such requests would 

be at the discretion of the District Ranger. 

Baseline condition surveys of existing facilities 

will be completed the Fall following award of 

lease. Reports of this survey will be deliverable 

to the USFS by December 1 of that same year.

In consultation with the Special Use Permittee 

and the USFS, install equipment to monitor 

flow on water conveyance facilities during the 

Fall following award of lease. Flow monitoring 

shall commence the following spring and 

continue until one year post mining. Flow data 

shall be provided to the USFS annually by 

December 1.

A Surface Facility Monitoring and Mitigation

Plan (Plan) will be submitted to the USFS for 

review and approval not later than 12 months

prior to scheduled undermining. The Plan will 

detail measures to be taken to monitor, repair 

and mitigate subsidence effects of the facilities 

during actual mining and for one year.

As parent lease for COC-67232 deals 

specifically with an irrigation ditch on 

that lease, use language from COC1362 on both lease modifications.

Roadless The permittee/lessee must comply with all the 

rules and regulations of the Secretary of 

Agriculture set forth at Title 36, Chapter II, of 

the CFR governing the use and management of 

All or parts of the following lands encompassed 

in this lease are in the West Elk Inventoried 

Roadless Area and may be subject to 

restrictions on road- building pursuant to rules

On the following lands within the 

Sunset CRA, surface operations incident 

to underground coal mining are subject 

to regulations in 36 CFR 294, subpart D: 
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-10

Resource Area Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Specific to Lease 

Modifications

the NFS when not inconsistentwith the rights 

granted by the Secretary of Interior in the 

permit. The Secretary of Agriculture's rules and 

regulations must be complied with for (1) all 

use and occupancy of the NFS priorto approval

of an exploration plan by the Secretary of the 

Interior, (2) uses of all existing improvements, 

such as forest development roads, within and 

outside the area permitted by the Secretary of

the Interior, and (3) use and occupancy ofthe 

NFS not authorized by the permit/operation 

approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Federal Coal Lease C-1362, as modified October 

2001 

All or parts of the following lands encompassed 

in this lease are in the West Elk Inventoried 

Roadless Area and may be subject to 

restrictions on road- building pursuant to rules

and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture 

applicable at the time any roads may be 

proposed on the lease. 

Legal descriptions are approximate. Locations 

of any proposed surface use would be verified 

for relationship to IRA boundaries using sitespecific maps if/when surface operations are 

proposed.

and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture 

applicable at the time any roads may be 

proposed on the lease. 

All or parts of the following lands encompassed 

in this lease are in the West Elk Inventoried 

Roadless Area and may be subject to 

restrictions on road- building pursuant to rules

and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture 

applicable at the time any roads may be 

proposed on the lease.

• All roads that may be constructed 

must be temporary.

• All temporary road construction 

must be consistent with applicable 

land management plan direction

• Road construction may only occur if 

motorized access has been deemed 

infeasible by the responsible 

official; unless a temporary road is 

needed to protect public health and 

safety in cases of an imminent 

threat of flood, fire or other 

catastrophic event that, without 

intervention, would cause the loss 

of life or property

• Temporary road construction must 

be completed in a manner that 

reduces effects on surface 

resources, and prevents 

unnecessary or unreasonable 

surface disturbance

• All temporary roads must be 

decommissioned and affected 

landscapesrestored when itis

determined that the road is no 

longer needed for the established 

purpose

• All temporary roads must prohibit 

public motorized vehicles (including 

off- highway vehicles) except:

i. Where specifically used for the 

purpose for which the road 

was established; or
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-11

Resource Area Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Specific to Lease 

Modifications

ii. Motor vehicle use that is 

specifically authorized under a 

Federal law or regulation. 

For any linear construction zone (LCZ) 

over 50 inches wide used to install 

pipelines, the Regional Forester must 

determine that they are needed, and 

the responsible official must determine 

that motorized access without a linear 

construction zone is not feasible. 

• Construction and use of linear 

construction zones must be 

consistent with the GMUG Forest 

Land and Resource Management 

Plan, and may be no wider than 

their respective intended uses.

• Installation of linear construction 

zones will be done in a manner that 

minimizes ground disturbance.

• Reclamation of a linear construction 

zone will not diminish, over the 

long-term, roadless area 

characteristics.All authorizations 

approving the installation of linear 

facilities through the use of a linear 

construction zone shall include a 

responsible official approved 

reclamation plan for reclaiming the 

affected landscape while conserving 

roadless area characteristics over 

the long-term. Upon completion of 

the installation of a linear facility via 

the use of a linear construction

zone, all areas of surface 
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-12

Resource Area Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest Service 

Lands

Stipulations Specific to Lease 

Modifications

disturbance shall be reclaimed as 

prescribed in the authorization and 

the approved reclamation plan and 

may not be waived.

Visuals n/a n/a Within the lease modification areas, 

the lessee will work with the District 

Ranger and his/her representative to 

see that all mine operations are 

situated on the ground in such a 

manner that reasonably minimizes 

impacts to the scenic integrity of that

landscape as prescribed in the Forest 

Plan.

Methane use n/a n/a If flaring or other combustion is 

prescribed as part of any future 

mitigation measure, lessee will be 

required to submit a fire prevention 

and protection plan subject to 

responsible USFS official for approval. A 

draft of this plan has been submitted to 

the USFS for approval (West Elk Mine, 

2019b). See Section 2.3.4

The parent leases also contain lease terms from BLM regarding coal mine methane. These are addressed as a lease addenda and stipulations as 

described in Table B-2.

Table B-2. BLM-specific Lease Stipulations for Protection of Non-Mineral (Surface) Resources

Resource Area Addendum Carried Forward from Parent Lease 

COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service Lands

Addendum Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest 

Service Lands

Revised Addendum per BLM IM 2017-037 

(January 20, 2017)

Methane 

Flaring, 

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding the language in Sec. 2 

of this lease and subject to the terms and 

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding the language in 

Sec. 2 of this lease and subject to the 

“Section 3. Notwithstanding the language in 

Section 2 of the lease and subject to the 
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-13

Resource Area Addendum Carried Forward from Parent Lease 

COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service Lands

Addendum Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest 

Service Lands

Revised Addendum per BLM IM 2017-037 

(January 20, 2017)

Capture/Use or 

other 

alternatives to 

venting

conditions below, lessee is authorized to drill 

for, extract, remove, develop, produce and 

capture for use or sale any or all of the coal 

mine methane from the above described lands 

that it would otherwise be required to vent or 

discharge for safety purposes by applicable laws 

and regulations. For purposes of this lease, 

“coal mine methane” means any combustible 

gas located in, over, under, or adjacent to the 

coal resources subject to this lease, that will or 

may infiltrate underground mining operations.

Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of 

this lease, nothing herein shall, nor shall it be 

interpreted to, waive, alter or amend lessee’s 

right to vent, discharge or otherwise dispose of 

coal mine methane as necessary for mine safety 

or to mine the coal deposits consistent with 

permitted underground mining operations and 

federal and state law and regulation. Lessee 

shall not be obligated or required to capture for 

use or sale coal mine methane that would 

otherwise be vented or discharged if the 

capture of coal mine methane, independent of 

activities related to mining coal, is not 

economically feasible or if the coal mine 

methane must be vented in order to abate the 

potential hazard to the health or safety of the 

coal miners or coal mining activities. In the 

event of 

a dispute between lessor and lessee as to the 

economic or other feasibility of capturing for 

use or sale the coal mine methane, lessor’s 

remedy as a prevailing party shall be limited to 

recovery of the compensatory royalties on coal 

terms and conditions below, lessee is 

authorized to drill for, extract, remove, 

develop, produce and capture for use or 

sale any or all of the coal mine methane 

from the above described lands that it 

would otherwise be required to vent or 

discharge for safety purposes by 

applicable laws and regulations. For 

purposes of this lease, “coal mine 

methane” means any combustible gas 

located in, over, under, or adjacent to 

the coal resources subject to this lease, 

that will or may infiltrate underground 

mining operations.

Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this lease, nothing herein 

shall, nor shall it be interpreted to, 

waive, alter or amend lessee’s right to 

vent, discharge or otherwise dispose of 

coal mine methane as necessary for mine 

safety or to mine the coal deposits 

consistent with permitted underground 

mining operations and federal and state 

law and regulation. Lessee shall not be 

obligated or required to capture for use 

or sale coal mine methane that would 

otherwise be vented or discharged if the 

capture of coal mine methane, 

independent of activities related to 

mining coal, is not economically feasible 

or if the coal mine methane must be 

vented in order to abate the potential 

hazard to the health or safety of the coal 

miners or coal mining activities. In the 

terms and conditions below, lessee is 

authorized to drill for, extract, remove, 

develop, produce and capture for use or sale 

any or all of the waste mine methane for the 

above described lands that it would 

otherwise be required to vent or discharge 

for safety purposes by applicable laws and 

regulations. For purposes of this lease, 

“waste mine methane” means any 

combustible methane gas located in, over, 

under, or adjacent to the coal resources 

subject to this lease, that will or may 

infiltrate underground mining operations 

and that must be vented to protect the 

health and safety of the mine workers.

Section 4. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this lease, nothing herein 

waives, alters, or amends lessee’s right to 

vent, discharge or otherwise dispose of 

waste mine methane as necessary for mine 

safety or lessee’s obligation to mine the coal 

deposits consistent with Federal and state 

law and regulation and with safety 

requirements contained in permits 

applicable to underground mining 

operations subject to this lease. Lessee is 

not obligated or required to capture for use 

or sale waste mine methane that would 

otherwise be vented or discharged if the 

capture of waste mine methane, 

independent of the activities related to 

mining coal, is not economically feasible, or 

if the waste mine methane must be vented 

in order to abate the potential hazard to the 
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-14

Resource Area Addendum Carried Forward from Parent Lease 

COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service Lands

Addendum Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest 

Service Lands

Revised Addendum per BLM IM 2017-037 

(January 20, 2017)

mine methane not captured for use or sale by 

lessee. Lessee shall have the right to continue 

all mining activities under the lease, including 

venting coal mine methane, pending resolution 

of any dispute regarding the application of the 

terms of Sections 3 and 4.

Sec. 2 (c) COAL MINE METHANE OPERATIONS 

AND ROYALTIESNotwithstanding the language in Part II, Section 

2 (a) of this lease, the royalty shall be 12.5 

percent of the value of any coal mine methane 

that is captured for use or sale from this lease. 

For purposes of this lease, the term “capture for 

use or sale” shall not include and the royalty 

shall not apply to coal mine methane that is 

vented or discharged and not captured for the 

economic or safety reasons described in Part I, 

Section 4 of this lease. Lessee shall have no 

obligation to pay royalties on any coal mine 

methane that is used on or for the benefit of 

mineral extraction at the West Elk coal mine. 

When not inconsistent with any express 

provision of this lease, the lease is subject to all 

rules and regulations related to Federal gas 

royalty collection in Title 30 of the CFR now or 

hereinafter in effect and lessor’s rules and 

regulations related to applicable reporting and 

gas measurement now or hereinafter in effect

SEVERABILITY- In the event any provision of this 

addendum is subject to a legal challenge or is 

held to be invalid, unenforceable or illegal in 

any respect, the validity, legality and 

enforceability of this lease will not in any way 

be affected or impaired thereby and lessee will 

event of 

a dispute between lessor and lessee as to 

the economic or other feasibility of 

capturing for use or sale the coal mine 

methane, lessor’s remedy as a prevailing 

party shall be limited to recovery of the 

compensatory royalties on coal mine 

methane not captured for use or sale by 

lessee. Lessee shall have the right to 

continue all mining activities under the 

lease, including venting coal mine 

methane, pending resolution of any 

dispute regarding the application of the 

terms of Sections 3 and 4.

Sec. 2 (c) COAL MINE METHANE 

OPERATIONS AND ROYALTIESNotwithstanding the language in Part II, 

Section 2 (a) of this lease, the royalty 

shall be 12.5 percent of the value of any 

coal mine methane that is captured for 

use or sale from this lease. For purposes 

of this lease, the term “capture for use or 

sale” shall not include and the royalty 

shall not apply to coal mine methane 

that is vented or discharged and not 

captured for the economic or safety 

reasons described in Part I, Section 4 of 

this lease. Lessee shall have no obligation 

to pay royalties on any coal mine 

methane that is used on or for the 

benefit of mineral extraction at the West 

Elk coal mine. When not inconsistent 

with any express provision of this lease, 

the lease is subject to all rules and 

health or safety of the miners or mining 

activities. In the event of a dispute between 

the lessor and the lessee as to the economic 

or technical feasibility of capturing the 

waste mine methane for use or sale, lessor’s 

remedy as a prevailing party is limited to 

recovery of compensatory royalties on the 

waste mine methane not captured for use or 

sale by the lessee. Lessee retains the right to 

continue all mining activities under the 

lease, including venting waste mine 

methane, pending resolution of any dispute 

regarding the application of the terms of 

Sections 3 and 4.

PART II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS

(c) WASTE MINE METHANE OPERATIONS 

AND ROYALTY – Notwithstanding the 

language in Part II, Sec. 2(a) of this lease, the 

royalty will be 12.5 percent of the value of 

any waste mine methane that is captured 

for use or sale from this lease. For purposes 

of this lease, the term “capture for use or 

sale” does not include, and the royalty will 

not apply to, waste mine methane that is 

vented, or otherwise discharged and not 

captured, for the economic feasibility or 

safety reasons described in Part I, Section 4 

of this lease. Lessee will have no obligation 

to pay royalties on any waste mine methane 

that is used on or for the benefit of mineral 

extraction at the (insert mine name here) 

coal mine. When not inconsistent with any 

express provision of this lease, this lease is 

subject to all the rules and regulations 
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-15

Resource Area Addendum Carried Forward from Parent Lease 

COC-1362 Specific to Forest Service Lands

Addendum Carried Forward from Parent 

Lease COC-67232 Specific to Forest 

Service Lands

Revised Addendum per BLM IM 2017-037 

(January 20, 2017)

retain, in accordance with the terms of this 

lease, the exclusive right and privilege to drill 

for, mine, extract, remove or otherwise process 

and dispose of the coal deposits ,upon, or under 

the lands described in this lease, including the 

right to vent or discharge coal mine methane 

for safety purposed as required by applicable 

laws and regulation.

regulations related to Federal gas royalty 

collection in Title 30 of the CFR now or 

hereinafter in effect and lessor’s rules

and regulations related to applicable 

reporting and gas measurement now or 

hereinafter in effect

SEVERABILITY- In the event any provision 

of this addendum is subject to a legal 

challenge or is held to be invalid, 

unenforceable or illegal in any respect, 

the validity, legality and enforceability of 

this lease will not in any way be affected 

or impaired thereby and lessee will 

retain, in accordance with the terms of 

this lease, the exclusive right and 

privilege to drill for, mine, extract, 

remove or otherwise process and dispose 

of the coal deposits ,upon, or under the 

lands described in this lease, including 

the right to vent or discharge coal mine 

methane for safety purposed as required 

by applicable laws and regulation.

related to Federal gas royalty collection in 

Title 30 of the CFR now or hereinafter in 

effect and the lessor’s rules, regulations, 

notices, and orders related to applicable 

reporting and gas measurement now or 

hereinafter in effect.

SEVERABILITY – In the event any provision of 

this addendum is subject to a legal challenge 

or is held to be invalid, unenforceable, or 

illegal in any respect, the validity, legality, 

and enforceability of this lease will not in 

any way be affected or impaired thereby 

and lessee will retain, in accordance with the 

terms of this lease, the exclusive right and 

privilege to drill for, mine, extract, remove, 

or otherwise process and dispose of the coal 

deposits in, upon, or under the lands 

described in this lease, including the right to 

vent or otherwise discharge waste mine 

methane for safety purposes as required by 

applicable laws and regulations

West Elk Mine shall provide to BLM an 

updated report on the economic feasibility 

of capturing or flaring the mine’s mine 

methane for beneficial use or abatement,

and should provide it to BLM no later than 1 

year after the modification is approved. This 

report was completed (Tetra Tech, 2018).
Appendix B Lease, Lease Modification, and CDRMS Permit Stipulations

West Elk Mine Methane Flaring EA January 2020 B-1

CDRMS Permit Stipulations Still in Effect

Stipulation No. 3

The operator shall, upon closure, install water-tight seals within the mine to prevent gravity discharge.

This requirement may be waived upon the Division's approval of a plan submitted by the operator. This 

plan shall include a demonstration that the water quality of the discharge from the mine workings will 

be of acceptable quality and will remain acceptable after mine closure. This shall include chemical 

analysis and a predictive model that uses oxidation and reduction potential to determine long-term 

water quality of mine waters. Also, the plan shall include the construction of a suitable channel for mine 

discharge.

Stipulation No. 7

The Division directs MCC, prior to any disturbance at the upper waste site, to install several electronic 

tilt meter tubes downslope from the toe of the proposed waste structure. These tilt meter installations 

shall be installed as specified in MCC's August 15, 1985 submittal. One indicator shall be installed within 

160 feet of the toe of the waste pile currently half way between Monuments 51 and 54. The second 

shall be installed appropriately 100 feet northeast of Monument S2, 160 feet north of the toe of the 

waste pile, as indicated on Drawing No. MG-R C-001, included in the Permit Revision No. 6 application.

During the installation of these tilt meter tubes, the operator shall auger and log the surficial and 

bedrock stratigraphy encountered. Augering shall continue until the operator has established intact 

bedrock occurrence. If any evidence of existing landslide deposits is encountered, the operator shall 

define the nature and extent of the pre-existing slope instability. If such landslide activity is discerned, 

the operator will be required to appropriately reconfigure the pile design, prior to initiation of any 

construction activity.

Stipulation No. 76

MCC will inform the Montrose Office of the Colorado Division of Water Resources of placement of all 

new survey monuments. MCC will copy the Montrose Office of the Colorado Division of Water 

Resources on all survey, piezometer, and accelerometer/seismometer monitoring in and around 

Monument Dam. MCC will notify the Montrose Office of the Colorado Division of Water Resources 

whenever the peak ground acceleration threshold is exceeded during the monitoring period, whether

mine-induced or naturally-occurring. 
Appendix C

Response to Comments on EA
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-1

OSMRE made the draft EA and unsigned FONSI available for public review beginning December 12, 2019. 

The EA and unsigned FONSI were posted on OSMRE’s website 

(https://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/westElkMine/adoption/documentLibrary.shtm, and legal 

notices were published in area newspapers announcing the opportunity for review and comment. 

Notices appeared in: 

• Gunnison Country Times, published Thursday, December 12, 2019

• Montrose Daily Press, published Thursday, December 12, 2019 

• Delta County Independent, published Wednesday, December 18, 2019 

OSMRE received 6,485 submissions. Five individual letters were received along with 6,480 form letters 

(emails). Approximately 1,230 of the 6,480 form letters included unique statements. These statements 

were not substantive comments and therefore are not included in Table C-1, but are summarized below.

• We need to switch to renewable wind and solar and not use fossil fuels any longer.

• Protect the Sunset Roadless Area by not allowing roads there.

• Public land should not be used for private gain

• No market for coal.

• Preserve the land for future generations.

• No new coal plants or coal mines.

• Preserve wildlife and wild places.

• Pollution affects everyone.

• Earth is on fire.

• Stop all mining on public lands.

• Climate change is worse than ever, is increasing, a crisis, is devastating.

• Coal mining, coal dust is dangerous and is killing the planet and all of us.

Individual letters were received from:

• Michael Drysdale on behalf of MCC

• High Country Conservation Advocates, Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness Workshop, and Sierra Club (High County Conservation Advocates, et al.);

• Jim Steitz;

• Heather Whitman, Mount Gunnison Fuel Company; and

• Teanna Limpy, Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Northern Cheyanne Tribe.

Substantive comments and OSMRE’s responses to them appear in this Appendix.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-1

Table C-1 Responses to Substantive Comments 

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

1. Michael Drysdale for 

Mountain Coal 

Company

Figure 2 in the EA depicts and is titled "Existing Approved Mine 

Plan." The Figure shows "Map 51 — E Seam Projected 

Operations"

from Mountain Coal's Permit Revision 15 approved by the 

State of Colorado. As such, Figure 2 is an accurate depiction of 

what it purports to be. However, because Map 51 was prepared 

in 2018, and shows projected future mining, the depiction of 

what mining has occurred and will occur is out of date. This is 

clear from the Legend of Map 51 and when read in conjunction 

with the text of the EA, but could be confusing to some readers. 

Consequently, Mountain Coal recommends that the final EA 

add text that explains the depiction of current and future 

mining on Figure 2 was correct as of the date Figure 2 was 

produced. A suggested revised paragraph would read as 

follows:

The West Elk Mine has been in operation since 1981 and 

encompasses about 13,358.4 acres of federal coal leases 

and 6,496.5 acres of fee coal lands (USES, 2017a), including 

the lease expansion areas. MCC is in the process of mining 

ESeam reserves in previously permitted portions of COC1362 and COC-67232 leases (Figure 2) (Figure 2 depicts the 

state of current and projected mining as of the State of 

Colorado's consideration of Permit Revision 15. Mining since 

Figure 2 was prepared is described below). Prior to the 

Judge's Order on November 8, 2019, MCC mined 

approximately 330,800 tons from the northernmost 

modified portion of lease COC-1362 from extended longwall 

panel E8 per the approved Technical Revision No. 143 (TR143). Per approved Technical Revision No. 144 (TR-144), 

about 32,600 tons were mined from modified federal lease 

COC-1362 by development exploration of longwall panel 

SS1. No coal was mined from modified lease COC-67232 

under either TR-143 or TR-144. As of the date of this EA, 

mining of longwall panel E8 is nearly complete.

OSMRE agrees this revision is 

appropriate. 

These revisions have 

been made in Section 

2.2 on page 7.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-2

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

(proposed new text in underline).

2. Michael Drysdale for 

Mountain Coal 

Company

A suggested revised paragraph would read as follows: 

If flaring is mandated, MCC would not be eligible for 

carbon credits under the California Air Resource Board 

Mine Methane Capture Compliance Offset Protocol (Air 

Resources Bird Board, 2014). Without the carbon credits 

the use of the portable methane flares would no longer be 

economically feasible for MCC. Under the terms of the 

Lease Modifications, MCC cannot be required to flare 

methane if flaring would not be economically feasible. In 

addition, if OSMRE had the authority to exercised this 

mitigation measure and makede flaring mandatory, MCC 

would likely need to cease mining operations after 

currently approved reserves are mined out and continue 

with reclamation, until preparations could be made to 

mine other already permitted coal or alternative 

arrangements to flare methane could be made. 

OSMRE agrees that the majority of 

this revision is appropriate. 

The BLM’s lease stipulations on the 

modifications require that flaring be 

economically feasible.

Revisions to this 

paragraph in Section 

2.3.5 on page 16 

have been made

3. Michael Drysdale for 

Mountain Coal 

Company

Section 2.4 and Table 2 should similarly be clarified. Section 2.4 

should be changed as follows: 

MCC has indicated the No Action would result in the West Elk 

Mine running out of minable coal in December 2019, resulting 

in a temporary shutdown lasting several months until other 

permitted reserves can be developed and the longwall 

equipment can be moved.

OSMRE agrees this revision is 

appropriate. 

This revision has 

been made in section 

2.4 on page 16.

4. Michael Drysdale for 

Mountain Coal 

Company

And the second cell of the third column in Table 2 should be 

changed as follows: Removal of no coal and temporary mine 

closure end of 2019.

OSMRE agrees a revision is 

appropriate. 

A revision has been 

made to Table 2 on 

page 21 to clarify 

that the no action 

applies to not mining 

the lease 

modification areas.

5. Michael Drysdale for 

Mountain Coal 

Company

Likewise, while Section 3.3.3 states that the No Action 

alternative would result in no mining of the lease modifications, 

Sections 3.3.3.1 and 3.3.3.2 do not contain this qualifier and 

could be confusing. These should state that "Because there 

OSMRE agrees this revision is 

appropriate. 

This revision has 

been made on page 

35.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-3

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

would be no mining and no venting or flaring there would not 

be any air emissions until operations resumed in other 

permitted areas." 

None of this should be interpreted as understating the effects 

of attempting to mandate flaring or selecting the No Action 

Alternative. Even a temporary shutdown would be devastating 

to Mountain Coal and its employees. The EA should simply be 

clarified to eliminate any confusion about the potential for a 

permanent shutdown. 

6. Michael Drysdale for 

Mountain Coal 

Company

Clarification that Mobile Flaring will not Cause New Impacts to 

Vegetation

Both the plan submitted to MSHA, as described on EA page 13, 

and Item 14 of the Fire Prevention Plan, on page 14 of the EA, 

states that the flare will be located at least 25 feet from the 

edge of the cleared MVB pad "and/or dry trees and brush will 

be removed that same distance." This could be read as 

indicating that there will be an actual need to remove 

additional dry trees and brush, and Table 2 and page 22 states 

there could be "short-term alteration of habitat from clearing 

vegetation around flares." To clarify, Mountain Coal does not 

expect any additional tree/brush removal will be necessary. 

MVB pads are already sized and designed to provide the 

needed buffer.

OSMRE agrees that the suggested 

revision to Table 2 to clarify the 

source of the impacts on habitat is 

appropriate. 

The suggest modification in Table 2 

more accurately reflects the 

discussion in Section 3.6.2.1.

Table 2 has been 

revised to clearly 

state that the 

clearing is for the 

MVBs and not due to 

the flares. 

7. Michael Drysdale for 

Mountain Coal 

Company

Lack of Proximate and Potentially Affected Greenback Cutthroat 

Trout 

During the WildEarth Guardians litigation, Petitioners 

generated quite a bit a confusion by claiming that "important 

native and rare fish species are found within 1/3 of a mile of the 

Mine expansion area." See, e.g., Pet. Reply Brf., ECF #33 at 31. 

Their claim is based on the following passage in the Leasing 

SFEIS, which was restated in response to several similar public 

comments:

[w]hile it is true that genetic studies have been occurring, the 

lease modifications would not impact Colorado River 

Cutthroat Trout (CRCT) populations. Nearest CRCT population 

OSMRE agrees these revisions are 

appropriate. 

These revisions have 

been made on page 

43 of the EA.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-4

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

is upstream of the lease modifications and approximately 

1/3-3/4 mile away in Hoodoo Creek so no direct effects 

would occur from subsidence or MOW construction. Any 

sediment if, generated by the lease modifications, would 

enter East Fork of Minnesota Creek from tributaries below 

Beaver Reservoir, the dam on which is a barricade to any fish 

movement so there would be no indirect effects on CRCT if 

they came down that far. 

Leasing SFEIS at 832, 836-37, 843, 845-46, 849, 900, 901, 904, 

924, 928. 

In response to the Court's remand, the EA explains that the 

USFS surveyed South Prong Creek in November 2019 and states 

the following: 

Fish surveys conducted by the USFS in November 2019 

determined that there were no fish present in South Prong 

Creek and that the habitat would not support overwintering 

fish (Woody, 2019). Greenback cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus c/arkia stomias) is identified on the IPAC lists. 

There is no critical habitat identified for greenback cutthroat 

and no suitable habitat (perennial streams for overwintering) within the action area. 

EA at 43. This discussion should be clarified in two respects. 

First, because a portion of South Prong Creek is perennial, the 

EA should make clear that it is not simply the fact that a stream 

is perennial that makes it suitable habitat, but that the habitat 

as a whole was not sufficient to support overwintering fish. In 

addition, the EA should expressly state that other nearby 

populations of the trout are upstream and cannot be affected 

by mining in the Lease Modifications, citing the SFEIS. Mountain 

Coal therefore recommends the following clarifications: 

Fish surveys conducted by the USFS in November 2019 

determined that there were no fish present in South Prong 

Creek and that the habitat would not support overwintering 

fish (Woody, 2019). Greenback cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarkia stomias) is identified on the IPAC lists. 
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-5

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

There is no critical habitat identified for greenback cutthroat 

and no suitable habitat (perennial streams of sufficient flow 

and gradient to support over-wintering) within the action 

area. Other nearby populations of greenback cutthroat trout 

are in Hoodoo Creek and cannot be affected by mining in the 

Lease Modifications (Leasing SFEIS at 832).

8. Michael Drysdale for 

Mountain Coal 

Company

Typographical Corrections/Clarifications There are a handful of 

non-substantive typographical and formatting errors in the 

document, which can be cleaned up in the final for ease of 

reading. Mountain Coal identified the following: 

OSMRE agrees this revision is 

appropriate.

These revisions have 

been made as 

identified.

The location of STSW-1 did not change,

however, the figure 

was revised to 

indicate a stream in 

that location (an 

unnamed tributary to 

the South Prong 

Creek).

9. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

The preferred alternative set out in the draft EA allows the 

largest industrial source of methane in the state of Colorado to 

vent methane directly into the atmosphere without any limit 

until some indeterminate point in the future.

The proposed action, which is 

voluntary, would reduce the amount 

of methane released into the 

atmosphere. Section 2.3 on page 10 

of the EA explains that MVBs are 

“required for safety of underground 

miners” additionally, information in 

Section 3.3.1 (page 32) says “NAAQS 

do not exist for GHGs.” This 

information can be found in Section 

3.3.1 on page 32 of the EA.

No changes have 

been made to the EA.

10. OSM Failed to Provide the Public with a Meaningful Please see the responses to No changes have 
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-6

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

Opportunity to Review and Comment on this Draft EA and the 

Flaring Proposal. As an initial matter, our organizations call on 

OSM to re-open the public comment period to allow for 

meaningful public engagement. This is the first flaring proposal 

for an active mine anywhere in the country that we are aware 

of where OSM ever evaluated in detail a methane flaring 

alternative. Yet OSM chose to limit public comment to ten days 

– four of which fell over the weekend.

Moreover, during the public comment period OSM was unable 

or unwilling to provide answers to very basic questions, such as: 

when it expects flaring could be implemented; how much 

methane it expects will be vented directly into the atmosphere 

before flaring could be implemented; what definition it used for 

“technically feasible;” what definition it used for “economically 

feasible; how much the proposed flaring will cost Mountain 

Coal Company; how much it will cost any third party that will 

design or operate the flares; or when it expects the Mine Safety 

Health Administration (MSHA) will make a decision on the 

portable methane flares Mountain Coal Company applied to 

use. By giving the public only six business days to evaluate and 

comment on a flaring proposal, which is the first ever 

considered in detail by OSM – and by declining to answer basic 

factual questions about the flaring alternative it considered –

OSM’s actions have prevented the public from having a fair 

opportunity to provide meaningful opportunity engage in the 

NEPA process. By operating in a way that short-circuited public 

engagement, OSM fell well short of NEPA’s goal of informed 

public participation in the agency decision-making process and 

violated one of the statute’s “twin aims.” Baltimore Gas & Elec. 

Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). 

Although our organizations requested additional time and 

information from OSM, the agency rejected the request for a 

reasonable 30-day extension and was unable to provide 

information either in the draft EA or in response to the direct 

questions noted above. For these reasons, we call on OSM to 

re-open the public comment period, answer the question posed 

comments 11 and 16. Responses to 

comment 16 individually addresses 

when flaring would be initiated, 

methane calculations bases, technical

and economic feasibility, cost (to MCC 

or third parties), MCC profit, MSHA 

and decision timing. Please also see 

the response to comment 11.

been made to the EA.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-7

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

in these comments, and allow the public 30 days to provide 

input on the project and reasonable alternatives before acting 

on Mountain Coal Company’s request for a mine plan so that it 

can mine publicly-owned coal beneath publicly-owned lands 

while venting methane directly into the atmosphere.

11. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

We believe that a thirty-day extension would provide the public 

with a small but realistic opportunity to review and provide 

helpful comments to OSM. This short extension would not 

meaningfully delay a proposal that will last more than two years 

and could set a national precedent on the utility and availability 

of the technologies that can reduce methane emissions at coal 

mines across the country.

OSMRE received the request for a 30-

day extension on December 17, 2019. 

OSMRE reviewed the request and 

sent an email response on December 

18, 2019. OSMRE incorporated by 

reference the Forest Service's 2017 

Supplemental Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (SFEIS) for analysis 

of the mining operations under each 

Alternative. Alternatives 1 and 3 from 

the EA are similar to the Preferred 

Alternative analyzed in the SFEIS but 

Alternative 1 includes a voluntary 

flare option. The SFEIS included 

multiple opportunities for public 

comment and review. OSMRE 

determined that the timeframe 

affords the public an adequate 

opportunity in which to review and 

submit comments pertaining to the 

51-page EA and denied the request 

for an extension.

No changes have 

been made to the EA.

12. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

In June 2018, our organizations wrote to OSM to request that 

the agency study available methane flaring opportunities at the 

West Elk mine. At that time we put forward one such proposal, 

utilizing flaring technology already in use in Colorado at the 

close Elk Creek Mine, located across the highway from the West 

Elk mine. Had the agency undertaken such a review as part of 

the NEPA process then, there would have been ample time for 

the public and other federal agencies to review any such 

proposal and provide feedback on the range of available 

EA Section 2.6.1 on page 17 explains 

that methane collected from an 

inactive mine, like the Elk Creek Mine, 

differs significantly. Additionally, 

Section 2.3.7 of the SFEIS on page 56 

explains the critical differences 

between the Oxbow [Elk Creek] and 

West Elk mines. 

Section 2.6.1 of the EA includes other 

No changes have 

been made to the EA.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-8

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

methane mitigation technologies and the reasonable 

alternatives that OSM was legally obligated to consider in order 

to comply with NEPA.

alternatives for methane flaring that 

were considered by OSMRE however 

these were eliminated from further 

study because they were found to not 

be technically feasible.

13. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

For these reasons, we call on OSM to reopen the public 

comment period for any additional thirty days – after providing 

the requested basic information that OSM neglected to put in 

its draft EA – in order to allow the public a meaningful 

opportunity to engage in OSM’s NEPA process. 

See comment response 11. The 

responses to Comment 16 address the 

information claimed to be missing 

from the EA. 

No changes made to 

the EA. 

14. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

OSM Failed to Consider All Reasonable Alternatives. 

OSM must consider a reasonable alternative that would allow 

the necessary MSHA and state permitting processes time to 

conclude prior to the mining beginning. Such an alternative 

would avoid the unnecessarily damaging result in which by the 

time the flare was approved and implemented MCC had already 

mined a substantial portion of the coal in the proposed 

expansion area (and vented a substantial portion of the mine’s 

methane) without implementing a flare. If this were to occur—

as appears likely given the timing of MSHA and state reviews—

it would negate a potentially large part of the climate benefit 

that could be achieved through methane flaring. Indeed, the 

Court’s Order clearly precludes this result, as it enjoins mining, 

venting, or surface activity by MCC until MSHA acts on the 

ventilation plan...

None of the alternatives considered 

precludes waiting for the permitting 

processes to be completed prior to 

mining beginning. OSMRE considered 

a reasonable range of alternatives 

including two action alternatives and 

one no action alternative. Section 

2.6.1 of the EA includes other 

alternatives for methane flaring that 

were considered by OSMRE (including 

a mitigation measure for mandatory 

flaring which is not feasible without 

the carbon credits), however these 

were eliminated from further study 

because they were found to not be 

technically feasible.

OSMRE is aware of the permitting 

processing time requirements. MSHA 

is currently reviewing MCC’s permit 

application and could approve the 

plan soon, and the air permit may 

take 150 days.

No change made to 

the EA.

15. High Country In the draft EA, OSM evaluates only three alternatives: Please see the response to comment No change made to 
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-9

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

alternative 1, the preferred mobile flaring alternative; 

alternative 2, a no action alternative rejecting the proposed 

mine plan;2; and alternative 3, in which mining would be 

approved but flaring would not. Draft EA at 7. Alternative 1 

includes a “voluntary measure” to flare methane “as soon as 

technically feasible using one or two mobile flare units based on 

the MSHA application.” Draft EA at 9. But OSM does not define 

“technically feasible” in the Draft EA, and although OSM 

reiterates later that “MCC would implement flaring as soon as 

technically feasible,” Draft EA at 12, OSM does not explain that 

MSHA cannot unilaterally impose flaring and that MCC could 

simply withdraw its request to amend its ventilation plan to 

MSHA at any time. Nor does OSM offer any estimate of when 

MSHA might rule on the proposed flaring ventilation plan, when 

Colorado state agencies would approve the flare, or how long 

these two processes could take. As explained in the attached 

expert report prepared by Raven Ridge Resources,3 according 

to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

(CDPHE) an air permit will take a minimum of 150 days; if MCC 

was granted approval to begin mining in January 2020, a flare 

would not be operational for almost half a year. Rather than 

allow the mine to vent methane directly into the atmosphere 

indefinitely, OSM must consider a reasonable alternative that 

would allow the necessary MSHA and state permitting 

processes time to conclude prior to the mining beginning. Such 

an alternative would avoid the unnecessarily damaging result in 

which by the time the flare was approved and implemented 

MCC had already mined a substantial portion of the coal in the 

proposed expansion area (and vented a substantial portion of 

the mine’s methane) without implementing a flare. If this were 

to occur—as appears likely given the timing of MSHA and state 

reviews — it would negate a potentially large part of the 

climate benefit that could be achieved through methane flaring. 

Indeed, the Court’s Order clearly precludes this result, as it 

enjoins mining, venting, or surface activity by MCC until MSHA 

acts on the ventilation plan: The mining plan ROD is remanded 

to the agency for further consideration of the methane flaring 

16. the EA
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-10

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

alternative and the impacts of the proposed action on water 

and fish resources. The other associated agency actions are 

vacated. Additionally, the intervenor defendants are 

immediately enjoined from proceeding with the mining plan, 

including further roadbuilding and well-drilling in the expansion 

area, until further analysis is conducted and MSHA has 

addressed the newly proposed methane flaring plan. WildEarth 

Guardians v. Bernhardt, No. 19-CV-001920-RBJ, 2019 WL 

5853870, at *15 (D. Colo. Nov. 8, 2019). 

16. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

OSM’s draft EA fails to address several important 

considerations regarding methane flaring, and the agency could 

not answer basic questions regarding the proposal when asked 

directly, including factual information essential to considering 

the impacts of the preferred action and alternatives, such as: 

• when it expects the Mine Safety Health Administration 

(MSHA) will make a decision on the portable methane flares 

Mountain Coal Company applied to use;

As stated in Section 1.2 of the EA, on 

November 19, 2019, MCC submitted a 

revised plan to flare methane to 

MSHA and CDRMS. MSHA is currently 

reviewing that plan. CDRMS approved 

a minor permit revision (No. 439) 

associated with the mobile MVB 

flaring units.

No change made to 

the EA.

• the timing or requirements of any additional air permit 

required by the state of Colorado prior to the mine 

implementing flaring; 

As stated in Section 2.3 of the EA, 

MCC has begun the process to obtain 

an air permit for the flare units from 

the Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment (CDPHE).

No change made to 

the EA.

• whether MCC had even submitted a proposal to the 

relevant state agency regarding flaring; 

• when, if approved by MSHA and relevant state agencies, 

OSM expects flaring could be implemented;

As stated in Section 1.2 of the EA, on 

November 19, 2019, MCC submitted a 

revised plan to flare methane and a 

revision to the mining permit to 

MSHA and CDRMS, respectfully. 

MSHA is currently reviewing that plan. 

CDRMS approved a minor permit 

revision (No. 439) associated with the 

mobile MVB flaring units. OSMRE 

provided a bookend analysis where 

OSMRE assumes for purposes of the 

analysis under Alternative 1 that 

flaring would be implemented as soon 

No change made to 

the EA.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-11

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

as mining begins. Under Alternative 

3, OSMRE assumes that flaring would 

not occur. It is possible that if flaring 

cannot begin as soon as mining as 

assumed under Alternative 1 that 

emissions from methane would fall 

between Alternatives 1 and 3.

• whether the information in the draft EA comparing 

methane emissions of various alternatives assumes flaring 

would be implemented at the outset of mining under the 

preferred alternative; 

Table 7 (emissions for 2 years under 

the flaring alternative) assumes that 

flaring begins when mining under an 

approved mining plan modification.

Table 7 updated to 

include methane 

calculation basis.

• whether OSM actually expects flaring would be 

implemented at the outset of mining under the preferred 

alternative; 

• how much methane OSM expects will be vented directly 

into the atmosphere before flaring could be implemented; 

See comment response paragraph 

above for OSMRE assumptions 

regarding when flaring would begin 

and the Table 7 for methane 

emissions.

A footnote has been 

added to Table10

describing the 

methane emitted for 

each month delay in 

initiating flaring after 

mining begins. 

• the definition of “technically feasible” used to describe the 

timing for implementing the preferred alternative;

• the definition of “economically feasible” used to exclude a 

mandatory flaring proposal; 

• the financial aspects that led OSM to conclude a mandatory 

flaring proposal would not meet its definition of 

economically feasible; 

The EA Section 2.6 defines “... 

technically or economically 

infeasible”. Based on this definition, 

technically feasible as related to the 

timing of implementing of flaring 

would be when the technology is 

available. Economically feasible 

related to excluding the mandatory 

flaring proposal would mean that it is 

unlikely to be implemented because it 

is not economical, per the BLM lease 

stipulation as described in Section 

2.3.5 of the EA. That definition of 

economic feasibility from the SFEIS 

was not challenged and is 

incorporated by reference here. See 

response to comment in the SFEIS 

No change made to 

the EA.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-12

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

Earthjustice #8419-21/22/23/24 

beginning on page 774.

• whether OSM applied this definition to any other mitigation 

measure at the West Elk mine; 

Other mitigation applied includes only 

“perch deflecting devices on mobile 

flare units to protect birds” (page 16). 

Perch deflectors are commonly used 

on transmissions line structures and 

buildings, are simple to install and 

minimal cost. OSMRE did consider the 

economic feasibility of this mitigation 

measure. 

No change made to 

the EA.

• whether OSM has ever applied this definition to any other 

project alternative for any other coal mine; 

See response to comment in the SFEIS 

Earthjustice #8419-21/22/23/24 

beginning on page 774.

No change made to 

the EA.

• whether OSM has ever excluded any other proposed 

mitigation measure because it would not generate a profit 

for the applicant; 

Any proposed mitigation measure is 

evaluated on an individual basis. 

Economically feasible related to 

excluding the mandatory flaring 

proposal at the West Elk Mine would 

mean that it is unlikely to be 

implemented because it is not 

economical, per the BLM lease 

stipulation as described in Section 

2.3.5 of the EA. As the flares would be 

used under contract, the measure 

likely would not generate a profit for 

the applicant, but probably would 

generate profit for the contractor.

No change made to 

the EA.

• how much the proposed flaring will cost Mountain Coal 

Company, including fuel, operation, and maintenance costs; 

• how much it will cost any third party that will design or 

operate the flares; 

• how much profit Mountain Coal Company and any third 

party assisting with methane flaring expect to generate as a 

This information is considered 

proprietary and confidential. As 

stated in Section 2.3.4 of the EA, MCC 

and/or the third-party contractor will 

be using carbon credits to offset the 

costs of the flare and without the use 

of those credits flaring would no 

No change made to 

the EA.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-13

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

result of the project; longer be economically feasible. See 

response to comment in the SFEIS 

Earthjustice #8419-21/22/23/24 

beginning on page 774 regarding 

economic feasibility. 

• whether the mine will release methane at a consistent rate 

over the life of the mine, or if instead more methane will be 

released at the outset of mining the coal seam than later in 

the process.

Methane emission rates are discussed 

in Section 3.4.2.1 of the SFEIS on page 

107. This section of the SFEIS is now 

referenced in Section 2.6.1.3 of the EA 

to provide clarification on methane 

emission rates.

SFEIS Section 3.4.2.1 page 107 “The 

amount of methane released by the 

West Elk Mine has varied considerably 

over the life of the mine, and is not 

well correlated with production levels. 

In general, the amount of methane 

released has decreased as the mining 

operations have progressed into a 

shallower seam, but there is no clear 

relationship that would make it 

possible to accurately predict the 

amount of methane that will be 

released to the atmosphere during 

future mining operations.”

The text has been 

added to Section 

2.6.1.3 of the EA on 

page 17 citing the 

location in the SFEIS 

where additional 

information can be 

found. 

17. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

OSM’s draft EA fails to take a hard look at the impacts of 

expanding West Elk Mine on ozone levels. Nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) react to form 

ozone, a pollutant with serious health risks. Exposure to ozone 

is a serious concern as it can cause or exacerbate respiratory 

health problems, including shortness of breath, asthma, chest 

pain and coughing, decreased lung function and even long-term 

lung damage, all of which can contribute to premature deaths. 

Ozone levels in the region surrounding the West Elk Mine 

(Gunnison and Mesa counties) already threaten to exceed 

As explained in Section 3.3.1.4 of the 

EA “The O3 NAAQS is the 4th high 

averaged over 3 years “, the 4th high 

for air monitors in Gunnison and 

Mesa counties from 2011-2015 are 

shown in Table 3-5 of the SFEIS on 

page 97 and from 2014-2018 in Table 

5 of the EA. The monitored levels 

show that ozone levels in Gunnison 

and Mesa county have ranged from 

Table 5, which shows 

the air quality 

monitoring data for 

the Paonia monitor, 

has been added to 

Section 3.3.1.4 of the 

EA on page 28. Text 

relating to Table 5 

has been added to 

Section 3.3.1.4 of the 
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-14

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

human health standards, and expansion of the West Elk Mine 

will only exacerbate this existing problem. In recent years, the 

Gunnison and Mesa counties have seen elevated monitored 

levels for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (“NAAQS”). According to the EA, monitoring data from 

Gunnison and Mesa counties each show a design value of 65.3 

parts per billion (ppb), approximately 93 percent of the 70 ppb 

NAAQS limit. EA at 28. In 2018, air monitors in Gunnison and 

Mesa Counties recorded multiple exceedances of the 8-hour 

ozone standard, and the fourth highest maximum daily value 

was 69 ppb, just below the 70 ppb standard. There is simply no 

room for additional emissions that will increase ozone levels in 

the region.

62 to 70 ppb over the past 8 years and 

do not show a consistent upward 

trend. The 4th high for the Paonia air 

monitor in Delta county for 2018 and 

2019 have been added to the EA in 

Table 5 to demonstrate “that the O3

levels in the affected area (Delta 

County) are much lower than the 

levels in Gunnison and Mesa 

counties” at only “77% of the 

standard”. The monitoring data also 

confirms that the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS have not been exceeded and 

that “the area is currently in 

attainment status for all criteria 

pollutants” as was stated in Section 

3.3.1.4 of the EA. Section 3.3.1.2 of 

the EA references Section 3.4.1.1 of 

the SFEIS (page 94) which explains 

that “ozone and secondary PM2.5 are 

typically not assessed for project scale 

analyses..” Impacts to ozone levels 

provided in Section 3.4.5 of the SFEIS, 

which is incorporated by reference 

into the cumulative impacts Section 

3.3.5 of the EA, conclude “West Elk 

mine has far fewer NOX emissions 

than that of the high oil and gas 

scenario, such that even with the 

unknowns of mines potential CMM 

VOC’s, the mine itself would not be 

expected to contribute significantly to 

direct ozone formation”. Also see 

response to non-substantive 

comment #51 in the SFEIS beginning 

on page 979.

EA on pages 28 and 

29.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-15

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

An air permit will be required.

18. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

OSM, however, inexplicably provides no assessment of the 

impacts on ozone levels from the additional NOx and VOC 

emissions resulting from the West Elk Mine expansion. While 

OSM concludes that “[t]he area around the mine would be 

expected to remain within ambient air quality standards for 

PM10, NOx, and CO,” EA at 35, OSM provides no similar 

assessment of whether the NOx and VOC emissions from the 

mine would result in increased ozone levels in the area, 

particularly problematic given that ozone levels are already very 

close to exceeding federal health limits. OSM needs to take a 

hard look at potential impacts from expanding the West Elk 

Mine on ozone levels. 

Please see the response to comment 

17. 

No change made to 

the EA.

19. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

OSM fails to take a hard look at NO2 emissions. OSM relies 

solely on modeling results from the Bull Mountain FEIS to 

conclude that pollution levels would remain below the 

applicable NAAQS. Yet given the significant NO2 emissions 

projected to result from the Bull Mountain project, it is 

unreasonable for OSM to conclude that the environmental 

baseline remains the same pre- and post-Bull Mountain. ... 

Given the proximity of the Bull Mountain oil and gas project to 

West Elk – which OSM relies on to assume that air quality 

conditions at Bull Mountain are representative of conditions at 

West Elk – it is reasonable to assume that development of the 

Bull Mountain project may impact air quality, including NO2 

pollution levels, at the West Elk Mine. Accordingly, OSM’s 

conclusion that there will be “no additional direct air impacts 

from NO2 emissions” lacks support in the record, and the 

agency needs to reevaluate the environmental baseline for NO2 

(background concentration) in light of the Bull Mountain 

project. (High Country Conservation Advocates et al.)

OSMRE agrees that clarification 

should be added to the EA. The SFEIS

discussed and included information 

related to the Bull Mountain FEIS. 

The EA incorporates by reference this 

information. See SFEIS pages 84, 106-

107, 632 (response to comment) and 

883 (response to comment). 

Text has been added 

to Section 3.3.2.1 to 

provide clarification 

as to why the 

environmental 

baseline for NO2

(background 

concentration) used 

in the Bull Mountain 

analysis is accurate 

and relevant.

20. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

OSM’s air quality assessment arbitrarily fails to address all 

relevant air quality parameters and available data. OSM 

provides no data regarding daily PM2.5 monitoring in the 

region, and only provides Delta County data for a single 

Section 3.3.1.4 of the EA on page 30 

explains “Monitoring data is limited, 

and all pollutants are not monitored 

at all monitoring locations, thus data 

Table 5, which shows 

the air quality 

monitoring data for 

the Paonia monitor, 
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-16

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

pollutant (PM10), ignoring available EPA data regarding levels 

of ozone, PM2.5, and carbon monoxide pollution in Delta 

County.

for a pollutant may not be reasonably 

available for all portions of the 

affected environment.” Monitoring 

results for the Paonia monitor in Delta 

county have been added to the EA in 

Table 5 with local PM10, PM2.5, O3, 

and NO2, to demonstrate “that air 

quality within the region is generally 

considered good, and the area is 

currently in attainment status for all 

criteria pollutants.” as stated in 

Section 3.3.1.4 of the EA on page 29.

has been added to 

Section 3.3.1.4 of the 

EA on page 28. 

21. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

Despite recognizing that mine activity at West Elk has 

previously “substantially affected” the underlying 

hydrogeologic conditions supporting springs in the area, OSM 

concludes that future “similar impacts” would be expected to 

be “minor because of the small flow volumes and possible 

seasonal flows.” Id. Based on the agency’s assumption that 

“[i]mpacts would likely be local to specific springs that are 

directly disrupted by subsidence cracks and do not recover or 

heal over time,” OSM concludes that “[n]o indirect impacts to 

the overall water balance of the watershed would be 

expected.” However, given the paucity of hydrologic data 

presented, this conclusion is arbitrary. While each of the 

handful of individual springs documented in the EA may have 

relatively small flow volumes, there are numerous springs in the 

projected subsidence zone that could be affected by mining 

activities. These springs collectively contribute to the robust 

minimum flows of more than 100 gallons per minute measured 

at the south fork tributary station of South Prong Creek. Id. at 

38. Given the potential for mining-related subsidence to affect 

the flows of multiple springs, it is arbitrary for OSM to conclude 

that impacts will be minimal based on the relatively low flows 

of individual springs, instead of assessing the full scope of 

potential aggregate impacts on springs and downstream flows. 

As the Court specifically ordered, OSM must take a hard look at 

In addition to the text of the EA 

quoted in the comment, this is 

discussed in Section 3.4.2.1, surface 

water impacts, “[w]ould not be 

expected to affect the overall 

hydrologic balance of the North Fork 

of Gunnison River watershed; no 

indirect impacts would be expected 

(Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 

2018).” The EA discloses that impacts 

could occur to some springs in the 

proposed lease modification area. 

Impacts would be expected to be 

minor and no indirect impacts to the 

hydrologic balance of the North Fork 

or Gunnison River watershed would 

be expected. As discussed in Section 

3.4.1.2, stations were established to 

monitor and report flow 

measurements (including future 

instantaneous flows) on Spring ST-S-1 

and the three stock ponds to assist in 

reporting annual flow regimes and 

will be used to monitor potential 

No changes were 

made to the EA.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-17

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

potential impacts to water resources in the area, which requires 

consideration of potential aggregate impacts on springs and 

streams.

impacts to these water resources 

from future mining and 

subsidence. In addition to the 

expected minor impacts from 

subsidence and lack of impacts on the 

North Fork of Gunnison River 

watershed, as further stated in 

Section 3.4.2.1, under the existing 

Subsidence Control Plan associated 

with the CMDRS permit, MCC would 

design and apply mitigation efforts, as 

needed, if stream channels or flow are 

impacted by subsidence to ensure 

that flow continues in the channel.

22. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

- Raven Ridge 

attachment

The most-likely volume of methane that will be liberated while 

mining 10.1 million tons of coal is 2.11 billion cubic feet; of 

which 353.1 will be drained. 

There are many ways to calculate the 

methane. The 2.11 billion cubic feet is 

a Raven Ridge’s calculations. The EA 

calculated it in the same manner as 

the SFEIS for consistency with the 

exception of the flare emissions which 

were calculated using the maximum 

rated capacity of the flares based on 

regulatory requirements (5 CRR 1001-

5 Part A I.B.7.) which was provided by 

the manufacturer (see footnote on 

Table 7). It is expected that the 

amount of gas released would 

decrease as the mining progresses. 

Table 7 updated to 

include methane 

calculation basis.

23. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

- Raven Ridge 

Based on coal and gas extraction rates available from public 

sources for the last several years, only 16 percent of total 

methane liberated during mining is drained and available for 

destruction or use. 

Most of the methane that is released 

into the atmosphere is from the 

ventilation shaft (EA section 2.6.1.3 

on page 17), not the MVBs. The total 

methane liberated from MVBs has 

declined in recent years (see SFEIS 

section 2.3.5 page 54). See response 

No changes made to 

the EA.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-18

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

attachment #17.

24. High Country 

Conservation

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

- Raven Ridge 

attachment

Environmental Commodities Corporation will be financial 

responsible for installing and operating the flare, assuming the 

economic risk of project success. 

Environmental Commodities 

Corporation would be financially 

responsible for installing and 

operating the flare; however, the 

contractor will charge West Elk Mine 

for the service, adding to their 

operating costs. West Elk Mine will 

also be maintaining the risk 

associated with mining underground, 

including safe working conditions for 

their miners (determining safe 

underground methane levels) and 

meeting environmental requirements.

No changes made to 

the EA.

25. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

- Raven Ridge 

attachment

Our forecast of the volume of methane drained is greater than 

that which was presented in the EA, as their forecast is based 

on an average flow rate from GVBs, and then calculated for a 

specific time interval. Whereas our forecast is tied to the 

amount of gas that may be drained per ton of coal produced, 

and not a unit of time. 

The Raven Ridge does not provide the 

calculation basis. Additionally, the 

units presented in the EA (tons) is 

different than the Raven Ridge report 

(cubic feet), therefore a direct 

comparison cannot be made. The EA 

calculated the flared methane based 

on the flare capacity. See responses 

#22 and #23. The methane released is 

trending downward in recent years

(see Table 11 in the EA).

No changes made to 

the EA.

26. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

- Raven Ridge 

attachment

The highest rate of gas liberation takes place during the early 

days of mining a new longwall panel. Based on the records for 

coal and gas extraction for longwall 7 — 50 percent of the gas 

liberated was drained in the first 140 days of mining. 

See Section 3.4.2.1 of the SFEIS on 

page 107. “For the purposes of this 

analysis we simply assume that the 

total methane emissions from 

ventilation system (main vent(s) and 

bore vents) is the same as shown in 

Table 3-7 of the SFEIS, and will 

continue as such for future mining 

years.”

No changes made to 

the EA.

27. High Country A construction air permit will be required to operate the An air permit is required from CDHPE. No changes made to 
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-19

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

- Raven Ridge 

attachment

flare(s); the application process can take between 150 and 180 

days. No application has yet been submitted to CDPHE. 

the EA.

28. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

- Raven Ridge 

attachment

Unknown volumes of liberated methane are being stored 

behind seals in abandoned sections of the mine, creating an 

environmental liability as this gas will escape to the atmosphere 

after mining is completed and the mine is closed. 

See response #24.

The methane collects in the gob 

naturally, it is not 

“stored/sequestered” in the gob. The 

methane remaining in the gob after 

mining is finished is what was there to 

begin with. Mine closure and 

reclamation would be completed in 

accordance with their CDRMS 

approved reclamation plan. 

No changes made to 

the EA.

29. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

- Raven Ridge 

attachment

West Elk should have a plan in place for mine closure and postmine utilization of the methane to prevent methane gas that is 

stored in the mine voids and that which will migrate from the 

remaining coal and surrounding strata from escaping to the 

atmosphere. 

See response #24. As stated in the EA 

in Section 3.3.1.6, there are no 

NAAQS standards for GHG emissions.

Mine closure and reclamation would 

be completed in accordance with 

their CDRMS approved reclamation 

plan.

No changes made to 

the EA.

30. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

- Raven Ridge 

emissions from a mobile flare operating at WEM [West Elk 

Mine] would exceed the threshold for criteria pollutants NOx 

and CO, based on the emissions presented in the EA (page 32, 

Table 6). 

Table 6 of the Draft EA (Table 7 of the 

Final EA) contains emissions from 

stationary, mobile, fugitive, and 

exempt sources. As explained in 

Section 3.3.1.5 of the EA “Major 

sources are stationary sources that 

emit, or have the potential to emit, a 

regulated air pollutant in quantities 

No change made.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-20

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

attachment above a defined threshold”. Mobile 

sources do not contribute to the 

threshold for criteria pollutants. 

Fugitive emissions are not considered 

in determining whether a source is 

major (5 CRR 1001-5 I.B.25.b). 

Emissions resulting directly from an 

internal combustion engine for 

transportation purposes or from a 

non-road engine are not considered a 

stationary source (5 CRR 1001-5 

I.B.43). Therefore, the flare 

generators would not be considered a 

stationary source and would not 

contribute to the threshold for criteria 

pollutants. The flares would be 

considered a portable source (5 CRR 

1001-5 I.B.36), and therefore would 

not contribute to the threshold for 

criteria pollutants. An air permit will 

be required for the flaring.

31. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

- Raven Ridge 

attachment

This is methane that should be destroyed but would 

otherwise be vented to the atmosphere, thus forestalling 

its inevitable release. The concept of a sealed mine is a 

myth, as methane will find a way to the surface though 

naturally occurring fractures, fractures and fissures that 

arise from subsidence, and mine openings that cannot be 

completely and hermetically sealed. Methane emissions 

from closed mines is a growing problem as mine 

operators typically do not prepare the mine for 

repurposing and rarely leave the mine prepared for postmine utilization of the methane that will flow from the 

coal that was left unmined. In the case of WEM, untold 

volumes of methane are being temporarily stored behind 

sealed mined-out panels. This MSHA approved practice is 

Table 10 discloses the methane 

emissions. 

Section 2.2 discusses that reclamation 

will be completed per the approved 

reclamation and closure plan.

MCC is not actively storing methane in 

the mine, just leaving it there.

No change made to 

the EA.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-21

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

creating an environmental liability that will not be 

managed without intervention. The mine should be 

prepared for eventual closure and systems left in place to 

allow easy access to the methane that will flow from 

unmined coal and other strata in addition to that which is 

stored in the sealed sections of the mine. 

32. High Country 

Conservation 

Advocates, Center for 

Biological Diversity,

WildEarth Guardians, 

Wilderness 

Workshop, Sierra Club

... unless WEM deviates from their current ventilation and 

drainage plan, only 16 percent of the methane that will be 

liberated as a result of mining will be drained, and available for 

destruction or use. In other words, only 353 million cubic feet of 

methane will be drained and available for combustion in the 

flare, while 1.761 billion cubic feet will be liberated to the 

atmosphere.

See response to comment 16. No change made to 

the EA.

33. Jim Steitz ...the bankruptcy of Arch Coal renders quite flimsy any promise 

that the Interior Department may obtain for mine reclamation 

or migration of damage to water quality, absent dramatic 

reforms in public land bonding practices... 

See response to comments in the 

SFEIS, Steitz, Jim #2603-4 on page 

826.

Reclamation bonding is required in 

Colorado. 

Even though Arch Coal underwent 

bankruptcy restructuring (Chapter 

11), those activities were conducted 

by the United States Bankruptcy Court 

and have been finalized as of 

September 2016. 

No change made to 

EA.

34. Northern Cheyenne 

Tribal Historic 

Conservation Office

The Northern Cheyenne Tribal Historic Preservation submits 

this following comment regarding the West Elk Mine Expansion:

“The mining plan modification for an additional 1,720 acres of 

federal coal requirements on USFS and BLM lands should 

require a cultural resource inventory for all acreage proposed 

for mine leasing, regardless if any previous surveys were deem 

adequate for permitting requirements. We also agree with the 

stipulation requirements in Table B-1 specifically, and whereas 

a phased approach would be most beneficial at this point, with 

the participation of tribes in the identification process. The 

The impacts on cultural resources 

were evaluated in the SFEIS, section 

3.19. Surveys (inventories) were 

completed in areas with potential to 

contain cultural resources and 

determined there would be no effect 

on cultural resources. See Table 3 in 

the EA.

Per the stipulations in the lease 

modifications identified in Table B-1 in 

No change made to 

the EA.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-22

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

Cultural Resource Specialist, as acceptable to the ISFS under 

Secretary of Interior Stands, should work in coordination with 

tribes and the applicant to determine inventory areas that 

include certain avoidance zones and minimal site buffer zone 

requirements. Additionally, site re-location, if determined to be 

essential, should include an approved excavation plan by the 

agency that may or may not need to be included in the EA 

document. 

the EA, the USFS is responsible for 

assuring that cultural resources are 

protected or mitigated. 

35. Mount Gunnison Fuel 

Company, Heather 

Whitman

Alternative One of West Elk Mining Plan Modification 

Environmental Assessment would authorize mining on federal 

lease modifications COC-1362 and COC-67232 and incorporate 

a voluntary methane emission control system for mine 

ventilation boreholes, reducing their methane mission by 58% 

based on 100 year global warming potential and 63% based on 

20 year. This methane emission control system has been 

determined to eb the safest alternative for flaring methane and 

is currently under review by the Mine Safety and Health 

Administration. Incorporating this voluntary system would 

allow West Elk Mine (WEM) to recoup these additional mining 

costs through the selling of carbon credits under the California 

Air Resource Board Mine Methane Capture Compliance Offset 

Protocol. This alternative includes a revised fire management 

plan to mitigate any additional risks from methane flaring, a 

plan that could also facilitate fire management on MGFC leases 

if WEM decides to use mobile flares on these private leases. 

Mount Gunnison Fuel Company (MGFC) began in 1940 through 

1907 when 23 individuals each paid $3200 to the US 

government for quarter sections of land that included mineral 

rights, patented by the US government in 1921. Current 

shareholders are descendants of these original investors, 

people who have paid the requisite taxes and fees for over 100 

years, and provided public comments over the past decade on 

multiple proposed actions which could impact MGFC and 

Colorado coal interests. MGFC’s leases are held by WEM. WEM 

is proposing to mine longwall panels that go from federal lease 

modifications COC-1362 and COC-67232 and continue onto 

Comment noted. No change made to 

the EA.
Appendix C Response to Comments on EA

West Elk Mine Modification EA January 2020 C-23

No. Commenter Comment Response EA Changes

contiguous MGFC leases. Therefore, any decisions that affect 

mining on the proposed lease modifications will impact MGFC’s 

potential for royalties and other associated lease benefits. 

On behalf of Mount Gunnison Fuel Company, I respectfully 

request that Alternative One of the West Elk Mining Plan 

Modification Environmental Assessment be recommended for 

approval. Thank you for your favorable consideration of our 

comments.