26956 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Notices 

Consolidated Annual Report (CAR) is to 

gather narrative, financial and 

performance data as required by the 

reauthorized Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act of 2006 

(Perkins IV) (20 U.S. C. 2301 et seq. As 

amended by Pub. L. 109–270). OCTAE 

staff will determine each States 

compliance with basic provisions of 

Perkins IV and the Education 

Department General Administrative 

Regulations (34 CFR part 80.40 [Annual 

Performance Report] and Part 80.41 

[Financial Status Report]). OCTAE staff 

will review performance data to 

determine whether, and to what extent, 

each State has met its State adjusted 

levels of performance for the core 

indicators described in section 113(b)(4) 

of Perkins IV. Perkins IV requires the 

Secretary to provide the appropriate 

committees of Congress copies of annual 

reports received by the Department from 

each eligible agency that receives funds 

under the Act. 

Dated: May 6, 2014. 

Tomakie Washington, 

Acting Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and 

Records Management Services, Office of 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10755 Filed 5–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Record of Decision for the Uranium 

Leasing Program Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

AGENCY: Office of Legacy Management, 

Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) announces its decision to 

continue management of the Uranium 

Leasing Program (ULP) for 31 lease 

tracts for the next 10 years, consistent 

with DOE’s preferred alternative 

identified in the Final Uranium Leasing 

Program Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (Final ULP PEIS) 

(DOE/EIS–0472). DOE prepared the 

Final ULP PEIS to evaluate the 

reasonably foreseeable environmental 

impacts, including the site-specific 

impacts, of the range of reasonable 

alternatives for the management of the 

ULP. Under the ULP, DOE administers 

31 tracts of land covering an aggregate 

of approximately 25,000 acres (10,000 

ha) in Mesa, Montrose, and San Miguel 

Counties in western Colorado for 

exploration, mine development and 

operations, and reclamation of uranium 

mines. There are currently 29 tracts that 

have been leased; the two other tracts 

have not been leased. Analyses in the 

Final ULP PEIS were based on sitespecific information available on the 31 

lease tracts (including current lessee 

information and status, size of each 

lease tract, previous mining operations 

that occurred, location of existing 

permitted mines and associated 

structures, and other environmental 

information) and additional information 

on uranium mining from other 

references and cooperating agency 

input. As plans for exploration, mine 

development and operation, or 

reclamation are submitted by the lessees 

to DOE for approval, further National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analyses will be prepared for each plan 

and will be tiered from the analyses 

contained in the Final ULP PEIS. 

‘‘The 31 leases currently in existence’’ 

under the ULP are stayed by an Order 

issued by the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Colorado (Colorado 

Environmental Coalition v. DOE, 819 F. 

Supp. 2d 1193, 1224 (D. Colo. 2011)). 

The Court also enjoined DOE from 

issuing any new leases and from 

approving any activities on lands 

governed by the ULP. The Court also 

ordered that after DOE conducts an 

environmental analysis that complies 

with NEPA, the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), all other governing statutes and 

regulations, and the Court’s Order, DOE 

could then request a dissolution of the 

injunction. 

The Court later amended its 

injunction to allow DOE, other Federal, 

state, or local governmental agencies, 

and/or the ULP lessees to conduct only 

those activities on ULP lands that are 

absolutely necessary. DOE will 

implement this ROD only after the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Colorado has dissolved the injunction 

that it issued on October 18, 2011. 

DOE has complied with Executive 

Order (E.O.) 13175, Section 7 of the 

ESA, and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) by 

completing its consultations with tribal 

governments, with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), and with 

tribes, government agencies, and local 

historical groups. 

ADDRESSES: The Final ULP PEIS and 

this ROD are available on DOE’s NEPA 

Web site at http://energy.gov/nepa/

nepa-documents; on the DOE Legacy 

Management (LM) Web site at http://

energy.gov/lm/office-legacymanagement; and on the ULP PEIS Web 

site at http://ulpeis.anl.gov. Requests for 

copies of these documents may be 

submitted through the ULP PEIS Web 

site at http://ulpeis.anl.gov; or by 

contacting Dr. David Shafer by 

electronic mail: David.Shafer@

lm.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

obtain additional information about the 

ULP, the PEIS, or the ROD, contact Dr. 

David Shafer, LM Asset Management 

Team Lead, as indicated under 

ADDRESSES above. For general 

information about the DOE NEPA 

process, contact Ms. Carol Borgstrom, 

Director, Office of NEPA Policy and 

Compliance (GC–54), U.S. Department 

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone: 

202–586–4600; email: askNEPA@

hq.doe.gov; fax: 202–586–7031; or leave 

a toll-free message at 1–800–472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

prepared the ULP PEIS and this ROD 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 United States 

Code [U.S.C.] §§ 4321, et seq.), and in 

compliance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

implementing regulations for NEPA (40 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 

1500 through 1508), and DOE’s 

implementing procedures for NEPA (10 

C.F.R. Part 1021). This ROD is based on 

DOE’s Final ULP PEIS. 

Background 

Congress authorized DOE’s 

predecessor agency, the U.S. Atomic 

Energy Commission (AEC), to develop a 

supply of domestic uranium. The 

aggregated acreage managed by AEC 

totaled approximately 25,000 acres 

(10,000 ha) in Mesa, Montrose, and San 

Miguel Counties in western Colorado. 

Beginning in 1949, the AEC and its 

successor agencies, the U.S. Energy 

Research and Development 

Administration and DOE, administered 

three separate and distinct leasing 

programs during the ensuing 60 years. 

In July 2007, DOE issued a 

programmatic environmental 

assessment (PEA) for the ULP, in which 

it examined three alternatives for the 

management of the ULP for the next 10 

years. In that same month, DOE issued 

a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI), in which DOE announced its 

decision to proceed with the Expanded 

Program Alternative, and also 

determined that preparation of an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

was not required. Under the Expanded 

Program Alternative, DOE would extend 

the 13 existing leases for a 10-year 

period and would also expand the ULP 

to include the competitive offering of up 

to 25 additional lease tracts to the 

domestic uranium industry. In 2008, 

DOE implemented the Expanded 

Program Alternative and executed new 

lease agreements with the existing 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Notices 26957 

lessees for their 13 respective lease 

tracts, effective April 30, 2008. In 

addition, DOE offered the remaining, 

inactive lease tracts to industry for lease 

through a competitive solicitation 

process for 19 leases (some leases 

combined a number of the lease tracts). 

That process culminated in the 

execution of 18 new lease agreements 

for the inactive lease tracts, effective 

June 27, 2008. Since that time, two lease 

tracts were combined into one and 

another lease was relinquished back to 

DOE. Accordingly, there are 29 lease 

tracts that are actively held under lease, 

and 2 lease tracts that are currently 

inactive. 

On June 21, 2011, DOE published the 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the 

ULP PEIS (see Volume 76, page 36097 

of the Federal Register [76 FR 36097]). 

In the NOI, DOE stated that it had 

determined, in light of the site-specific 

information that DOE had gathered as a 

result of the site-specific agency actions 

proposed and approved pursuant to the 

July 2007 PEA, that it was appropriate 

for DOE to prepare a PEIS in order to 

analyze the reasonably foreseeable 

environmental impacts, including 

potential site-specific impacts, of the 

range of reasonable alternatives for the 

management of the ULP for the 

remainder of the 10-year period that was 

covered by the July 2007 PEA. After 

DOE published the NOI, it notified the 

ULP lessees that until the PEIS process 

was completed, DOE would not approve 

any new exploration and mining plans 

and would not require any lessees to 

pay royalties. 

Colorado Environmental Coalition 

and three other plaintiffs filed a 

complaint against DOE in the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Colorado on July 31, 2008, alleging, 

among other things, that DOE’s July 

2007 PEA and FONSI violated NEPA by 

failing to consider adequately the 

environmental impacts of expansion of 

the ULP, and violated the ESA by 

jeopardizing endangered species. On 

October 18, 2011, the Court issued an 

Order in which it held, among other 

things, that DOE had violated NEPA by 

issuing its July 2007 PEA and FONSI 

instead of preparing an EIS, and that 

DOE had failed to consult with the 

USFWS as required by the ESA. 

Colorado Environmental Coalition v. 

DOE, 819 F. Supp. 2d 1193, 1208–14, 

1220–23 (D. Colo. 2011). In that Order, 

the Court invalidated the July 2007 PEA 

and FONSI; stayed ‘‘the 31 leases 

currently in existence’’ under the ULP; 

enjoined DOE from issuing any new 

leases on lands governed by the ULP; 

enjoined DOE from approving any 

activities on lands governed by the ULP; 

and ordered that after DOE conducts an 

environmental analysis that complies 

with NEPA, the ESA, all other governing 

statutes and regulations, and the Court’s 

Order, DOE could then move the Court 

to dissolve its injunction. Id. at 1224– 

25. 

The Court later granted in part DOE’s 

motion for reconsideration of that Order 

and amended its injunction to allow 

DOE, other Federal, state, or local 

governmental agencies, and/or the ULP 

lessees to conduct only those activities 

on ULP lands that are absolutely 

necessary: (1) To conduct DOE’s 

environmental analysis regarding the 

ULP; (2) to comply with orders from 

Federal, state, or local government 

regulatory agencies; (3) to remediate 

certain dangers to public health, safety, 

and the environment on ULP lands; or 

(4) to conduct certain activities to 

maintain the ULP lease tracts and their 

existing facilities. Colorado 

Environmental Coalition v. DOE, No. 

08–cv–1624, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

24126, at ** 10–15 (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 

2012). 

Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

The underlying purpose and need for 

agency action is to support the 

implementation of the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), which 

authorized and directed DOE to develop 

a supply of domestic uranium (42 U.S.C. 

2096), and ‘‘to issue leases or permits 

for prospecting for, exploration for, 

mining of, or removal of deposits of 

source material in lands belonging to 

the United States’’ to the extent that 

DOE deems it necessary to effectuate the 

provisions of the AEA (42 U.S.C. 2097). 

Congress further recognized the 

importance of developing a supply of 

domestic uranium and other source 

material when it stated in the AEA, in 

its Congressional findings, that the 

processing of source material must be 

regulated ‘‘in order to provide for the 

common defense and security’’ (42 

U.S.C. 2012(d)). In addition, the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–58) 

(EPAct) expressed a continued 

commitment to ‘‘decreasing the 

dependence of the United States on 

foreign energy supplies’’ (42 U.S.C. 

16181(a) (3)); and to ‘‘[e]nhancing 

nuclear power’s viability as part of the 

United States energy portfolio’’ (42 

U.S.C. 16271(a)(1)). The ULP 

contributes to the development of a 

supply of domestic uranium consistent 

with the provisions of the AEA and 

EPAct. In support of these statutes, DOE 

needs to determine the future course of 

the ULP, including whether to continue 

leasing some or all of the withdrawn 

lands and other claims for the 

exploration and production of uranium 

and vanadium ores. 

Proposed Action 

DOE’s proposed action in the ULP 

PEIS was to decide whether to continue 

the ULP and, if it decided to continue 

the ULP, to determine which alternative 

to adopt in order to manage the ULP. 

Alternatives 

DOE evaluated five alternatives that 

represent the range of reasonable 

alternatives for the future course of the 

ULP. DOE developed these alternatives 

by carefully considering the need to 

develop a supply of domestic uranium 

(consistent with the AEA and the 

EPAct), and comments received during 

the public scoping and public comment 

periods. The five alternatives are: 

1. Alternative 1: DOE would terminate 

all leases, and all operations would be 

reclaimed by lessees. DOE would 

continue to manage the withdrawn 

lands, without uranium leasing, in 

accordance with applicable 

requirements. 

2. Alternative 2: Same as Alternative 

1, except once reclamation was 

completed by lessees, DOE would 

relinquish the lands in accordance with 

43 CFR Part 2370. If the Department of 

the Interior/Bureau of Land 

Management (DOI/BLM) determines, in 

accordance with that same Part of the 

CFR, the lands were suitable to be 

managed as public domain lands, they 

would be managed by BLM under its 

multiple use policies. DOE’s uranium 

leasing program would end. 

3. Alternative 3: DOE would continue 

the ULP as it existed before July 2007, 

with the 13 active leases, for the next 

10-year period or for another reasonable 

period, and DOE would terminate the 

remaining leases. 

4. Alternative 4 (DOE’s preferred 

alternative identified in the Final ULP 

PEIS): DOE would continue the ULP 

with the 31 lease tracts for the next 

10-year period or for another reasonable 

period. 

5. Alternative 5: This is the No Action 

Alternative, under which DOE would 

continue the ULP with the 31 lease 

tracts for the remainder of the 10-year 

period, and the leases would continue 

exactly as they were issued in 2008. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

The analyses in the Final ULP PEIS 

show that potential environmental 

impacts on the resource areas analyzed 

for the five alternatives range from 

‘‘negligible to moderate.’’ Further, the 

potential environmental impacts would 

be mitigated as discussed in this ROD. 

However, there are some differences 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
26958 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Notices 

among the alternatives. For example, 

Alternative 5 would result in the 

greatest potential for impacts of all the 

alternatives because the assumptions 

used as the basis for analysis would 

potentially result in the most activities, 

the largest area of disturbance, the most 

ore tonnage excavated and transported, 

and the most water used. DOE 

considered two alternatives, 

Alternatives 1 and 2, which would 

require immediate reclamation of areas 

where it is needed and subsequent 

termination of the leasing. Alternative 1 

would result in the least potential 

environmental impacts of the five 

alternatives analyzed in detail in the 

PEIS, and DOE therefore regards it as 

the environmentally preferred 

alternative. The potential impacts from 

Alternative 2 would be identical to 

Alternative 1 in the short term; 

however, there could be additional 

potential impacts under Alternative 2 in 

the future if the lease tracts would 

ultimately be transferred to BLM 

depending on future activities that 

might be conducted. 

DOE did not select Alternative 1 

because that alternative would not meet 

DOE’s purpose and need. In contrast, 

the alternative selected in this ROD will 

meet DOE’s purpose and need, while 

resulting in potential environmental 

impacts that were determined to be 

‘‘negligible to moderate.’’ Additionally, 

mitigation measures will reduce the 

likelihood of these potential 

environmental impacts occurring. 

EIS Process 

The NOI published on June 21, 2011, 

began a 78-day public scoping period 

that ended on September 9, 2011. All 

scoping comments received were 

considered in the preparation of the 

Draft PEIS. A Notice of Availability 

(NOA) for the Draft ULP PEIS was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 15, 2013 (78 FR 16483), and this 

began a 109-day public comment period 

that ended July 1, 2013. All comments 

received on the Draft ULP PEIS were 

considered in the preparation of the 

Final ULP PEIS. 

DOE distributed copies of the Draft 

ULP PEIS to those organizations and 

government officials known to have an 

interest in the PEIS and to those 

organizations and individuals who 

requested a copy. The Draft ULP PEIS 

was reviewed by other Federal agencies, 

states, American Indian tribal 

governments, local governments, and 

the public. Copies were also made 

available on the ULP Web site (http://

www.ulpeis.anl.gov/), the DOE NEPA 

Web site (http://energy.gov/nepa/), and 

in regional DOE public document 

reading rooms and public libraries. 

Announcements indicating the 

availability of the Draft ULP PEIS and 

the dates and times of the public 

hearings were published in local 

newspapers. Four public hearings were 

held in four locations in Colorado. The 

transcripts for the four hearings are 

posted on the project Web site. 

Federal, state, and county agencies 

and tribal nations participated either as 

a cooperating agency or commenting 

agency in the development and 

preparation of the ULP PEIS. Since 

January 2012, monthly, as appropriate, 

telephone conferences have been held 

among DOE and the cooperating 

agencies to develop the ULP PEIS. 

These cooperating agencies participated 

by reviewing and commenting on ULP 

PEIS analyses and documentation, as 

well as providing supporting 

information. The following government 

agencies and tribal groups have 

participated as cooperating agencies by 

providing their expertise and knowledge 

about various areas required during the 

preparation of the ULP PEIS: (1) BLM, 

(2) U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), (3) Colorado Department 

of Transportation, (4) Colorado Division 

of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety 

(CDRMS), (5) Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife, (6) Mesa County Commission, 

(7) Montrose County Commissioners, (8) 

San Juan County Commission, (9) San 

Miguel County Board of Commissioners, 

(10) Navajo Nation, (11) Pueblo of 

Acoma, (12) Pueblo de Cochiti, (13) 

Pueblo de Isleta, and (14) Southern Ute 

Indian Tribe. The following agencies 

and tribal groups chose to participate as 

commenting agencies, and they were 

included in the project distribution list 

and received the Draft ULP PEIS for 

review and comment: (1) USFWS, (2) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

(3) Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment, (4) Utah 

Department of Transportation, (5) Hopi 

Nation, (6) Ute Indian Tribe, (7) Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe, and (8) White Mesa 

Ute Community. 

DOE has complied with E.O. 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, by 

conducting government-to-government 

consultations with tribal governments. 

The government-to-government 

relationship with Indian tribes was 

formally recognized by the Federal 

Government with E.O. 13175 on 

November 6, 2000, and DOE is 

coordinating and consulting with Indian 

tribal governments, Indian tribal 

communities, and tribal individuals 

whose interests might be directly and 

substantially affected by activities on 

the ULP lands. As part of this 

consultation, DOE has contacted 25 

Indian tribal governments to 

communicate the opportunities for 

government-to-government 

consultations by participating in the 

planning and resource management 

decision-making throughout the ULP 

PEIS process. Five are participating as 

cooperating agencies, and four are 

participating as commenting agencies. 

In compliance with Section 7 of the 

ESA, DOE considered the effect of its 

management of the ULP on species 

listed under the ESA, and consulted 

with the USFWS to ensure that the 

actions that DOE funds, authorizes, or 

permits are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any listed 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of the critical 

habitat of such species. DOE and the 

USFWS completed their consultation, 

which included DOE submitting its final 

biological assessment to the USFWS on 

May 14, 2013. The USFWS issued its 

biological opinion on August 19, 2013. 

DOE has completed programmatic 

consultation, in compliance with 

Section 106 of the NHPA, concerning 

DOE’s management of the ULP, and has 

signed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) 

to govern the ULP activities. A PA was 

deemed appropriate as DOE expects the 

historic properties to be similar and 

repetitive or regional in scope, and the 

effects cannot be fully determined at 

this time prior to submittal of sitespecific plans. 

The NOA for the Final ULP PEIS was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 21, 2014 (79 FR 15741). 

Comments Received on the Final PEIS 

DOE received three letters regarding 

the Final ULP PEIS, which were 

considered in developing this ROD. The 

letters were from the Hopi Tribe, the 

Western Colorado Congress (WCC), and 

the EPA. These letters did not present 

significant new circumstances or 

information that would warrant a 

supplemental EIS pursuant to CEQ and 

DOE NEPA implementing regulations 

[40 CFR 1502.9(c) and 10 CFR 

1021.314(a)]. 

The Hopi Tribe stated its longstanding 

concerns about adverse impacts of past 

uranium mining on the land, water, and 

people, and that past contamination 

from uranium mining should be cleaned 

up before any additional mining is 

approved. The Hopi Tribe also 

expressed strong opposition to 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, and stated that, 

if DOE selects Alternative 4, the Tribe 

expects continuing consultation 

regarding cultural resource survey 

reports and treatment plans for the 

mitigation of adverse effects to National 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Notices 26959 

Register eligible prehistoric areas and 

Hopi Traditional Cultural Properties 

that may exist in areas that cannot be 

avoided by ground disturbing activities. 

Consistent with the PA, DOE will 

consult with the Hopi Tribe in 

identifying properties of traditional 

religious and cultural importance listed 

in or eligible for listing in areas of 

potential effects, assessing the effects on 

those properties, and developing 

appropriate mitigation strategies for 

individual undertakings. 

WCC indicated in their letter that they 

continued to have concerns related to 

the prospect of increased uranium 

mining in western Colorado, expressed 

their disappointment that DOE 

continued to support Alternative 4, and 

stated that WCC could not support any 

new mining endeavors until all 

abandoned uranium mines are cleaned 

up. WCC also expressed concerns with 

‘‘booms and busts’’ in the uranium 

industry and indicated that Alternative 

4 would continue to tie up the lands in 

the area to an unstable uranium market 

and impact other forms of development. 

Further, WCC indicated they 

understood the rationale that the 

analysis of uranium markets, long-term 

economics, transportation corridors, and 

public health did not fit within DOE’s 

‘‘Purpose and Need,’’ but they disagreed 

with this approach. WCC expressed 

their appreciation that DOE included 

more site specific data in the Final PEIS 

but stated that the changes did not 

address the full breadth of their 

comments and concerns with 

Alternative 4. In addition, WCC noted 

that DOE did not preclude development 

of alternative energy projects on ULP 

lands and expressed hope that the ULP 

PEIS can be a step forward to creating 

a transparent process that leads to a 

uniform and modern standard for all 

abandoned uranium mines in Colorado. 

DOE understands and agrees with 

WCC’s concern with the need to reclaim 

all the abandoned uranium mines in the 

Colorado Plateau and appreciates WCC 

recognition that DOE has reclaimed all 

legacy mines within the ULP program 

areas. While DOE did not evaluate the 

economics of the uranium market, DOE 

did evaluate the potential impacts of the 

alternatives on transportation, 

socioeconomics, and human health, and 

the potential cumulative impacts of the 

ULP. These impacts were determined to 

be ‘‘negligible to moderate,’’ and DOE 

will require mitigation measures to 

avoid or minimize the environmental 

impacts from specific future ULP 

activities. DOE appreciates WCC’s 

vision that the ULP PEIS can be a step 

forward to a transparent process for a 

uniform and modern standard of 

reclamation for abandoned mines. DOE 

believes the ULP program can also be a 

step forward for modern and 

environmentally sensitive uranium 

mine exploration and development in 

addition to reclamation. 

The EPA Region 8, in its letter, 

indicated that DOE worked diligently to 

address EPA concerns on the Draft PEIS 

by providing additional information in 

the Final PEIS. EPA expressed their 

appreciation for the revisions made in 

the Final PEIS and as a result had no 

comments on the Final PEIS. 

DOE appreciates EPA’s diligence in 

working with DOE to assure that the 

PEIS provided a thorough analysis of 

potential impacts and clearly 

communicated the results. EPA also 

helped DOE to clarify and identify 

mitigation measures to reduce the 

potential impacts. 

Decision 

DOE has decided to continue the ULP 

with the 31 lease tracts for the next 10- 

year period beginning with the 

publication of this ROD in the Federal 

Register. Alternative 4, the alternative 

selected in this ROD, will result in 

‘‘negligible to moderate’’ potential 

environmental impacts and will provide 

access to a domestic source of uranium 

consistent with the purpose and need 

stated in the Final PEIS. To be more 

transparent, DOE decided to set a 

specific timeframe of 10 years in this 

decision, even though Alternative 4 in 

the PEIS allowed the program to 

continue ‘‘for the next 10-year period or 

for another reasonable period.’’ 

DOE will implement this ROD only 

after the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Colorado has dissolved the 

injunction that it issued on October 18, 

2011. In the continuation of the ULP, 

DOE will evaluate the 31 lease tracts by 

considering individual tract 

management issues, such as whether to 

lease the tracts that are presently not 

leased, and whether potential future 

requests for lease transfers will be 

approved. In implementing this 

decision, leases will be modified, as 

needed, to include mitigation measures 

described in the ULP PEIS. DOE will 

prepare a Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) 

as described below under Mitigation. As 

plans for exploration, mine 

development and operation, or 

reclamation are submitted by the lessees 

to DOE for approval, further NEPA 

analyses for these actions will be 

prepared and tiered from the Final ULP 

PEIS. The level of follow-on NEPA 

analyses will depend on the action 

being proposed by the lessees. For 

mining plans to be submitted for 

approval, DOE will prepare, at a 

minimum, an environmental assessment 

with appropriate public involvement to 

further evaluate potential site impacts. 

These NEPA analyses will be prepared 

to inform DOE’s decisions on approval 

of the plans, including the conditions 

DOE will require to mitigate potential 

environmental impacts. DOE will 

conduct further consultations regarding 

cultural and endangered species, as 

appropriate, depending on the specific 

action. 

Program Implementation 

As described in Alternative 4 in the 

Final PEIS, all 31 lease tracts will be 

available for potential exploration and 

mining of uranium ores. Leases on the 

ULP lease tracts will be continued for 

the next 10 years. Two of the 31 lease 

tracts (Lease Tract 8A and Lease Tract 

14) are currently not leased. Lease Tract 

8A is a small tract that is isolated and 

may be located entirely below or outside 

the uranium-bearing formation, which 

could indicate a lack of ore. Lease Tract 

14 is composed of three parcels (14–1, 

14–2, and 14–3). There was some 

interest in Parcels 14–1 and 14–2 by 

potential lessees in the past; however, 

the third parcel (14–3, which lies east of 

14–1) is located almost entirely within 

the Dolores River corridor and has never 

been leased. The leases stipulate that no 

new mining activity could be conducted 

within 0.25 mi (0.4 km) of the Dolores 

River. 

Eight of the lease tracts (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

11, 13, and 18) contain one or more 

existing mines that operated in the past 

under DOE’s approval and are currently 

permitted by CDRMS. Three lease tracts 

(13A, 21, and 25) have existing mine 

sites that have been fully reclaimed in 

accordance with existing environmental 

requirements and DOE lease 

stipulations; however, these mine sites 

currently remain permitted by CDRMS. 

The lessees have submitted no new 

project-specific plans to DOE with 

regard to where and how many mines 

might be developed and operated in the 

near future. For the purposes of analysis 

in the ULP PEIS, DOE conservatively 

assumed, based on past practices, that 

there would be a total of 19 mines 

operating at various production rates 

during a peak year of operations. That 

is, the 19 mines would comprise 6 

small, 10 medium, 2 large, and 1 very 

large (open-pit JD–7 mine). It was 

further assumed that there would be a 

smaller number of mines in operation in 

years other than the peak year, and that 

the peak year could occur more than 

once (i.e., there could be multiple years 

with the same number of mines 

operating at similar ore production 

rates). It was expected that the potential 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
26960 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Notices 

environmental impacts for years other 

than the peak year(s) would fall within 

the range of impacts discussed for a 

peak year in the ULP PEIS. Therefore, 

the potential environmental impacts for 

the entire 10-year lease period would be 

expected to be no more than 10 times 

those for the peak year. 

For the exploration phase of a mine, 

it is assumed that a total of 0.33 acre 

(0.13 ha), 1.1 acre (0.44 ha), and 0.33 

acre (0.13 ha) of surface would be 

disturbed for the new 6 small, 10 

medium, and 2 large mines respectively. 

For the very large mine, 210 acres (92 

ha) have already been disturbed at the 

JD–7 surface open-pit mine. A total of 

20 workers would be required to 

conduct the exploration phase for the 

mines assumed for the peak year (not 

including the very large open-pit mine 

at JD–7, for which exploration was 

assumed to have been completed). 

The total area disturbed for 

Alternative 4 will be approximately 460 

acres (190 ha). Total tonnage of ore 

generated for the peak year of operation 

will be about 480,000 tons. The number 

of workers needed for mine 

development and operations will 

depend on the size of the mine and 

could vary from 7 to 51 workers. It is 

assumed that 7, 11, 17, and 51 workers 

will be needed for each small, medium, 

large, and very large mine, respectively. 

These workers will consist mostly of 

mine workers. A peak year of operation 

for 19 mines will involve about 237 

workers. 

Equipment needed for mine 

development and operations will 

include both underground and surface 

equipment. Water will also be needed 

and will be trucked to the location of 

the activities. The annual amount of 

water needed for the 19 mines during 

the peak year assumed for this action is 

estimated to be about 6,300,000 gal (19 

ac-ft.). Retention ponds will be required 

to capture surface water and prevent 

sediment from entering nearby streams 

and drainages. Reclamation of the mine 

operations will involve about 39 

workers over the course of a peak year. 

It is assumed that there will be a waiting 

period of up to 2 years to account for 

verification of adequate revegetation 

and obtaining the necessary release and 

approval. 

Based on historical and existing mine 

development, it is expected, and the 

analysis assumes, that the mines will be 

underground, with the exception of the 

JD–7 mine on Lease Tract 7, which is a 

surface open-pit mine. 

Mitigation 

During lease implementation, DOE 

will require specific measures to be 

identified to ensure that potential 

environmental impacts from specific 

future ULP activities are avoided or 

minimized consistent with the 

mitigation measures in the Final ULP 

PEIS. DOE’s decision incorporates all 

practicable means to avoid or minimize 

adverse environmental impacts during 

exploration, mining operations, and 

reclamation associated with the ULP. 

All activities associated with the ULP 

will be conducted to ensure that 

conditions are protective of the 

environment and human health. DOE 

will ensure implementation of the 

mitigation measures identified in the 

Final ULP PEIS (section 4.6), as 

appropriate. Mitigation measures will 

ensure that risks from potential 

exposures under foreseeable end-state 

scenarios analyzed in the ULP PEIS (i.e., 

a recreational visitor scenario at the 

mine site footprint and within the lease 

tracts, and a resident scenario for 

outside the lease tracts) will be very 

small. These measures are identified in 

current leases or will be added to the 

leases. 

These and other mitigation measures 

address potential impacts to human 

health, transportation, and the various 

environmental resources as follows: (1) 

Reduce dust emissions, (2) identify and 

protect paleontological resources, (3) 

protect soil from erosion, (4) minimize 

the extent and amount of ground 

disturbance, (5) restore original grade 

and reclaim soil and vegetation, (6) 

protect wildlife and wildlife habitats, (7) 

minimize lighting to off-site areas, (8) 

protect human health by minimizing 

radiological exposure, and (9) assure 

safe and proper transport of generated 

ore. 

Mitigation measures identified in the 

Final ULP PEIS and in the leases will be 

addressed in a MAP. DOE will prepare 

the MAP, consistent with 10 CFR 

1021.331, to establish how the 

mitigation measures will be planned, 

implemented, and monitored. 

Compliance measures identified in the 

Final ULP PEIS will not be included in 

the MAP because they are legal 

requirements irrespective of the MAP. 

Lease stipulations will be in place to 

reinforce these legal requirements. DOE 

will ensure that the lessees fulfill the 

mitigation measures specified in this 

ROD and in the MAP, which is under 

development. DOE will make the MAP 

available to the public via the Web sites 

listed under ADDRESSES above. 

Basis for Decision 

In making this decision, DOE has 

carefully considered all public 

comments, the results of the Final ULP 

PEIS evaluation, the biological opinion 

issued by the USFWS based on the ESA 

consultation, and the establishment of 

the PA consistent with Section 106 of 

the NHPA. DOE believes that uranium 

mining activities at the ULP lease tracts 

can continue to be conducted in a 

manner that is protective of the 

environment and public health. This 

decision supports the AEA provisions 

that authorize and direct DOE to 

develop a supply of domestic uranium, 

and to issue leases or permits for 

prospecting, exploration, mining, or 

removal of deposits of uranium ore in 

lands belonging to the United States. An 

active ULP program will be more 

successful in meeting these needs than 

would an inactive program. Although 

Alternatives 3 and 5 considered in the 

PEIS also provided an active ULP 

program, this decision provides access 

to a greater supply of domestic uranium 

from the lease tracts compared to 

Alternative 3, could create about 229 

direct jobs and 152 indirect jobs, 

generates about $14.8 million in 

income, provides royalties from the 

leases to the Federal Government, and 

results in negligible to moderate 

potential environmental impacts that 

would be less than those under 

Alternative 5. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 6th of 

May 2014. 

David W. Geiser, 

Director, DOE Office of Legacy Management. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10847 Filed 5–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9910–76–OA] 

National Environmental Education 

Advisory Council 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, EPA gives notice of a 

meeting of the National Environmental 

Education Advisory Council (NEEAC). 

The NEEAC was created by Congress to 

advise, consult with, and make 

recommendations to the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) on matters related to activities, 

functions and policies of EPA under the 

National Environmental Education Act 

(Act). 20 U.S.C. § 5508(b). 

The purpose of these meeting(s) is to 

discuss specific topics of relevance for 

consideration by the council in order to 

provide advice and insights to the 

Agency on environmental education. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES