Public input sought for Black Mesa

By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — The U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement has resumed work on the final environmental impact statement for the proposed Black Mesa Project and has reopened the public comment period.

Peabody Western Coal Company is funding the remaining work on the environmental impact statement. Notice of the reopened comment period was published Friday in the Federal Register.

The project’s scope has been substantially reduced because of the December 2005 closure of Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nev. Peabody, the supplier of coal to the plant, said in letters dated Feb. 25 and April 30 to Office of Surface Mining that it no longer intends to supply coal to Mohave because chances are remote that the power plant will reopen.

At the time the draft environmental impact statement was issued, the purpose of the Black Mesa Project was to continue to supply coal to Mohave and the Navajo Generating Station in Page. Peabody said it will continue to supply coal to Navajo Generating Station.

Because of the changes, portions of the project proposed in Alternative A of the environmental impact statement, formerly the preferred alternative, appear unlikely, according to Office of Surface Mining .

Included in Alternative A were: permitting the existing coal slurry preparation plant at the Black Mesa Mine Complex; reconstructing the existing 273-mile-long coal-slurry pipeline; and constructing the Coconino-aquifer water supply system and 108-mile pipeline from Leupp to the mine complex.

Though OSM says it will continue to analyze Alternative A when it prepares the final environmental impact statement, Alternative B now will become the preferred alternative.
Alternative B consists of conditional approval of Peabody’s life-of-mine permit revision, including incorporation of the Black Mesa Mine surface facilities and coal deposits into the Kayenta Mine permit area, and maintenance of a haul road between mine areas on the southern ends of Peabody’s coal leases.

The pending permit revision application would be amended to remove the plans for a coal wash plant and coal waste disposal site.

It also reduces the amount of water Navajo-aquifer water to be used from the initially proposed 2,000 acre-feet per year for mine-related uses and backup water supply to 1,236 acre-feet per year for domestic and mine-related uses. An acre-foot is equal to the volume of water necessary to cover an acre of land 1 foot deep in water.

A new road between the southern parts of Peabody’s coal leases formerly included in Alternative B is no longer being proposed. The road would have disturbed 127 acres.

Office of Surface Mining is accepting additional public comments on the draft environmental impact statement through July 7. There is no mention of additional public hearings. Persons who previously commented do not need to resubmit because Office of Surface Mining already is considering those in preparing the final environmental impact statement.

Calvin Johnson, president of the grassroots group, C-Aquifer for Dine, said the environmental impact statement lacks recent studies of endangered species and social impact study of families living within and around the land expansion.

“There still is no recent air quality study done for Black Mesa, nor is there a recent EPA air permit for the Black Mesa project. Environmental devastation of the land and the Navajo way of life will continue to be severely impacted,” he said.

If approved, the 18,984-acre lease area would relocate 17 Navajo families, according to Johnson.

The group also is concerned that URS Corp. of Phoenix developed the environmental impact statement for both the Black Mesa project and the proposed Desert Rock Energy Project in Northwest New Mexico.

Anna Frazier of Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment said that during public hearings in January 2007 on the Black Mesa draft, URS staff stated that they used USGS studies and environmental assessments that were done in the 1960s and 1970s.

“There have been changes in regulations, processes, and assessment protocols. The environment has drastically changed over the past 30 years and the environmental impact statement for Black Mesa is irrelevant because it is a conglomerate of obsolete information,” she said.