Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests; Colorado; Federal Coal Lease Modifications COC-1362 & COC-67232, 8899-8906 [2016-03734]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8899-8906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03734]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests; Colorado; 
Federal Coal Lease Modifications COC-1362 & COC-67232

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact 
statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests 
(GMUG) is considering whether or not to consent to Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) modifying the Federal Coal Leases COC-1362 and COC-
67232 by adding 800 and 922 acres, respectively, to them. If the GMUG 
does consent to lease, it will prescribe conditions (as stipulations) 
for the protection of non-mineral resources. BLM will, in turn, decide 
whether or not to grant lease modifications and will further decide, if 
leased, whether or not to permit on-lease exploration consistent with 
lease terms. Subsequent mine plan modification activities may be 
permitted by Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
(OSM).
    Previous GMUG and BLM analyses and decisions were vacated by U.S. 
District Court for Colorado (1:13-cv-01723-RBJ) on September 11, 2014 
for issues related to econonic analysis on the agencies' leasing 
analysis and BLM's exploration analysis of recreation impacts and a 
redundant road. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is 
being prepared to correct Court-identified deficiencies and to update 
analysis, as needed, since the Final EIS in 2012 and BLM's 
Environmental Assessment (EA) in 2013. The leasing and exploration 
analyses will be combined into a single document for agency and public 
convenience.

DATES: Public comments for this project were received April-May, 2010 
during the preparation of an EA for the lease modifications, April-May, 
2012 on the Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft EIS, June-July, 2012 on 
the Draft EIS and April-May, 2013 on BLM's Sunset Trail Area Coal 
Exploration Plan Environmental Assessment. Comments received during 
those periods will be also be considered in this analysis and those 
that were submitted in a timely manner during official comment periods 
also qualify for standing in future Forest Service objection 
opportunities (36 CFR 218 Subparts A & B) and BLM appeal periods. These 
comments have contributed to the issue analysis and alternative 
development. Additionally, the agency will continue to accept public 
comments throughout the preparation of the Supplemental Draft EIS, 
which is estimated to be released in spring 2016 with an additional 
formal comment period following its release. The Supplemental Final EIS 
is expected in summer 2016; however, timing of Supplemental Final EIS 
is subject to reinstatement of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule 
exception for the North Fork Coal Mining Area, which is currently under 
separate analysis.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Grand Mesa, 
Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, Attn: Forest Supervisor, 
2250 HWY 50, Delta, CO 81416. Comments may also be submitted 
electronically to https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=32459 or via facsimile to 970-874-6698.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Niccole Mortenson, 406-329-3163 or 
nmortenson@fs.fed.us.
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

Lease Modifications

    Under 43 CFR 3432 (as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005), 
the holder of a federal coal lease may apply to modify a lease by 
adding up to 960 acres. The federal agencies are responding to 
applications to modify existing leases. The GMUG and BLM have 
identified the need to consider issuing two coal lease modifications 
for federal coal lands immediately adjacent to exiting federal coal 
leases COC-1362 and COC-67232. The purpose of the federal agencies' 
actions is to facilitate recovery of federal coal resources in an 
environmentally sound manner. Further, the purpose of the lease 
modifications is to ensure that compliant and super-compliant coal 
reserves are recovered and not bypassed. The proposed action responds 
to the federal government's overall policy to foster and encourage 
private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable 
industries, to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security and 
environmental needs (Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970).
    The BLM, charged with administration of the mineral estate on these 
Federal lands, is required, by law, to consider leasing Federally-owned 
minerals for economic recovery. Processing of these particular

[[Page 8900]]

applications are not subject to Department of Interior's January 2016 
leasing moratorium (Secretarial Order No. 3338).
    The USDA-Forest Service (FS), as the surface management agency, 
considers consenting to the BLM leasing reserves underlying lands under 
its jurisdiction and prescribes stipulations for the protection of non-
mineral resources. Based on Forest Service consent, the Secretary of 
Interior (represented by the BLM Southwest District Manager) makes the 
determination on whether there are no significant recreation, timber, 
economic, or other values which may be incompatible with leasing the 
lands in question, and whether or not to modify the leases. BLM could 
then modify the existing leases, which is a non-competitive leasing 
action (43 CFR part 3430).

Exploration Plan

    The BLM's purpose is to decide whether to approve the exploration 
plan and allow the activities to occur on the proposed coal leases, 
consistent with lease rights, if granted, in the manner described in 
the plan; disapprove the plan with a statement of conformity; or 
approve the plan with additional conditions (43 CFR 3482.2(a)(1)), if 
needed, to minimize impacts. As the surface management agency, the GMUG 
has to determine the adequacy of the bond and has to concur with the 
approval terms of the exploration plan.
    The BLM's need is to respond to an application to explore the coal 
deposits in accordance with the federal lease agreements, if issued; 
NEPA; the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended by the Federal Coal Leasing 
Amendments Act of 1976; and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976. The BLM would also be fulfilling management obligations 
regarding the federal coal resource by obtaining information which 
allows the BLM to verify the recoverable reserves.

Proposed Action

Lease Modifications

    Ark Land Company (Ark) submitted an application in January 2009 and 
resubmitted in February 2015 seeking to modify two existing federal 
coal leases COC-1362, owned by Mountain Coal Company (MCC), and COC-
67232, owned by Ark, by adding 800 and 922 additional acres 
(respectively) to them. The applications are being processed according 
to procedures set forth in 43 CFR 3432.
    The proposed action is for the Forest Service to consent to and BLM 
approving modifications to MCC's existing federal coal leases COC-67232 
and/or COC-1362 and thereby adding 922 and 800 additional acres 
(respectively) to ensure that compliant and super-compliant coal 
reserves are recovered and not bypassed, and to identify stipulations 
for the protection of non-mineral (i.e. surface) resources. The 
proposed coal lease modification areas lie in portions of sections 10, 
11, 13, 14, 22 and 23 of T.14S, R. 90W, 6th PM in Gunnison County, 
Colorado, adjacent to the currently operating West Elk Mine.
    As part of the proposed action alternatives the GMUG Forest 
Supervisor must decide if the existing stipulations on the parent 
leases are sufficient for the protection of non-mineral (i.e. surface) 
resources. If not, additional stipulations that would provide for the 
protection of non-mineral resources must be prescribed. The Final EIS 
Tables 2.1a and 2.1b show the stipulations on the parent leases and 
their applicability to the lease modifications, as well as, proposed 
modifications and changes.
    In accordance with Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2820, the Standard 
Notice for Lands under the Jurisdiction of Agriculture is part of the 
parent leases, and hence would apply to the lease modifications. This 
Standard Notice includes requirements for Cultural and Paleontological 
Resources, and Threatened and Endangered Species (see Final EIS Table 
2.1a). Further, the Standard Notice contains the following language: 
``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 Code of Federal Regulations governing the use and management of the 
National Forest System (NFS) when not inconsistent with 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 prior to 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 of the NFS not authorized by the permit/operation approved by 
the Secretary of the Interior.''
    Lease stipulations that have been identified in the Final EIS would 
be brought forward in the Supplemental Draft EIS for all action 
alternatives.
    The proposed action responds to the overall guidance given in the 
GMUG Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (USDA Forest 
Service, 1991) which encourages environmentally sound energy and 
mineral development, and the BLM Uncompahgre Basin Resource Management 
Plan (RMP; USDI BLM, 1989). To that end, the GMUG has identified the 
need to consider consenting to two coal lease modifications for federal 
coal lands immediately adjacent to existing federal coal leases COC-
1362 and COC-67232 to further the Forest Plan direction.

Exploration Plan

    The proposed action is for the BLM to approve the Sunset Trail Area 
Coal Exploration Plan to conduct coal exploration activities after a 
leasing decision is made in sections 10, 11, 14, and 15 of T.14S, R. 
90W, 6th PM in Gunnison County, Colorado within the coal lease 
modification area. The exploration plan was submitted by Ark on behalf 
of MCC. Ark would conduct the exploration activities. Exploration 
consists of drilling, obtaining e-logs down-hole, and collecting core 
samples for testing.

Alternatives

No Action Alternative

A. Leasing
    Analysis of the No Action alternative is required by CEQ 40 CFR 
part 1502.14(d). Under the no action alternative, the lease 
modifications would not be approved, and no mining would occur in these 
specific areas. Impacts from mining coal under these areas would not 
occur on these lands, and the effects from on-going land uses could 
continue including coal mining activities such as exploration and 
monitoring and subsidence related to existing mine activities, as well 
as continued recreation and grazing. The land would continue to be 
managed according to Forest Plan standards, goals and guidelines.
B. Exploration Plan
    Issuance of on-lease exploration is conditional upon lease rights 
being granted. If the lease modifications were not approved, the Sunset 
Trail Area Coal Exploration Plan could also not be approved as 
submitted. Information would not be acquired on the coal resource. The 
No Action Alternative would not preclude MCC from applying to BLM for 
an exploration license for off-lease activities in the future unless 
otherwise precluded by the Colorado Roadless Rule.

[[Page 8901]]

Alternative 3--Consent to and Modify the Lease(s) Under the Colorado 
Roadless Rule Framework (Agencies' Preferred Alternative)

A. Leasing
    The proposed action is for the Forest Service to to consent to and 
BLM modifying existing federal coal leases COC-1362 and COC-67232 by 
adding 800 and 922 additional acres (respectively) to ensure that 
compliant and super-compliant coal reserves are recovered and not 
bypassed, and to identify stipulations for the protection of non-
mineral (i.e. surface) resources.
    The proposed action deals primarily with underground mining. It is 
assumed that longwall mining practices would be used. Minor surface 
disturbance would occur on Forest Service lands as a result of 
subsidence (slight lowering of the land surface and possible soil 
cracking along the outside edges) as the coal is removed. In the event 
that post-lease surface activities are proposed and authorized, other 
soil disturbance may occur due to temporary road construction and 
drilling of methane drainage wells (MDWs) which are needed for safety 
of miners underground. Current technology is not available that would 
be able to drill MDWs without roads.
    Because leasing itself does not approve any mineral development or 
surface disturbance, it is necessary to project the amount of surface 
use or activity that may result during lease development in order to 
disclose potential effects and inform decision-making. A Reasonably 
Foreseeable Mine Plan (RFMP) has been developed to address potential 
environmental effects and is detailed to the extent necessary without 
being predecisional. A RFPM has previously been developed for this 
alternative and is included in the Final EIS (Section 3.2). It must be 
noted that decisions pertaining to surface use and disturbance, with 
the exception of subsidence impacts, are not made at the leasing stage. 
Rather, the decisions related to permit-related surface activities are 
made when and if site-specific surface uses are proposed, and are 
evaluated through the BLM's on-lease exploration (detailed below) or 
through State permitting process for mining. The environmental effects 
analysis of post-lease surface use and disturbance associated with this 
alternative will include subsidence and MDW pads and their associated 
access. It should be noted that approval of these lease modifications 
may extend the life of the existing West Elk Mine by approximately 1.4 
years and provides underground access to existing privately-owned (fee) 
and other federal coal reserves which could extend the life of the mine 
by an additional 1.3 years; it would not approve a new mine nor is it 
anticipated to change current production rates at the West Elk Mine.
    Alternative 3 would be analyzed under the framework of the Colorado 
Roadless Rule (CRR). This rule went into effect on July 3, 2012. The 
CRR specifically addressed coal mining in this area (known as the 
``North Fork Coal Mining Area'') by providing for the construction of 
temporary roads which would be needed for MDWs. The CRR in this 
instance includes the Sunset Colorado Roadless Area (CRA). Sunset CRA 
includes 786 acres of the COC-1362 lease modification and 915 acres of 
the COC-67232 lease modification. Under Alternative 3, the Forest 
Service would consent to and BLM would modify the leases with all 
stipulations/notices/addenda identified in the Final EIS (Tables 2.1a 
and 2.1b). This alternative would rely on the reinstatement of the 
North Fork Coal Mining Area exception to the CRR after Court vacateur; 
analysis of which is in progress. The North Fork Coal Mining Area 
exception would allow for MDW drilling and temporary road access, and 
would therefore allow for mining the coal under RFMP (described in the 
Final EIS Section 3.2) with today's available technology. Because a 
leasing decision itself does not involve any mineral development or 
surface disturbance, it is necessary to project the amount of surface 
use or activity that will likely result during lease development in 
order to disclose potential effects and inform decision-making.
B. Exploration Plan
    The proposed action is for the BLM to approve the site-specific 
Sunset Trail Area Coal Exploration Plan to conduct coal exploration 
activities after a leasing decision. Exploration would consist of 
drilling, obtaining e-logs down-hole, and collecting core samples for 
testing and is detailed below.
    Sites, locations, temporary access road lengths, and estimated 
disturbed acreage of the 10 exploration sites proposed have previously 
been identified. They would be located within the proposed coal leases 
modifications above. Exploration activities would be scheduled to be 
completed over the course of two years. Exploration and reclamation 
activities would be completed by October 31 each year.
    Access road upgrades and new construction would begin one to two 
weeks prior to moving the drill rig onto the site. The construction, 
drilling, and reclamation activities would take an average of 16 days 
per hole.
    Roads would be needed for access to drill pad locations at this 
time. Roads would generally have a travel width of 14 feet wide. For 
construction road width would generally be 30 to 45 feet. For the 
analysis, an average of 35 feet will be used, which would disturb 4.24 
acres per mile. Drill pads would, at a maximum, disturb 0.46 acres per 
pad. Total disturbance on NFS lands would be 29.64 acres.
    Drilling activities such as pad construction, road grading, or 
watering, would not be scheduled on opening weekend of big game hunting 
seasons to avoid user conflicts.
    There would be no stationary fuel storage on site. Fuel would be 
brought to the equipment by truck. If left on-site, the fuel truck 
would be parked on a prepared drill pad where drainage is contained on 
the pad and mud pit.
    Exploration activities would follow any required stipulations 
attached to the leases and lease modifications.
    First Year Exploration Drilling Program--Four exploration drill 
holes (SST-2, SST-4, SST-5, and SST-6) are planned to be drilled in the 
first field season. These four holes would be within the lease 
modification area of COC-1362. Temporary roads and drill sites would be 
developed. Upon completion of the first field season and subsequent 
data review, Ark would determine if completion of the exploration plan 
with the remaining six exploration drill holes is warranted for a 
second season. If Ark determines further exploration drilling is not 
warranted, unless the drill sites and access roads would be used as 
future MDW locations, they would then be reclaimed. If further 
exploration is warranted, the edges of temporary roads would be 
reclaimed to a maximum 14 foot width running surface. Per Forest 
Service stipulations, waterbars and stormwater control devices will be 
placed at the end of the field season, even if the road will be used 
again in the next season. Culverts would be removed to allow unhindered 
natural flow events over the winter and spring. Site SST-6 may be kept 
open as a staging area for the next season's activities.
    Second Year Exploration Drilling Program--If the results of the 
coal resource exploration from the first field season are favorable, 
exploration activities would continue during the second field season at 
sites SST-1, SST-3, and SST-7 through SST-10.
    Drainage control on temporary roads used for the previous year's 
exploration program will be reestablished.

[[Page 8902]]

    Pre-drilling Activities--On-site inspection of proposed drill sites 
and access routes was conducted with representatives from appropriate 
regulatory agencies to discuss site-specific concerns. A road was 
relocated to improve stream crossings and avoid steep slopes.
    State, Forest Service, and BLM regulatory personnel would be 
notified at least 48 hours before any construction or drilling 
equipment is mobilized. An authorized representative of Ark would 
supervise all construction and drilling activities. A copy of the 
exploration permit and all pertinent permit documents would be 
available from the Ark representative for inspection. Any proposed 
changes in the exploration plan after permit approval woul be reviewed 
and approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies before changes take 
effect.
    Road Construction--Existing roads would be used whenever possible 
and movement of equipment across undisturbed land would be kept to a 
minimum. New roads would be constructed only when necessary and only as 
the drilling program progresses. A projected maximum 14-foot road 
running width would be employed except in locations such as curves, 
where more width would be needed for the drill rig. Maximum road width 
disturbed area would be 40 feet. The analysis will use an average of 35 
feet of disturbance width. The drill sites have been located so 
temporary roads are as short and disturb as little ground as possible 
and still provide reasonable access and appropriate coal data. Topsoil 
would be stockpiled and redistributed at reclamation. Erosion control 
structures such as water bars would be installed as required and would 
be constructed in accordance with regulations and stipulations. Any 
culverts placed would be removed at the completion of the project.
    Drill Site Construction--Drill sites would be 0.46 acres of 
disturbance or smaller. Drill site sizes and dimensions were reviewed 
and field fitted to topography with the aid of Forest Service 
representatives.
    A bulldozer (D-7 or smaller) would clear brush and small trees from 
the drill pad. Topsoil would be removed and stockpiled on the upslope 
side of the drill pad and remain undisturbed during drilling. Up to one 
foot of topsoil thickness would be salvaged and stockpiled at the 
disturbance site with a ``TOPSOIL'' sign clearly marking the pile. 
Drill sites would be leveled by grading.
    Slurry (mud) pits would be made on the drill pad. One or two pits 
would be excavated at each site depending upon depth of drill hole and 
projected water requirements. The mud pit(s) would be approximately 10 
feet wide, 30 feet long, and 6 feet deep. Subsoil and rock materials 
would be stockpiled within the drill pad clearing and used to refill 
the mud pits at reclamation.
    Erosion and transportation of sediment would be minimized through 
stormwater controls. Using the existing roads or trails would minimize 
disturbance. Where possible, the existing vegetation would be left to 
reduce the need for sediment control. Using existing level areas for 
drill pads would minimize surface disturbance.
    Salvaged soils would be placed adjacent to the drill pad with 
appropriate sediment control devices surrounding the down slope portion 
of the soil stockpile. A similar sediment control device would be 
placed on the downslope side of the subsoil/rock stockpiles from the 
slurry (mud) pits.
    Methods and Equipment for Drilling--Rotary drilling and coring on 
each site would be completed using a rubber-tired, truck-mounted 
drilling rig. To aid in the reduction of surface disturbances, Ark 
would use the smallest possible drill rig that can be used safely and 
successfully. Support equipment may consist of one or two water trucks, 
one rig-up truck, a pipe truck, flatbed trailer, one or more air 
compressors and/or boosters, a supply trailer, and three 4-wheel drive 
pickups.
    Water sources for drilling operations would be nearby streams, 
where MCC owns the water rights, or stock watering ponds. Water from 
streams would be either pumped or trucked to the sites. If pumped, 
pipes (1-inch polyvinylchloride or 2- to 3-inch hose) would be laid 
alongside the roads and undisturbed ground surface. If trucked, about 
two 4,000-gallon water truck trips would be needed per site. The use of 
these water sources would be approved by the agency or party owning the 
water rights. In the event stock ponds are used, minimum water levels 
would be established to ensure sufficient water is left for stock and 
wildlife. Removal of sediments and other maintenance of stock watering 
ponds within proximity to the exploration sites would provide improved 
water storage for drilling operations and long term use for wildlife 
and livestock. Sediments removed from ponds would be placed on the pond 
embankment, wheel-rolled, and seeded. Water consumption is estimated at 
5,500 to 8,500 gallons per drill hole (0.017-0.026 acre feet). No water 
storage tanks would be needed. Overland flow of the drill fluids would 
be directed into the slurry pit as would most precipitation runoff.
    Upon drill hole completion, one truck mounted geophysical logging 
unit would be used at each hole location.
    Modification of Drill Holes to Surveillance for Water Levels--
Exploration hole SST-2 may be converted to an E-Seam water monitoring 
site if a mineable thickness of E-Seam coal is present. Construction of 
the water monitoring well would be delayed until a determination on 
mineability of the coal is made. The necessary well permit would then 
be obtained from the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and 
Safety (CDRMS) for the well installation. It is not anticipated that 
significant water-bearing bedrock or aquifers would be encountered. The 
Mesa Verde Formation is known to contain limited water bearing 
sandstones, and no known bedrock aquifers exist. If significant 
quantities of water are encountered, the appropriate regulatory 
officials would be notified and if directed, the hole may be completed 
as an additional water monitoring well.
    Drill Hole Abandonment Methods--The hole plugging method described 
in 43 CFR 3484.1(a), states that each open hole would be plugged with 
cement from bottom to 50 feet above the uppermost thick coal seam and 
from 50 feet below to 50 feet above any aquifers encountered in the 
hole. The remainder of the hole would be filled with an approved 
completion mud, gel, cuttings, or cement to within 10 feet of the 
surface. A 10 foot cement surface plug would be set, and an 
appropriately labeled monument marker to be cemented into the surface 
plug. For monitoring wells, the surface casing would be cut off at or 
below the level of the soil surface. Ark may elect to fill the hole in 
its entirety with cement.
    Access--Primary routes used to access the exploration area would be 
Highway 133 to the West Elk Mine entrance and the private and National 
Forest administrative road through Sylvester Gulch to National Forest 
System Road (NFSR) 711. Approximately 0.4 miles of NFSR 711 will be 
used to access the Sylvester Gulch Road.
    Secondary access may use the Gunnison County Road 710 to Lick 
Creek. Access is controlled through a gate at the bottom of the Lick 
Creek Road on MCC's fee surface to the exploration area. Additionally 
there may be access via NFSR 711 and the spurs 711-2C to the proposed 
sites and 711-2A.
    NFSR 711 has been maintained by MCC as an access road to 
exploration

[[Page 8903]]

drill holes and methane drainage well sites for 17 years. Upgrades and 
improvements to the road include gravel base, culverts, ditches, gates, 
and drainage control structures. Ongoing maintenance is a condition of 
MCC's Road Use Permit.
    Reclamation Plan--Final reclamation activities would follow the 
completion of the hole as soon as possible. Upon completion of all 
drilling activities at each site; debris, trash, and drilling equipment 
will be removed. Mud pit(s), once sufficiently dry, would be filled 
with stored subsoil and compacted. Remaining subsoil would be 
redistributed on and around the drill pad to the original contour. 
Stored topsoil would be distributed evenly over the disturbed pad area.
    The entire drill pad area would be re-seeded using the Paonia 
Ranger District seed mix. After seeding, the cleared brush would be 
redistributed over the drill pad area to act as natural mulch. This 
method has proven successful for the revegetation of previous drill 
sites. Sediment control measures would include slash, silt fence, 
erosion control blankets, or straw wattles.
    Newly developed access roads would be graded to the original 
contour as closely as possible and re-seeded.
    The drill pad and access roads reclamation procedure outlined above 
would apply only to newly disturbed areas. Existing roads, as 
identified in the 2010 Gunnison National Forest's Travel Management 
Plan, would be left in a condition equal to or better than that 
observed upon Ark's entry into the area.
    After reclamation, newly constructed access roads to certain drill 
sites may be blocked and closed to vehicle entry at the GMUG or surface 
owner's request. Alternate road closure methods may be employed where 
practical after review with the Forest Service representative.

Alternative 4--Consent to and Modify Only COC-1362 Lease 
(Environmentally Preferable Alternative)

A. Leasing
    Many commenters expressed concerns regarding roadless area effects 
due to post-lease development. Similarly, some commenters suggested an 
alternative requesting agencies' consent/leasing for proposed 
modification to COC-1362 only, while not consenting to proposed 
modification to lease COC-67232. In response to those comments 
Alternative 4 was brought forward for further analysis from 
alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study in the Draft 
EIS. Alternative 4 would include all the same lease stipulations 
considered for Alternative 3 as detailed in the Final EIS (Tables 2.1a 
and 2.1b). As part of the analysis of this alternative, the Forest 
Service requested an additional review from BLM to make determinations 
of mineable resources.
    Alternative 4 will analyze the effects of post-lease surface 
activities--
    1. Under the Colorado Roadless Rule including temporary road 
construction in the Sunset Colorado Roadless Area, as described in 
Alternative 3 above, or
    2. with no road construction above.
    An RFMP was developed to address indirect and cumulative effects 
specific to the COC-1362 modification only.
B. Exploration Plan
    The on-lease exploration activities would remain similar to 
Alternative 3 except roads would truncated at the lease modification 
boundary. This may result in a reduction of three or more exploration 
drill holes and a reduction of approximately 2.75 miles of temporary 
road within the COC-67232 lease modification. Because an exploration 
plan specific to this alternative has not been submitted, the agencies 
are unsure if road density and miles might be increased on the COC-1362 
lease to try to reach drill holes close to the lease modification 
boundary or if they will be foregone. Effects analysis will rely on the 
RFMP developed for leasing to assess impacts.
    Alternatives to be removed from detailed analysis in the SDEIS 
include:
    Alternative 2--Under Alternative 2, the Forest Service would 
consent to and BLM would modify the leases with stipulations/notices/
addendums above listed for the Action Alternatives. However, under the 
provisions of 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, road construction 
would not be allowed in the lease modification areas. At the time of 
this notice, the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is no longer in 
effect in Colorado. It has been replaced with the 2012 Colorado 
Roadless Rule and the roadless area boundaries have changed. Therefore, 
this alternative is now moot.
    Alternatives not considered in detail in the SDEIS remain as 
described in the FEIS and BLM EA:
    Mitigate the potential greenhouse gas emissions of the project by 
requiring MCC to use MDW ventilation air methane--In the geological 
process, methane and coal are formed together. In many coal-bearing 
formations, the methane can be trapped within the coal seams and/or 
within the surrounding rock strata. The process of longwall mining 
reduces the geological pressure and fractures the coal, thereby 
releasing the methane. In underground coal mining, methane is released 
into the mine during extraction. MSHA regulations require methane to be 
diluted in the ventilation air and then vented to the atmosphere, known 
as VAM, for the safety of the mine workers.
    With respect to the VAM, no technology currently exists that has 
been demonstrated to have the capability of handling the volume of 
ventilation air and dilute concentrations of methane at the West Elk 
Mine to make capture economically feasible (current lease stipulation 
language). In 2009, the DOE released the results of a study to simulate 
VAM capture using a non-producing mine (see U.S. Department of Energy 
Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-02NT41620, available on the Internet at: 
https://www.epa.gov/cmop/docs/vam_executive-summary.pdf). The project 
demonstrated continued advancements and a viable solution for coal mine 
VAM control. The DOE, however, stated that the, ``system is only 
economically feasible when there is value for GHG emission reduction.'' 
This implies carbon credits, cap- and-trade, or another market or 
regulatory-based incentivized system for reducing GHGs. (The DOE 
assessment included carbon credits in their economic feasibility model, 
which provided a cost basis for controlling VAM up to 180k cfm).
    In relation to the coal lease modifications, MCC commissioned an 
analysis (Final EIS Appendix A) for capturing and/or conditioning the 
MDW methane for use onsite as fuel for a co-generation facility in 
order to produce electricity for sale to the grid, or for sale as 
pipeline quality natural gas. The study evaluated the gas 
characteristics and potential quantities of methane that would be 
realistically produced based upon existing well data and testing. This 
information was then used to engineer a collections system, including 
options for pipelines and screw compressor configurations for pressure 
management; and dehydration units, control systems, values, and 
metering. Options for energy generation equipment included 
reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) and combustion 
turbines. Additional gas processing equipment options for rendering 
natural gas from the CMM were also presented. The analysis covered 
multiple scenarios for multiple configurations of equipment. The 
analysis for the production of natural gas from CMM indicated that the 
levels of contaminants in the gas (including carbon dioxide, oxygen, 
and nitrogen) were treatable, but that the cost of treatment of the 
gas, the cost of gas compression, and the distance to access

[[Page 8904]]

available existing pipeline systems were prohibitive for delivery of 
the gas as a saleable product. This mining project would be an addition 
to an existing mine; therefore, uninterrupted mining would need to take 
place in order for this project to be economically viable.
    An alternative for methane capture, with the required 
infrastructure, would likely include more miles of road construction 
connecting to a capture facility (probably centralized to operations) 
and pipeline construction (even though pipelines may occur near or in 
roads) and surface disturbance than would the Alternative 3, which 
would also produce additional impacts across multiple resource areas 
including air resources and roadless areas.
    Mitigate the potential greenhouse gas emissions of the project by 
requiring MCC to purchase of carbon credits or do off-set mitigations--
It was suggested that MCC be required to purchase carbon credits as 
mitigation for methane. Congress may develop cap-and-trade legislation 
as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under ``cap-and-trade,'' 
the government sets a limit or a cap on the amount of a pollutant that 
may be emitted. The limit or cap is allocated or sold to businesses in 
the form of emissions permits, which then represent the right to emit 
or discharge a specific volume of the specified pollutant. Under this 
type of legislation, businesses are required to hold a number of 
permits (or ``carbon credits'') equivalent to their emissions. 
Generally, one carbon credit is equal to one tonne (metric ton) of 
carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent gases. The total number of 
carbon credits cannot exceed the established cap, limiting total 
emissions to that level. Businesses that need to increase their carbon 
credits must buy from those who require fewer carbon credits 
(``trade''). The goal of cap-and-trade legislation is to allow market 
mechanisms to drive industrial and commercial endeavors where carbon 
emissions are constrained (or limited); to date they are not 
constrained in the US. Since GHG mitigation projects (such as those 
listed for flaring or capture above) generate carbon credits, the sale 
can be used to finance carbon reduction projects between trading 
partners around the world. Currently, purchasing carbon credits is a 
voluntary financial investment that MCC may choose to entertain for 
business reasons. The federal agencies are not involved in any 
financial investment decisions that MCC makes as a corporation. Since 
no cap has been established, there is no need to require purchase of 
carbon credits as mitigation measure for this leasing analysis.
    While other specific off-set (or off-site) mitigations may be 
possible, they have not been brought forward for consideration related 
to this leasing analysis.
    Prevent all future disturbances from road construction, methane 
drainage well pads and the like in Roadless Areas--The environmental 
consequences from an alternative that considers prevention of future 
surface disturbance is already covered by consideration of the No 
Action Alternative. Therefore, CEQ NEPA regulations describe this 
situation as having been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 
1506.3).
    Shrink the boundaries of the lease to conform to the area where the 
coal will be mined underground--The proposed lease modification 
boundaries were defined by the BLM during tract delineation, and the FS 
has not found reasons for shrinking the tracts due to surface resource 
concerns or results of the unsuitability assessment (see Appendix B).
    The mine plan is approved in a later permitting process by DRMS and 
OSM. The longwall panels foreseen by MCC are based on current, yet 
limited knowledge of the geology. As panels are developed, they could 
be longer or shorter, depending upon conditions found during 
development. If the area to be mined is limited, it could cause bypass 
of mineable coal. Therefore, where actual subsidence or mining may 
occur is not known at this time. The estimated subsidence, derived from 
the RFMP for each alternative is described in the Final EIS Section 
3.4.
    Protect values of the area by using this set of stipulations for 
the Proposed Action.
    Protect a number of values by adopting the following no surface 
occupancy (NSO) stipulations (proposed stipulation is followed by 
response):
    1. NSO stipulations prohibiting road and MDW well pad construction 
within \1/4\ mile of the hiking route known as ``Sunset Trail,'' which 
traverses the lease modification, to protect recreational values.
    GMUG Forest Plan indicates (III-68) coal mining is prohibited on 
trails on the National System of Trails in ``Further Planning Areas'' 
(i.e., areas identified in the Rare II inventory for wilderness 
designation). The Sunset CRA is not a further planning area and the 
Sunset Trail is not on the National System of Trails (examples on the 
GMUG include Crag Crest Trail, Continental Divide National Scenic 
Trail, etc), it is simply a non-system non-motorized trail that is 
mostly overgrown with minimal use by the public. Recreational values 
according to the Forest Plan for this management area could range from 
semi-primitive non-motorized to roaded natural or rural. Further, the 
Alternative 3 includes a lease notice that addresses development 
scenarios for Roadless Areas.
     NSO stipulations prohibiting road and MDW 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.
    Appropriate stipulations specific to Lynx and related to Threatened 
and Endangered species are in Alternatives 3 & 4. Lynx stipulations 
included are consistent with the GMUG Forest Plan 2008 amendment, 
Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment and the Endangered Species Act. 
Further, the Forest Service has consulted with the USFWS regarding 
Canada lynx. CEQ NEPA regulations describe this situation as having 
been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1502.20).
    2. NSO stipulations prohibiting road and MDW well pad construction 
for all areas within \1/4\ mile of a water influence zone (WIZ).
    The GMUG's WIZ is defined as: The land next to water bodies where 
vegetation plays a major role in sustaining long-term integrity of 
aquatic systems. It includes the geomorphic floodplain (valley bottom), 
riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge. Its minimum horizontal width (from 
top of each bank) is 100 feet or the mean height of mature dominant 
late-seral vegetation, whichever is most. The Watershed Conservation 
Practices Handbook 12.1 Management Measure (3) states in the WIZ 
``allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream 
health and riparian ecosystem condition.'' Lease stipulations addressed 
in the Alternatives 3 & 4 address the concern of activities in the WIZ.
    3. NSO stipulations prohibiting road and MDW well pad construction 
for all areas within \1/2\ mile of the West Elk Wilderness boundary, to 
protect roadless, wildlife, scenic, and other values.
    The West Elk IRA was not brought forward as a further planning area 
during the RARE II wilderness inventory. Unlike Oil, Gas and Geothermal 
development (Forest Plan III-54), coal leasing does not provide any 
conditions that would warrant the issuance of an NSO buffer stipulation 
in this area (Forest Plan III-66).

[[Page 8905]]

Recreational values according to the Forest Plan for this management 
area could range from semi-primitive non-motorized to roaded natural or 
rural. Furthermore, provisions of the Colorado Wilderness Act (specific 
to the West Elk Wilderness) do not allow for the prevention of 
activities outside wilderness ``Congress does not intend that 
designation of wilderness areas in the State of Colorado lead to the 
creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around each 
wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be 
seen or heard from areas within the wilderness shall not, of itself, 
preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness 
area'' (96-560, Sec. 110).
     NSO stipulations prohibiting road and MDW well pad 
construction within \1/4\ mile of any old growth forest to prevent 
fragmentation.
    Old growth stands have not been identified in the lease 
modification area. There are three stands which may or may not be old 
growth outside the lease modification area within the affected 6th 
level hydrologic unit code (HUC) (same acreage as the 4th level 
watersheds described in early old growth definitions) that meet the 
first screening criteria (large diameter trees) for old growth using 
Mehl's definitions (Mehl 1992). One is a spruce-fir stand located in 
the West Elk Wilderness; one is a cottonwood stand located primarily on 
private land; the last is a spruce-fir stand over a mile west of the 
lease modifications. None of these stands would be impacted directly or 
cumulatively by post-leasing surface impacts. However, assuming post-
lease surface disturbing activities would occur in mature/over-mature 
classes (which may provide some of the same habitat components as old 
growth), the GMUG Forest Plan (page III-9a, III-9b) allows for removal 
of 70-80% of these stands assuming residual patch sizes are met. If the 
RFMP were implemented in Alternative 3, it is estimated that up to 61 
acres of mature/over-mature aspen (0.3% of vegetation unit), and 7 
acres of mature/over-mature spruce-fir (0.09% of vegetation unit) may 
be disturbed. These are both only a tiny fraction of that allowed to be 
removed under forest plan standards to protect structural diversity.
     NSO stipulations prohibiting road and MDW well pad 
construction within \1/2\ mile of any raptor nest site.
    There is no need for an NSO stipulation related to raptor nest 
sites as it is covered by survey and timing limitations requirements 
(Lease Stipulations) in Alternatives 3 & 4 for sensitive raptors in 
Colorado as identified by Region 2 list. CEQ NEPA regulations describe 
this situation as having been covered by prior environmental review 
(Sec. 1502.20).
    4. NSO stipulations prohibiting road and MDW well pad construction 
on slopes greater than 40% to protect soils and prevent erosion.
    A stipulation that requires restrictions for no surface occupancy 
to be allowed in ``areas of high geologic hazard or high erosion 
potential, or on slopes which exceed 60%'' and a stipulation that 
requires ``special interdisciplinary team analysis and mitigation plans 
detailing construction and mitigation techniques would be required on 
areas where slopes range from 40-60% . . . the interdisciplinary team 
could include engineers, soil scientist, hydrologist, landscape 
architect, reclamation specialist and mining engineer'' already exists 
as part of the Alternative 3. These stipulations are required by the 
Forest Plan and supported by the Watershed Conservation Practices 
Handbook (FSH 2509.25). CEQ NEPA regulations describe this situation as 
having been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3).
    For Exploration Use Helicopters to Transport Drill Rig--An 
alternative analyzing drilling using a drill rig that can be placed on 
site by a helicopter drill rig to avoid construction of access roads 
was considered; however, this alternative was not carried forward for 
detailed analysis because it is ineffective and technically infeasible. 
The geology of the exploration area is such that the aggregate material 
is not structurally sound; therefore, the drill hole must be cased. In 
order for the holes to be properly cased, the initial diameter must be 
wide enough to allow for casing and core extraction. This is not 
feasible to do with a drill rig that can be transported by helicopter 
because they are too small and not powerful enough. Furthermore, this 
alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed 
action because it would not allow the exploration to be accomplished if 
the holes collapse before the core sample can be obtained.
    For Exploration Analyze Only the Holes Proposed to be Drilled 
During the First Field Season for Exploration--An alternative was 
suggested by Wild Earth Guardians that would include only the four 
holes that MCC proposes to drill during the first field season. This 
alternative was not carried forward for detailed analysis because it is 
ineffective as it would not provide the necessary information on the 
coal. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the 
proposed action because it would not effectively explore the coal 
leases consistent with lease rights, if granted.

Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    Lead Agency:
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests
    Cooperating Agencies:
Uncompahgre Field Office, Bureau of Land Management
Southwest District Office, Bureau of Land Management
Colorado State Office, Bureau of Land Management
Western Region, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety

Responsible Officials

GMUG Forest Supervisor
BLM Southwestern District Manager

Nature of Decision To Be Made

Forest Service

    The GMUG Forest Supervisor is the Authorized Officer for this 
discretionary consent decision on these coal lease modifications (FSM 
2822.04c, R2 Supplement). Given the purpose and need, the Authorized 
Officer will review the proposed action, the other alternatives, and 
the environmental consequences in order to decide the following:
     Whether or not to consent to the BLM modifying existing 
Federal Coal Lease COC-1362 by adding 800 acres, and whether or not to 
consent to the BLM modifying existing Federal Coal Lease COC-67232 by 
adding 922 acres according to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; as 
amended by the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 and Energy 
Policy Act of 2005;
     If the Forest Service consents to modify the leases, they 
will prescribe stipulations needed for the protection of non-mineral 
surface resources by determining if the existing stipulations on the 
parent lease are sufficient. If they are not sufficient, prescribe 
additional stipulations that will provide for the protection of non-
mineral interests in the lands.
    The Forest Service Authorized Officer will determine if the 
activity is consistent with the GMUG Forest Plan. The Forest Service 
decision will be made based on the analysis relative to the No Action 
and Proposed Action Alternatives.

BLM

    The BLM is a cooperating agency for this EIS to respond directly to 
their role in the Federal coal leasing process which is tied to the 
mineral (not

[[Page 8906]]

surface) estate. The BLM State Director is the Authorized Officer for 
the BLM, and will decide whether or not to modify the existing coal 
lease under the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended, and the federal 
regulations under 43 CFR 3400. The Uncompahgre Field Office Manager/
Southwest District Manager is responsible for providing the State 
Director with briefings and recommendations. Specifically, the BLM will 
decide whether to:
     Adopt the No-Action Alternative (no leasing);
     Adopt the coal lease modifications as applied for by the 
applicants;
    BLM cannot issue lease modifications without the consent of the 
surface managing agency. BLM's must also decide whether to approve the 
exploration plan and allow the activities to occur on the coal leases, 
consistent with lease rights if granted, in the manner described in the 
plan, disapprove the plan with a statement of conformity, or approve 
the plan with additional conditions (43 CFR 3482.2(a)(1)), if needed to 
minimize impacts. BLM cannot approve an exploration plan without 
concurrence by the surface management agency (concurrence is not a 
``decision'' subject to Forest Service objection process).

OSM

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation Enforcement (OSM) is a 
cooperating agency in preparing this EIS. If the leases are modified, 
OSM will determine if there is a need for a federal mining plan 
modification at the time the actual permitting process is underway. If 
a federal mining plan modification is needed, OSM would be responsible 
to recommend that the DOI Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals 
approve, approve with conditions, or not approve the modification.

DRMS

    In Colorado, the Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (DRMS) 
operates under an OSM-approved program for administering coal mining 
operations in the state, as codified by the Colorado Surface Coal 
Mining Reclamation Act (CRS 34-33-101) and attendant regulations which 
are consistent with the overarching federal regulations (30 CFR part 
906, Appendix B). Any applications submitted to the State of Colorado 
to revise the state mining and reclamation permit, including 
applications to allow mining and its related surface disturbances, 
reclamation, and the changing of the approved mine permit boundary to 
include the modification area, would be reviewed by the DRMS.

Preliminary Issues

    Issues have previously been addressed in the Final EIS (Table 1.9) 
and will be carried forward in this analysis. It is believed that new 
issues will arise during this the Supplemental EIS process including, 
but not limited to: Changes in fish recovery status prompting 
reconsideration of GMUG's Programmatic Biological Opinion for Water 
Depletions related to Endangered Big River Fishes and request for 
Social Cost of Methane analysis.

Scoping Process

    In addition to receiving and considering previous comments from the 
public, the agency continues to accept and consider public comments to 
guide the development of this Supplemental EIS and the resulting 
decision. Additional comments should clearly articulate the reviewer's 
concerns and contentions, and focus on the adequacy of stipulations 
proposed as they relate to the protection of surface resources or 
specific to anaysis that must be undertaken relative to exploration 
activities. Comments received in response to this solicitation, 
including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the 
public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously 
will be accepted and considered, however.

    Dated: February 12, 2016.
Scott G. Armentrout,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2016-03734 Filed 2-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-11-P