[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
[email protected].
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:
http://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