My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-12-16_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981035 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981035
>
2015-12-16_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981035 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:13:28 PM
Creation date
12/18/2015 10:57:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981035
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/16/2015
Doc Name
Coal Transport NEPA Process
From
Luke Danielson
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Email Name
RAR
DIH
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
THIS iS CONSISTENT WITH THE BLM HANDBOOK <br />The BLM's own handbook on the NEPA process is rife with statements concerning the <br />importance of alternatives and critical of the limiting of alternative choices that is being <br />attempted in this project. A sampling: <br />• "The NEPA directs the BLM to `study, develop, and describe appropriate <br />alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal that involves <br />unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources;...' {NEPA <br />Sec102(2)4E)).- BLM NEPA Handbook at §5.6.1; <br />• "You must analyze those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice...." <br />id. <br />• "The EIS must consider a range of reasonable alternatives, including the <br />Proposed Action and No Action alternative, and provide a description of <br />alternatives eliminated from further analysis (if any exist) with the rationale for <br />elimination...." Id. at §9.2.7; <br />• "The CEQ regulations direct that an EIS `rigorously explore and objectively <br />evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives that were eliminated <br />from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated' <br />(40 CFR 1502.14(x): see also NEPA Sec. 102(2)(C){iii))." Id. at § 9.2.7.1. <br />THIS PROCESS NEEDS TO RESULT IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT <br />RATHER THAN AN EA <br />Mr. Strid's report makes it clear that, considering the range of alternatives that must be <br />considered for this project, an EA is inadequate and an EIS is required. <br />"it is likely that the EA document, which is forthcoming, will be changed to on EIS <br />because there appeal' to be significant impacts resulting from the Icing II Mitre and its <br />proposed lease modifications." Report at S. <br />This opinion is shared by the BLM's NEPA Handbook: <br />"Actions whose effects are expected to be significant and are not fully covered in an <br />existing EIS must be analyzed in a new orsupplemental EIS." BLM NEPA Handbook at <br />§7.2. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.