Laserfiche WebLink
the State of Colorado indicate more coal would be made available for mining over a longer <br />period of time. <br />Although SMCRA regulations provide that mining plan modifications are not required <br />where the amount of coal to be mined represents "[a] minor change" (30 C.F.R. <br />§746.18(d)(3)(i)), the increase in available coal does not appear to be minor in this case. As <br />GCC's materials indicate, up to 12 million tons of coal would be available as a result of <br />increasing production to 1.3 million tons annually. This is nearly twice as high as what OSMRE <br />estimated would be made available through the 2007 Mining Plan modification. Tellingly, it is <br />higher than the BLM's estimate of available recoverable reserves for federal lease COC -62920. <br />It would appear that a major—not a minor --change in the amount of coal to be mined at King II <br />has occurred, not only undermining OSMRE's claim otherwise, but also indicating a mining plan <br />modification should have been approved by the Secretary before GCC increased production <br />above 610,000 tons annually. <br />Even if OSMRE continues to deny that the overall coal available for mining King II has <br />not changed, the determination of whether a mining plan modification is necessary does not <br />hinge solely on this standard. As explained above, OSMRE must, among other things, also <br />consider whether the change would affect the conditions of approval under federal law or <br />regulation and whether the change requires the preparation of an environmental impact <br />statement. OSMRE has not addressed the implications of production increases at the King II <br />mine in the context of these factors. <br />As detailed above, this oversight clearly indicates that OSMRE has not met its duty under <br />SMCRA. There are clearly signs that the production increases at the King II mine likely mean <br />the conditions of approval under the 2007 Mining Plan modification are no longer consistent <br />with federal law and regulation, in particular the Endangered Species Act and NEPA. Further, <br />the production increases appear to be posing significant environmental impacts that must be <br />addressed in an environmental impact statement under NEPA. <br />On the latter issue of an environmental impact statement, it is important to point out that <br />at the time of the 2007 Mining Plan modification, OSMRE appears to have also failed to comply <br />with NEPA. In support of the Mining Plan modification, OSMRE adopted BLM's 2001 EA to <br />support its FONSI. However, BLM's EA did not analyze or assess the potentially significant <br />impacts of mining at King II in a number of critical regards, including: <br />• The EA did not contemplate that production rates would exceed 300,000 tons per year. <br />• The EA did not at all address the impacts of water depletions in the San Juan River Basin. <br />• The EA did not at all consider the reasonably foreseeable impacts of coal combustion that <br />would result from the issuance of lease COC -62920. <br />• The EA did not consider the impacts of truck traffic beyond 28 trucks daily. <br />• The EA did not at all analyze or assess the reasonably foreseeable air quality impacts. <br />10 <br />