Laserfiche WebLink
• The EA did not address the fact that the King II mine is in violation of La Plata County <br />land use laws. <br />Under regulations implementing SMCRA, OSMRE is charged with making recommendations as <br />to the approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of mining plans on the basis of, <br />"[i]nformation prepared in compliance with [NEPA]." 30 C.F.R. § 746.13(b). Here, OSMRE's <br />apparent failure to comply with NEPA when approving the 2007 Mining Plan modification <br />means the agency's prior FONSI is not supported. This underscores that the impacts of the 2007 <br />Mining Plan modification were, in fact, significant, and necessitated the preparation of an <br />environmental impact statement. The failure of OSMRE to prepare an environmental impact <br />statement in conjunction with the 2007 Mining Plan modification underscores that the impacts of <br />production increases at the King II mine should have been analyzed and assessed in an <br />environmental impact statement. <br />Finally, it is telling that an OSMRE employee, rather than the Regional Director, made <br />the determination that a mining plan modification was not required, contrary to the agency's <br />directives. Given that an unauthorized OSMRE employee made the determination, it perhaps <br />makes sense that the agency would fail to appropriately address legally required criteria for <br />mining plan modifications. At the least, it underscores that no legally valid determination has <br />been made by OSMRE that a mining plan modification was not required <br />3. REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT <br />Where there is reason to believe that a violation of SMCRA, regulations implementing <br />SMCRA, or any condition of a permit exists, and where there is no state regulatory authority, <br />OSMRE is required to "immediately" conduct an inspection. 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(1). If a <br />violation is found as a result of an inspection, OSMRE must issue a "notice of violation" <br />pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 843.12(a) to remedy the violations. <br />Based on the aforementioned information, there is reason to believe that violations of <br />SMCRA are occurring with regards to GCC's production of coal from federal coal lease COC - <br />62920 at the King II coal mine in La Plata County, Colorado. By increasing coal production at <br />the King II mine, GCC appears to be operating outside the bounds of the 2007 Mining Plan <br />modification authorizing the mining of coal lease COC -62920, in violation of the 2007 Mining <br />Plan modification and 30 C.F.R. §§ 746.11 and 746.17.6 Further, although GCC received <br />approval from the State of Colorado to produce as much as 1.3 million tons of coal annually, a <br />mining plan modification was never approved by the Secretary of the Interior to authorize this <br />level of production from federal coal lease COC -62920, in violation of 30 C.F.R. §§ 746.11 <br />and 746.18. What's more, OSMRE appears to have inappropriately determined that a mining <br />plan modification was not required for the production increases at the King II mine, in violation <br />of 30 C.F.R. § 746.18. <br />6 This also likely means that GCC is operating contrary to Federal Permit No. CO -0106A. <br />11 <br />