Laserfiche WebLink
• The increase in production means more environmental impacts related to coal <br />combustion. In the BLM's 2001 EA, the only mention of potential coal combustion <br />impacts was a reference to the fact that coal from the King Coal II mine is sold for <br />cement production, electric utilities, domestic use, tourist trains, and "other." EA at <br />4. There was actually no analysis or assessment of the impacts of coal combustion, <br />particularly the impacts of air emissions—including greenhouse gases—that would <br />result. These impacts have not been addressed by OSMRE under NEPA and <br />therefore fail to demonstrate that the increase in production does not require an <br />environmental impact statement or modification of conditions of approval. <br />• The increase in production means GCC's violation of local land use laws will only be <br />exacerbated. As acknowledged by La Plata County officials, "GCC Energy currently <br />operates within the County in violation of the adopted [La Plata County] Code." <br />Exhibit 8 at 2. This is especially problematic with regards to the impacts of coal <br />hauling on County infrastructure in the area, including roads and other services. A <br />violation of local laws is an indication that environmental impacts are significant <br />under NEPA, triggering the need for an environmental impact statement. 40 C.F.R. § <br />1508.27(b)(10). It is telling that when BLM originally approved federal lease COC - <br />62920, it required GCC to "meet State and County laws concerning road and highway <br />use." EA at 15. Clearly GCC is not meeting the terms of its lease approval and local <br />land use laws, indicating the environmental impacts of increased production are <br />significant and require an environmental impact statement, and that modifications to <br />conditions of approval could be necessary.5 <br />These are just some of the many significant implications of GCC's production increases <br />at the King II mine, yet they were not addressed by OSMRE. Any assertion by OSMRE that a <br />mining plan modification was not required clearly cannot serve to allow GCC to mine at higher <br />rates than were considered at the time of the 2007 Mining Plan modification. Accordingly, the <br />company's mining activities at the King II mine appear to be in violation of SMCRA. <br />B. Additionally, OSMRE is in Violation of SMCRA <br />Although GCC appears to be operating outside the bounds of its 2007 Mining Plan <br />modification in violation of SMCRA, this lack of compliance appears, in part, to stem from <br />OSMRE's lack of compliance with SMCRA. <br />In this case, the increase in permitted production to 1.3 million tons per year at the King <br />II coal mine should have triggered a mining plan modification. OSMRE's failure to determine <br />that a mining plan modification was required is contrary to SMCRA. <br />As discussed above, OSMRE's determination that a mining plan modification was not <br />required was apparently based solely on the agency's claim that the overall amount of coal to be <br />mined would not change. However, this claim is erroneous as materials submitted by GCC to <br />5 Given that the 2007 Mining Plan modification also requires GCC to "comply with the terms and conditions" of its <br />coal lease, this is another sign that the company is violating the 2007 Mining Plan modification. <br />E <br />