Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:13-cv-01723-RBJ Document 91 Filed 06/27/14 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 36 <br />data is incomplete or unavailable' (citation omitted); WildEarth Guardians, 828 F. Supp. 2d at <br />1240 (agency satisfied Section 1502.22 where it stated that additional information on climate <br />impacts was unavailable but that available information indicates impacts would not be <br />significant). Here, the rest of the record, including the absence of any local exceedances and the <br />relatively low levels of VOC emissions from the old data, indicates that VOC pollution will not <br />be significant, an�dethat,the agency'did not act arbitrarily by deXtdirlg.iiotto"roliln <br />addi�onaIi'e�t idea eFofVO�C a t"as--__i <br />c. Colorado Roadless Rule FEIS. <br />Plaintiffs allege three NEPA violations in the Colorado Roadlep Rule: (1) the agencies <br />failed to disclose GHG pollution from the operation of mines that would occur pursuant to the <br />rule, (2) the agencies failed to disclose GHG pollution from combustion of coal from the, North <br />Fork Valley exemption, and (3) the agencies failed to address, acknowledge, or respond to an <br />expert report criticizing the agencies' assumptions about GHG pollution from the exemption. <br />Before delving into the details of the CRR, I note that the rule appears to be the product <br />of exactly the kind of collaborative, -compromise-oriented policymaking that we want in <br />America. Broadly speaking, the CRR balances important conservation interests with the also <br />important economic need to develop natural resources in Colorado. Not everyone got what they <br />wanted out of the rule, but perhaps that is a sign that the political process worked as intended. <br />All of this, however, is more or less beside the point in this litigation. The narrow question this <br />Court must answer is whether the CRR and the North Fork exemption comply with NEPA's <br />disclosure and analysis requirements. The specific issue is whether the agencies took a "hard <br />look" at the rule's contribution to climate change, not whether the rule is a good idea or a bad <br />idea. For the reasons that follow, I find that the agency failed to take a hard look at these effects, <br />25 <br />