2018-06-01_REVISION - C1980007 (4)

Home Browse Search

The SFEIS specifically declined to undertake an evaluation of an alternative requiring methane flaring until the mine plan stage in large part because the federal agencies argue that it was more appropriate to conduct such an analysis at the mine plan stage. See Lease Modifications SFEIS at 971 ("[L]easing is just not the appropriate time to address potential permitting actions that relate to in -mine safety for which no mine plan or ventilation plan has been prepared."); id. at 970 ("The requirement of a specific methane mitigation which would likely apply post -mining due to safety issues underground is not appropriate at the leasing stage as there are many mining details unknown at this stage. We have acknowledged that it may be physically possible when, or if, a mine ventilation plan (tied to an actual mine plan) has been prepared and reviewed by permitting agency, MSHA, who would review the plan for mine - specific safety issues."); id. at 802 ("Nothing in this analysis precludes ... methane reduction measures if conditions in a future mine plan meet the lease stipulations ensuring these are technically and economically feasible."); Lease Modifications ROD at 35 (analysis of methane flaring "requires detailed engineering and economic considerations that would occur later"). The mine plan stage is now at hand, so this federal agency explanation for failing to consider this alternative are no longer valid. OSMRE therefore must conduct an analysis of an alternative that requires methane flaring or capture. Such an alternative is reasonable, because it would still fulfill the purpose and need for any mine plan, allowing Arch to mine coal, while reducing mining's climate and air pollution impacts. See Ex. 4. d. OSMRE Is Required to Consult Under the ESA. It is likely that OSMRE may be required to consult under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") concerning the mine plan's impacts to lynx in the area because the surface impacts to Roadless forest may exceed 75 acres. The Lease Modifications SFEIS acknowledges that the biological assessment on the lease modifications, prepared in 2010, "provided an upper limit to impacts covered under the analysis and consultation, which, if exceeded, require the Forest Service to re-initiate consultation and re -analyze the impact of the project to lynx." Lease Modifications SFEIS at 751. This upper limit was 75 acres. Id. at 193 (noting that the "the consulted upon acreage" was 75 acres of disturbance). As noted above, assuming that Arch develops roads and drill pads in the area outlined in its area of "projected operations", the area disturbed by new roads and drill pads for mining and exploration is likely to exceed 75 acres. This requires a reopening of consultation under the ESA before approval of any sort can be undertaken. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, we object to DRMS's proposed approval of PR -15, request an informal conference, and request a site visit to obtain information for the informal conference. Further, we object to OSMRE moving forward to review any mining plan modification associated with PR -15. 10