2020-06-24_REVISION - C1981035 (2)

Home Browse Search

Appendix B Public Comment/Agency Response Matrix Submission# Organization/Agency Name Commenter Type Commerrt Comment Response 2 001 Yselta del Sur Pueblo Tribal Government While we do not have any comments on the proposed undertaking and believe that this In the case of inadvertent discovery of human remains,Funerary objects,sacred objects,or objects of cultural project will not adversely affect traditional,religious or culturally significant sites of our patrimony on Federal or tribal lands,GCCE must comply with the Native American Graves Repatriation Act Pueblo and have no opposition to it,we would like to request consultation should any (NAGPRA)and the regulations at 43 CFR Part 10 Subpart B 10.4(a)-(c),and immediately inform to the human remains or artifacts unearthed during this project be tletenined to fall under responsible Federal agency official,stop the activity in the area of the inadvertent discovery and make a NAGPRA guidelines. reasonable effort to protect the human remains,funerary objects,sacred objects,or objects of cultural patrimony discovered inadvertently.The responsible agency official its then required to notify the affected Indian tribes and to initiate consultation with the affected tribespursuant to section 10.5 of the regulations. 3 002 Anne Bowler Individuals I have the concern of the further expansion of the releasing of fossil fuel from the earth and Comment noted.Climate change impacts are addressed in the Environmental Assessment(EA)(Section the resulting heat-trapping es being put into the atmosphere upon its burning. 3.4.1.2). 4 002 Anne Bowler Individuals We must have"green"energy only-coal and other fossil fuels must be taken from the Comment noted.This comment is beyond the scope of and purpose and need for this EA. power endall 5 002 Anne Bowler Individuals min favor of coal still being produced fa surrounding individual households who have Comment noted.The feasibility of renewable sources of energy is beyond the scope of this EA. d 'ended on it for decades,and cannot afford to switch to a non-fossil burning heat and power.It would be better,even for them to have help to switch to solar as much as ossible. 6 003 La Plata County Board of Elected Officials La Plata County requests that Section 2.3.1.1 be revised to incorporate the correct The Technical Resources Report(TRR)(Section 2.3.1.1)has been revised to include this information. Conmissioners information regarding water rights and associated Colorado Water Court cases. 7 003 La Plata County Board of Elected Officials Additionally,La Plata County requests that both the draft EA and TRR explain that the mine The EA(Section 2.2.3)and the TRR(Section 2.3.2.2)state thatthe GCC King I and Fong II mines do not Canmissioners tices not rely on ground water supplied from grountlwater wells,rather the mine is supplied pump grountlwater.Any grountlwater captured by the mines is due to seepage into the mine workings and is surtace water conve ed b the H Gulch Ditch iron the La Plata River usetl for tlust control antl mine o erations.Thus,the GCC mine tices not impact groundwater. 8 003 La Plata County Board of Elected Officials Finally,La Plata County requests that the draft EA and TRR generally explain how the The EA(Section 3.4.2)and TRR(Section 2.3.1.1)have been revised to include this inform atin. Commissioners water court cases(more importantly the change case,15CW3029)converted historical irrigation water to water forthe decreed uses related to the mine,and what measures were taken in order to prevent injury to downstream water users(i.e.return flows mimicked by surface releases and subsurface released from an infiltration alle 9 004 Marie Venner Individuals The purpose and need(1.2.2)in the Preliminary EA are not adequate.An EIS is needed Comment noted.Regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS),according to the Council on Environmental Quality(CEO)regulations(40 CFR§§1500-1508),the detenination of a significant impact is a function of both context an intensity.To determine significance,the severity of the impact must be examined in terms of the type,quality and sensitivity of the resource involved;the location of the proposed project;the duration of the effect(short-or long-term)and other cnsideratin of context. Significance of the impact will vary with the setting of the proposed action and the surrounding area. NEPA significance is a primary facto in deten ining the type of environmental docum ant and process to use for a particular project.NEPA requires an EIS for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment.Fa the subject Proposed Action,ELM and OSMRE have detenined that the level of durum entation provided in the subject EA confirms that potential impacts do not rise to the significance level of preparing an EIS. Additionally,s se line#85. 10 004 Marie Venner Individuals Very importantly,Colorado's Legislative adoption of action to limit global warming to 1.5 Can ment noted.This comment is beyond the purpose and need as well as the scope of the EA.Passage of degrees is not addressed.When leasing land for fossil fuels in Colorado,ELM needs to HB19-1261 would require the establishment of a Canmission that would set rules and regulations to meet mitler compliance with state law in HB 19-1261 and Colorado's objective to reduce GHG the goals of the law.This Canmissin has not been createtl to tlate so there is no non-compliance. ns b 26%in the next six Atltlitionall HB19-1261 woultl a to manufacturin us coal,n�the minim of the coal. 11 004 Marie Venner Individuals The directly emitted criteria pollutants are not insignificant,from the mining equipment and The analyses of air quality impacts in the EA(Section 3.4.1)and TRR(Section 2.2)are the basis for the ELM haul trucks,as well as the coal mine methane and particulate emissions from stockpiles, and OSMRE determination that the impacts of the proposed action do not meet the CEQ definition of rushers,screeni conveyors,and loatlout sites. nifcant.The commenter tices not rovitle new information or tlata for anal si 12 004 Marie Venner Individuals The alternative for use of electric trucks and electric machinery wasexcluded,causing harm This alternative was not carnetl fowartl for analysis because it woultl not be economically feasible as the to workers and people who live in the area and further increasing the state of Colorado's air use of electric vehicles and machinery would be cost prohibitive(EA Section 2.4.7). ollution and climate risk. 13 004 Marie Venner Individuals Emissions discussa are those involved in the mining itself,not the im PI cations of the coal Both the EA and TRR do discuss emissions other than for the mine itself and include downstream a intlirect being mined and downstream coal combustion,so relevant and critical to Colorado state ns(EA Section 3.4.1.2).3.4.1.2).F example,the EA beginning on Page 3.9 identifies all indirect sources law. including GCC's two cement plants.Other discussion points and emissions include general combustion such rail lines and total cement production.The TRR(Sections 2.2.2.3,2.2.2.4and 2.2.2.5)also include greater tletail about indirect emissions,regional air quality from monitoring data,Colors do Department of Public Health and Environment(CDPHE)total emissions within 50 km of the mine and a robust discussion on GHGs throw h2100. 14 004 Marie Venner Intlivitluals Effects on local,regional,and global air quality and global climate change are minimized by Comment noted.The EA(Section 3.4.1.2)and TRR(Section 2.2.1.6)discuss climate change in significant expressing them fa the project as a percentage of national impacts. detail and discusses the CARMMS modeling study.Comparing potential impacts to a percentage of national effects is an accepted methodologyto evaluate the level of im act. B-t