|
Submission# Organization/Agency Name Commenter Type Comment Comment Response
<br /> 80 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ That an EIS is normally required for an action like the proposed GCC Energy coal lease is See response line 79.
<br /> Non-profits demonstrated by applicable agency guidance under NEPA.Under the BLM's NEPA
<br /> Handbook,for example,an EIS is normally required in conjunction with"[a]pproval of any
<br /> mining operation where the area to be mined,including any area of disturbance,over the
<br /> life of the mining plan is 640 acres or larger in size."ELM NEPA Handbook,H-1790-1,
<br /> Section 7.2;see also 516 Departmental Manual"DM"113(13)(7).
<br /> 81 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ OSMRE's NEPA guidance states that an EIS is normally required where"[t]he 516 DM 13 does not automatically mandate the preparation of an EIS if certain criteria are met.This
<br /> Non-profits environmental impacts of the proposed mining operation are not adequately analyzed in an guitlance document only identifies major actions"normally require[ing]the preparation of an EIS:'516 DM
<br /> earlier document covering the specific leases or mining 13.4(A).It also explicitly recognizes that OSMRE may choose not to prepare an EIS for any of the listed
<br /> activity[,][t]he area to be mined is 1280 acres or more[,and][mining]and reclamation actions.See 516 DM 13.4(A)("If for any of these actions it is proposed not to prepare an EIS,an EA will be
<br /> operations will occur for 15 years or more."516 DM 13.4(A)(4). prepared and handled in accordance with Section 1501.4(e)(2)).Thus,there is nothing in the Departmental
<br /> Manual that diminishes OSMRE's discretion to followthe NEPA requirements in order to determine whether
<br /> aw articular action is significant.
<br /> 82 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ Here,there is no question that the impacts of leasing and mining coal at the King II mine Future GCC lease expansion and other area coal development was disclosed as reasonably foreseeable to
<br /> Non-profits have not been adequately analyzed in earlier NEPA documents.Neither the BUM nor occur in the 2017 EA and in described in Section 4.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions of that EA as
<br /> OSMRE have ever prepared an EIS for the Fling II operations antl reasonably foreseeable follows:"It is reasonable to expect that GCC will again propose modification of their federal coal lease and/or
<br /> development.The Tres Rios Resource Management Plan,which was prepared bythe BUM will apply for a lease by application to extend the life of the mine further into to the future than can be done
<br /> in 2015,and the underlying Final EIS,which was prepared in 2013,tlitl not analyze the a a traditional lease modification."and"Based on the unsuitability assessments(BLM 1985;SJNF 1983),
<br /> impacts of mining at King II nor tlitl those documents contemplate a new federal coal lease 46,000 acres are identified as acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing within the TRFO,with an
<br /> by application. estimated reserve of 1.5 billion tons."Past,present and reasonably foreseeable developments in the region,
<br /> including development of coal resources was presented in Section 4.3 Cumulative Impacts ofthe 2017 EA
<br /> which is inc orated bV reference in this EA.
<br /> 83 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ In fact,it is not even clear that the 2015 Resource Management Plan determined the area "As part of the analysis for the EA,a date rm ination was made that the alternatives are in conformance with
<br /> Non-profits of the proposed coal lease to be suitable for leasing. the TRFO Approved RMP(ARMP)and ROD(BLM and USFS 2013).Please refer to Section 1.5 of the EA.
<br /> The EA tiers to the ARMP.The TRFO ARMP determined that a coal unsuitability study previously completed
<br /> by BLM(BLM 1985)is still valid.That study identified 46,000 acres of the Durango KRCRA with an
<br /> estimated coal reserve of 1.5 billion tons that were acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing and
<br /> which includes the GCCE mine area and
<br /> the Dunn Ranch Area LEA.Further,future GCC lease expansion
<br /> and other area coal development was disclosed as reasonably foreseeable to occur in the 2017 EA and is
<br /> described in Section 4.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions of that EA as follows:"It is reasonable to
<br /> expect that GCC will again propose modification of their federal coal lease and/or will apply for a lease by
<br /> application to extend the life of the mine further into to the future than can be done via a traditional lease
<br /> m odification."and"Based on the unsuitability ass menu(BLM 1985;SJNF 1983),46,000 acres are
<br /> itlentifed as acceptable for further consideration four coal leasing within the TRFO,with an estimated reserve
<br /> of 1.5 billion tons."Past,present and reasonably foreseeable developments in the region,including of coal
<br /> as presented in Section 4.3 Cumulative Impacts of the 2017 EA which is incorporated by
<br /> reference in this EA.'
<br /> 84 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ Coupled with the fact that the coal lease will impact 2,462 acres and extend the life of the See response line 81
<br /> Non-profits mine by 22 years,it seems to be an action that certainly normally requires the preparation
<br /> of an EIS.
<br /> 85 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ While the lack of any adequate environmental analysis under NEPA underscores the need In Chapters 3 of both this EA and the 2017 Lease Modification EA,which is incorporated by reference in this
<br /> Non-profits for an environmental impact statement,the context and intensity of the potentially significant EA,and in Chapter 2 of the TRR,BUM and OSMRE define context and intensity minor,moderate,major
<br /> impacts of mining at King II further justify preparation of an EIS.An EIS must be completed and short term and long term against applicable thresholds iw each resource value.Impact categorizations
<br /> for all major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. are based on quantitative threshold where appropriate to determine the level of significance(e.g.,air quality,
<br /> See 40 CFR§1502.3.As to the question of whether significant impacts will in fact occurnoise).For the issue of air quality,the quantitative significance thresholds are EPA NAAOS and Title V
<br /> and thus require an EIS,it is enough to raise"substantial questions whether a project may permit thresholds.Based on a comparison of emission levels to these thresholds,impacts are less than
<br /> have a significant effect"on the environment.See Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. significant.For water resources,the EA already describes ongoing water resource mitigation measures of
<br /> Blackwood,161 F.3d at 1212(9th Cir.1998),citing Idaho Sporting Congress v.Thomas, which the applicants are an integral part.OSMRE and BUM have considered the 10 Significance Criteria in
<br /> 137 F.3d at 1149(9th Cir.1998).An EIS must therefore be prepared if"substantial the federal regulations at 40 CFR 1508.27 in evaluating the severity of potential impacts of the Proposed
<br /> questions are raised as to whether a project...may cause significant degradation of some Action through the analysis in this EA and have determined that none of the potential impacts meet the
<br /> human environmental facto."Id.Significance is defined at 40 C.F.R.§1508.27.In criteria for significant that would require preparation of an EIS.
<br /> particular,to determine whether amajor federal action will significantly impact the
<br /> environment,BLM and OSM terms RE must evaluate the impacts of a proposed action in of
<br /> the' mtontext"and the"intensity"of the impacts.40 CFR§1502.27(a)and(b).With regards
<br /> to intensity,the agencies must fully consider'the degree to which the effects on the quality
<br /> of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial,"'the degree to which the
<br /> possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or
<br /> unknown asks,"'the degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or
<br /> threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the
<br /> Endangered Species Act of 1973,"and"...whether the action threatens a violation of
<br /> Federal,State,or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment"
<br /> 40 C.F.R. 1508.27 b 4 5 (9),
<br /> and
<br /> 10.
<br /> B-7
<br />
|