|
Submission# Organization/Agency Name Commenter Type Comment Comment Response
<br /> 86 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ Although the February 2018 scoping notice lacks detail,it appears that SLIM and The scoping notice published in the Durango Herald provided the public with a concise and informative
<br /> Non-profits OSMRE's proposal is significant in both context and intensity.In terms of context,the lease summary of the proposed action with sufficient detail for the public to fully understand the scope of the
<br /> will directly impact nearly 2,500 acres.Additionally,by allowing for coal mining on the new proposed action.The scoping notice and Other documents and maps available to the public during the
<br /> lease,in conjunction with mining on existing leases,the agency's decisions will,in effect, scoping period are available on the BLM's ePlanning website at hftps://go.usa.gov/xEKTV,and at OSMRE's
<br /> authorize myriad Other indirect impacts,including connected road construction and website at:hftps://w .wrcc.mmre.gov/initiativeWkirgilCoalMine.shtm.Through BLM and OSMRE
<br /> maintenance,truck traffic,the operation and maintenance of coal processing facilities on development of the Preliminary EA the specifics of the Proposed Action were refined and described in
<br /> site,the disposal of mine waste at GCC's nearby lung I mine site,the development of mine greater detail.As stated in the EA,the Proposed Action would directly impact no more than 20 acres of the
<br /> ventilation systems,and other impacts. surface over the life of the mine as the existing mine portal and coal loading facilities would be used and no
<br /> new roads or surface facilities for mine ventilation would be required.This information was clear in the
<br /> scoping notice.Truck traffic,coal waste disposal,and other aspects of mining operations not specifically
<br /> analyzed in this EA would remain unchanged under the Proposed Action from those activities analyzed in the
<br /> BLM and OSMRE 2017 Lease Modification EA BLM 2017),which is incorporated by reference in this EA.
<br /> 87 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ If the agencies do not believe that the proposed activities are significant in terms of the The rationale for the determination of impacts(i.e.negligible,minor,moderate,and major)was presented in
<br /> Non-profits context of the area that may be impacted,the agency must explain why.Such a discussion the draft FONSI that was released at the same time as the EA and TRR.A description of the definitions of
<br /> should include an explanation as to the thresholds upon which the agencies based their the various levels of direct,indirect and cumulative impacts,as well as discussion of the impact categories of
<br /> ent.If the agencies cannot identify any rational thresholds for which to assess the direct,indirect,short and long ten,is found in section 3.1 of the EA. In the FONSI,OSMRE considered the
<br /> significance of its actions with regards to context,then any future decisions will be arbitrary 10 Significance Criteria in the federal regulations at 40 CFR 1508.27 used in evaluating the severity of the
<br /> and capricious cts.
<br /> 88 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ The proposed activities area also significant in the context of the potential impacts to native Potential impacts to the natural resources tletenined to be present in the project area or affected by project
<br /> Non-profits speciess Incorpo and their habitats,to the climate and to other natural resources,including ground activities are included in Chapter 3 of the EA as well as by reference from the 2017 EA.
<br /> antl surface water,and air quality,and to residents and the quality of life in the area.As Results from past water monitoring(including both quality and quantity)are included in section 3.4.2 of the
<br /> discussed in more data below,we are particularly concerned that there has been EA and section 2.3 of the TRR.Information on the air quality impacts and the results of project activities is
<br /> insufficient documentation of baseline surface and ground water quality from which to shown in detail in Section 3.4 of the EA and Section 2.2 of the TRR.Extensive analysis of the potential
<br /> adequately analyze and assess the impacts of mining to the cumulative impacts area,and impacts on air quality and water resources was also recently completed by BLM and OSMRE in the Sections
<br /> there has never been any analysis of air quality impacts related to the mine,including 3.1 and 3.6 and Chapter 4 of the Lease Modification EA(BLM 2017)which is incorporated by reference into
<br /> impacts related to emissions of methane and other regulated pollutants. this EA.Section 2.4.6 of the EA and Section 3.1.2 of the Lease Modification EA(BLM 2017)explain that the
<br /> King II mine is naturally low in methane and the reasons why.The highest level of methane ever recorded by
<br /> MSHA at the King I I mine was 0.02 percent.Section 3.1.2 of the Lease Modification EA also describes that
<br /> methane from the lung 11 Mine represents 0.009 percent and 0.00065 percent of the total calculated CO2e
<br /> emissions of CMM from Colorado and the U.S respectively.Other regulated pollutants as analyzed in
<br /> Section 3.4 of the EA and Section 2.2 of the TRR.The information and analysis was then used to determine
<br /> if pro'act impacts were si nitcant.
<br /> 89 027 Wild Earth Guartlians Organizations/ With regards to intensity,the agencies'proposed actions appear to pose a number of As a factor for determining within the meaning of 40 CFR 1508.27(b)(4�whether o not to prepare a
<br /> Non-profits potentially significant impacts that are highly intensive.For one,the impacts are likely to be detailed environmental impact statement—"controversy'is not equated with'the existence of opposition to a
<br /> highly controversial.Not only have the agencies'proposals already triggered intensive e."Northwest Environmental Defense Center v.Bonneville Power Administration,117 F.3d 1520,1536
<br /> public controversy,but there is also extensive disagreement over BLM antl OSMRE's (9th Cir.1997).The term"highly controversial"refers to instances in which"a substantial dispute exists as to
<br /> conclusions regarding the full scope of the impacts of mining at King II. the size,nature,or effect of the major federal action rather than the mere existence of opposition to a use."
<br /> Hells Canyon Preservation Council v.Jacoby,9 F.Supp.2d 1216,1242(D.Or.1998).Federal approvals of
<br /> the mining plan decision document and Permit Revision Application Package have been made in the area for
<br /> venal decades sand are not considered to be highly controversial.In addition,neither of the Cooperating
<br /> Agencies,La Plata County and
<br /> the Colorado Division of Reclamation,Mining and Safety,nor any of the 32
<br /> Native American Tribes contacted about the proposed action have submitted comments to BLM and OSMRE
<br /> challenging the analysis in the EA,the nature of the potential impacts or the conclusions of the EA.The
<br /> agencies do not conclude that the proposed action as"likely to be highly controversial";nor do the agencies
<br /> onclutle there is"intensive public controversy"over the proposed action;and lastly the agencies do not
<br /> onclutle that there is"extensive"disa nee ent over BLM and OSMREs conclusions.
<br /> 90 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ Further,the impacts are highly uncertain and involve unique or unknown risks.In this case, The potential impacts of the proposed action are not uncertain,no do they involve unique or unknown risks.
<br /> Non-profits there has never been a comprehensive and adequate study of the environmental impacts of The potential impacts are in fact well known and understood from the previous environmental analyses of
<br /> mining at King 11 and there are myriad uncertainties regarding the true scope of site-specific this mine,the latest of which was completed by BLM and OSMRE in 2017(BLM 2017)as documented in the
<br /> d
<br /> irect and indirect effects.This includes uncertainty regarding the impacts to threatened EA in Section 1.1,and numerous other similar underground coal mine proposals throughout the U.S.Further,
<br /> and endangered species and their critical habitat both in the area and downstream. the lung 11 Mine has been operating for the last 12 years since 2007,and the King I Mine,also an
<br /> underground coal mine located less than a mile from the King 11 Mine,operated for more than 70 years
<br /> between 1938 and 2009.Underground coal mine operations and the potential impacts are well known in the
<br /> local area and are not unique,uncertain or unknown.There are no effects on the human environment that
<br /> re highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.OSMRE has experience implementing similar
<br /> actions in similar areas.
<br /> 91 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ Finally,we are concerned that approval of mining does threaten a violation of Federal, The EA was written with all applicable federal,state,and local laws and regulations(Section 1.3)and
<br /> Non-profits State,or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.In therefore would not be in violation.Additionally,OSMRE and BLM have not noted any violations of laws and
<br /> particular,we are concerned that GCC's mining operations at King 11 are already in violation regulations in the recent past that are outstanding and that the mine is currently operating legally.GCC
<br /> of the company's federally approved mining plan for coal lease No.COC-62920 and that reports its required air emissions testing to all applicable parties both at the mine and at its cement facilities.
<br /> any further leasing or mining approvals would,in effect,condone this illegal activity.We are Reporting from other recipients of King 11 coal that are not GCC-owned is not the legal responsibility of GCC.
<br /> also concerned that GCC has failed to properly report its air emissions to the State of
<br /> Colorado.
<br /> B-a
<br />
|