|
Submission# Organization/Agency Name Commenter Type Comment Comment Response
<br /> 92 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ Overall,there is a need for much more intensive scrutiny of mining at King II and an EIS is See response line 79 and line 85.Each proposed coal lease by application is unique from a variety of
<br /> Non-profits the only proper and adequate means of applying this scrutiny.The SLIM itself has prepared perspectives and needs to be assessed on its merits under NEPA.Each proposal involves a unique
<br /> EISs for similar coal leases in the past.For the recently approved Greens Hollow coal lease combination of operational requirements,affected environments,production rates,transportation modes,end
<br /> in Utah,UTU-84102,which involved underground mining and an expansion of an existing uses of the coal and direct,indirect and cumulative impacts.Each agency deciding official is given the
<br /> ne by 6,000 acres,the agency prepared an EIS.This EIS was attached to our previous authority and latitude to determine the appropriate level of NEPA analysis required for a specific coal leasing
<br /> comments as Exhibit 1.Similarly,the BLM prepared an EIS for the recently approved Flat proposed action within their jurisdiction based on those aggregate unique characteristics associated with the
<br /> Canyon coal lease in Utah,UTU-77114,which also involved underground mining and an proposed action.
<br /> expansion of an existing mine by 2,600 acres.This EIS was attached to our previous
<br /> ants as Exhibit 2.
<br /> 93 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ OSMRE and BLM must analyze and assess impacts to rare imperiled fish,wildlife,and Section 7 consultation with the USFWS was conducted for this project.A copy of the USFWS concurrence
<br /> Non-profits plants within,near,and likely to be affected by the proposetl leasing antl mining,inclutling letter is included as an appendix to the EA.Specifically,during consultation with the USFWS,it was
<br /> species listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened,endangered,proposed,or determined that this Proposed Action is similar to the action analyzed in 2017 and therefore Section 7
<br /> candidate.We are particularly concerned over the impacts of coal mining and coal consultation was a Reinitiation of that previous action.The previously developed Biological Assessment
<br /> combustion to threatened and endangered species in the San Juan River drainage, analyzed direct,indirect,and cumulative impacts to the federally listed species and their critical habitat,
<br /> including the Colorado pikeminnow,and razorback sucker.Water consumption and surface including the Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker.OSMRE and BLM biologists provided the
<br /> antl groundwater contamination at the mine all"may affect"these threatened antl USFWS with an addendum to the previous BA that detailed the Proposed Action where it differed to what
<br /> endangered species and their critical habitat,which includes much of the San Juan River as previously described,any additional impacts to the listed species,and made a determination based on
<br /> below the confluence with the La Plata River,which drains most of the mine area. the best available science.The USFWS concurred with the"May Affect,not Likely to Adversely Affect"
<br /> Additionally,OSMRE and BLM must analyze and assess indirect impacts to the Colorado determination.
<br /> pikeminnow and razorback sucker and their critical habitat,including indirect impacts
<br /> related to the hauling of coal from the mine site to Gallup,New Mexico.Such impacts would
<br /> include impacts related to air pollution and spills of fuel and/or coal related to truck
<br /> ccidents.As part of analyzing and assessing impacts to threatened and endangered
<br /> species,as well as their critical habitat,the agencies must formally consult with the U.S.
<br /> Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act In
<br /> the preliminary EA,the agencies did not conduct any analysis of direct and/or indirect
<br /> impacts to threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat.We are particularly
<br /> troubled that the agencies made a determination of"may affect,not likely to adversely
<br /> affe ct,"without addressing any impacts related to coal transport and combustion.There is
<br /> support for a"may affect,not likely to adversely affect"finding,meaning approval of the
<br /> federal coal lease would violate Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
<br /> 94 027 Wild Earth Guardians Organizations/ With regards to water quality,OSMRE and BLM must fully analyze and assess surface and Please see Section 3.4.2 of the EA and Section 2.3 of the TRR for the comprehensive description of the
<br /> Non-profits groundwater quality impacts to ensure compliance with state water quality standards and affected environment for surface and groundwater and Section 2.3.2 for the analysis of the potential impacts
<br /> relevant SMCRA requirements.The agencies must identify all existing water quality of the proposed action on surface and groundwater.Disposal of mine waste is regulated in the State of
<br /> problems in the area that will be directly,indirectly,and cumulatively affected by the Colorado by the Colorado Division of Reclamation,Mining and Safety.Permission is either granted or
<br /> proposed action and disclose any contribution the proposed action will make to those water denied when the CDRMS either approves or denim the Mine's Permit Application Package and any permit
<br /> quality problems.OSMRE and BLM must ensure that its action ensures compliance with s.CDRMS is also responsible for inspecting the site and issuing and relevant enforcement actions
<br /> relevant water quality standards in accordance with the Clean Water Act and SMCRA. when needed."Prior to obtaining approval for this waste disposal area the permittee had to make a
<br /> demonstration,to the satisfaction of CDRMS,that the material would not adversely affect water quality or
<br /> The agencies must also address the surface and ground water quality impacts of waste flow,vegetation,public health,or stability of the disposal area based on hydrologic,geotechnical,physical,
<br /> dumping at the King I mine site.Although in 2016,mine regulators committed to conducting and chemical analysis.Because test results indicated that the materials in the waste piles could not generate
<br /> a study of water quality impacts related to waste disposal,including testing of ground and acid or toxic leachate,CDRMS does not require special handling or storage practices under Rule 4.05.8.
<br /> surface water,it is not clear whether any analysis or testing actually occurred.Given that Water may percolate through the waste rock without causing harm to groundwater resources.Surface and
<br /> OSMRE and BLM have never before analyzed or assessed the water quality impacts of groundwater is monitored immediately downgradient from the waste disposal site and any potential negative
<br /> waste disposal at the King I mine site,it is critical the agencies conduct a thorough analysis,impacts would be detected.Monitoring results are presented in Section 3.4.3.2.1 under the grountlwater
<br /> which includes gathering test data if such data has not already been gathered. affected environment heading and in the 2017 EA(BLM 2017)which was incorporated by reference into this
<br /> EA.OSMRE regularly reviews data,monitoring,and reporting information of state coal regulatory programs
<br /> The preliminary EA contains no detailed analysis of impacts to surface and ground water in accordance with OSMREs oversight responsibilities.
<br /> such that a finding of no significant impact would be justified.The EA asserts that current
<br /> mining operations have not impacted ground or surface water and therefore,mining of the
<br /> proposed lease also would pose no impacts.There is no support for this conclusion and the
<br /> EA lacks sufficient detail to demonstrate that site-specific impacts related to mining would
<br /> notpose significant impacts.
<br /> B-9
<br />
|