Laserfiche WebLink
of flaring to heat its mine; (4) Mr. Davis could provide little if any documentation supporting <br />statements about flaring upon which the Forest Service relies almost exclusively; and (5) recent <br />events raise questions about the analytical rigor of MSHA District 9. For these reasons, the <br />Forest Service cannot rely on one letter from one MSHA employee to dismiss an alternative that <br />is clearly practicable, that with the proper safeguards can be implemented safely, and might well <br />be approved by MSHA in the future. Although a flare system would have to be designed for <br />mine-specific conditions, nothing - except for District 9's unsupported allegations - indicates <br />that this alternative is unreasonable or speculative. The Forest Service's SIR points to no <br />evidence other than Mr. Davis's letter to dismiss the flaring alternative and does not show that <br />the Forest Service ever explored ways to tailor methane flaring to mine-specific conditions in <br />accordance with Mr. Sherer's suggestions. Without making any attempt to do so, the Forest <br />Service cannot claim that it rigorously explored and objectively evaluated methane flaring as an <br />alternative, or in any alternative. <br />Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the agency charged with NEPA compliance may <br />not effectively abdicate that duty by relying on representations made by officials at other <br />agencies, particularly, as here, where those representation are not supported by fact. An agency <br />"may not delegate to [others] its own responsibility to independently investigate and assess the <br />environmental impact of the proposal before it." Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. Interstate <br />Commerce Comm'n, 848 F.2d 1246 (D.C. Cir. 1988), citing Harlem Valley Transp. Assn v. <br />Stafford, 500 F.2d 328, 336 (2d Cir. 1974); Steamboaters v. FERC, 759 F.2d 1382, 1394 (9th <br />Cir. 1985); Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. Atomic Energy Comm 'n, 449 F.2d 1109, <br />1118-19 (D.C.Cir. 1971). For example, in NRDC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 399 F. Supp. <br />2d 386, 408-09 (SDNY 2005), the court found that the Corps could not rely on EPA's conclusory <br />APPEAL OF E SEAM METHANE DRAINAGE WELLS PROJECT, APRIL 28, 2008 PAGE 21