Laserfiche WebLink
statements concerning a project's impacts to support a finding of no significant impact. The <br />Court held that while an "agency is justified in relying on another agency's finding of no <br />significant impact where that agency's finding is supported by reasoned analysis[,] [t]here is no <br />indication in the record here that the EPA's statement is supported by anything more than a <br />hunch." Id. at 409. Here, MSHA's analysis is not supported by a "reasoned analysis" of any <br />kind, or even a "hunch," and instead is contradicted by fact and based on no evidence other than <br />a conversation with the Project proponent and the Forest Service. For this reason, the Forest <br />Service cannot rely on Mr. Davis's statements to dispose of an alternative that the Service should <br />have investigated fully on its own. <br />2. Methane Capture <br />Furthermore, the Forest Service inappropriately rejected an alternative that would have <br />captured and used vented methane. Such an alternative would reduce or eliminate methane <br />emissions that contribute to global warming and would conserve that methane for future use. As <br />the Forest Service itself noted in the Project FEIS, "[i]f able to be put to beneficial use, the <br />estimated amount of gas that may be released from the E Seam could heat approximately 34,800 <br />to 39,500 homes." Project FEIS at 46. Nevertheless, the Forest Service rejected a "capture and <br />use" without detailed analysis. <br />According to the Forest Service, it rejected the "capture and use" alternative for three <br />reasons: (1) complexities and legal limitations stemming from the leasing processes and <br />regulations of two separate mineral resources; (2) uncertainty with relation to quality and <br />quantity of gas resource; and (3) economic concerns related to additional facilities. See Project <br />FEIS at 5-11, 44-46. <br />APPEAL OF E SEAM METHANE DRAINAGE WELLS PROJECT, APRIL 28, 2008 PAGE 22