My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-06-20_REVISION - C1980007
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2008-06-20_REVISION - C1980007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:33:23 PM
Creation date
6/23/2008 9:47:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
6/20/2008
Doc Name
Request of Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action for Formal Hearing on the Proposed Decision
From
EarthJustice
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR111
Email Name
TAK
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
147
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
He indicates that the coal companies, the Environmental Protection Agency, and several private <br />consultants are investigating the feasibility of capture for the North Fork mines. Id. He also <br />states that the GMUG National Forest has entered into a memorandum of understanding with a <br />local utility that includes analyzing the feasibility of generating electricity from methane. Id. He <br />reasserts that the GMUG National Forest forwarded gas lease parcels to BLM. Id. Fie concludes <br />by stating that "[f]inding just the right solution for utilization of methane, thereby reducing <br />greenhouse gas emissions ... is on the nearby horizon." Id. Again, if capturing methane is "on <br />the nearby horizon," and something the Forest Service is "working diligently" to achieve, it does <br />not appear to be so complex an alternative that it cannot be analyzed as required by NEPA's <br />mandate that the agency consider "all reasonable alternatives." <br />Third, the Forest Service's statement that jurisdictional and legal complexities may <br />render capture difficult to achieve ignores the fact that the mine may be able to capture and use <br />the gas without a Federal oil and gas lease. The Forest Service apparently must consult with the <br />BLM and other appropriate agencies to determine if capturing is beneficial to the government. <br />On the second page of their responses to the EPA August 7, 2007 comment letter, the USFS <br />states: <br />First the basal factor affecting this likelihood is that the gas reserves (which are a <br />federally-managed resource) are not under lease at this time. Until such time that <br />the gas is under lease, its capture and use would be illegal. The EPAs [sic] <br />CMOP program acknowledges that "if no lease is held for the gas, it may only be <br />vented to the atmosphere for safety purposes as set out by... [M]SHA.["] USEPA, <br />Coalbed Methane Extra, Fall 2007). <br />See Exh. 4 at fax page 11 of 32. Here, the Forest Service is selectively quoting from a broader <br />paragraph in a manner that eliminates key information indicating that methane capture need not <br />require a lease: <br />APPEAL OF E SEAM METHANE DRAINAGE WELLS PROJECT, APRIL 28, 2008 PAGE 25
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.