Laserfiche WebLink
"significant alteration" to MCC's original permit. See Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board for Coal Mining Section 2.08.4(1) (revised September 14, 2005). Although <br />DRMS has in the past authorized methane venting wells under Technical Revisions, we <br />understand that the scope of this project far exceeds the scope of any previously-reviewed <br />venting projects. The fact the Forest Service performed an Environmental Impact Statement on <br />the above-ground portion of the mine - the only part over which it has jurisdiction - <br />demonstrates that that agency concluded that approval of the surface disturbance constituted a <br />"major federal action" that may "significantly effect[] the quality of the human environment." <br />42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). The Forest Service determined that the methane venting would result in <br />irretrievable commitments of air, soil, and other resources. See Exhibit 1 (Project Final EIS) at <br />151-52. This level of disturbance does not fit within the definition of a "Technical Revision" <br />which applies to a "minor change ... which change shall not cause a significant alteration in the <br />operator's reclamation plan." Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for <br />Coal Mining Section 103(27)(136) (revised September 14, 2005). <br />Finally and notwithstanding the issues raised above, while we commend DRMS for <br />considering the majority of the methane venting wells in the context of a single revision rather <br />than through a piecemeal application project, we object to the analysis of this "conceptual plan" <br />as the only significant opportunity for public involvement prior to on-the-ground impacts. We <br />understand that DRMS intends to allow MCC to proceed with actual road construction and <br />drilling for sites that fall within the general framework proposed by the Technical Revisions with <br />authorization under Annual Operating Plan Minor Revisions. Minor Revisions provide no public <br />notice, other than posting at the DRMS office, and allow the operator to proceed with work <br />during the 10-day "notice" period. Such a structure obviously fails to provide for meaningful <br />public involvement. As elements of this project will not be constructed for years, this approach <br />fails to account for changes in conditions over time and consideration of project elements in the <br />context of what has gone before. DRMS should require that MCC submit Technical Revisions <br />for all surface activities at the time that their specific characteristics are identified (and prior to <br />construction), and not just for those that significantly deviate from the "conceptual plan." <br />H. DRMS SHOULD REQUIRE MOUNTAIN COAL TO EITHER FLARE OR <br />CAPTURE VENTED METHANE. <br />A. The West Elk Mine Is, And With Its Proposed Expansion, Will Continue To <br />Be, A Significant Source Of Colorado's Greenhouse Gas Emissions. <br />The "harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized." <br />Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438, 1455 (2007). The State of Colorado has recognized <br />these harms and set a statewide goal of reducing greenhouse gases by 20% below 2005 levels by <br />2020 and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. See Exhibit 3. According to Governor Ritter: <br />Scientists tell us that to head off catastrophic disruptions to our environment and <br />society by the second half of this century-when our children and grandchildren <br />will be running this state-we must slash greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent <br />below 2005 levels by 2050.