Laserfiche WebLink
provided for the construction of sixteen MDWs in the E-1 panel on lands located completely <br />within the then existing Mine Permit and Federal Coal Lease C-1362. See Exhibit 5, TR-111 at <br />2. TR-112 provided for the construction of MDWs in the E-2 through E-12 panels on lands <br />partially located outside the then existing Mine Permit on Federal Coal Lease COC-67232. <br />MCC submitted TR-111 and TR-112 as separate technical revisions because the action proposed <br />under TR-112 was dependant on the approval of PR-12 and the inclusion of Federal Coal Lease <br />COC-67232 in the Mine Permit. Conversely, TR-111 was not contingent on the approval of PR- <br />12 and instead related to the immediate mining needs of the West Elk Mine on an existing coal <br />lease under the Mine Permit. See Exhibit 5, TR-111 at 2. <br />If approved by CDRMS and this Board, TR-111 will be transmitted to the OSM and to <br />the Secretary of the Interior for final federal review and approval. Should Appellants remain <br />aggrieved by the OSM or Secretary of the Interior decisions regarding TR-111, they can <br />challenge the decisions, including the scope and adequacy of the EIS and NEPA process, in <br />federal court. <br />ARGUMENT <br />A. Appellants' Challenp-es to the Adequacy of Federal Environmental Review Under <br />NEPA Should be Raised in Federal Court. Not Before the Board. <br />Appellants' central argument to the Board is that the EIS prepared by the Forest Service <br />is inadequate under NEPA. Appellants claim that the Forest Service consent to use and <br />occupancy of the surface in the GMUG National Forest is "therefore unlawful and subject to <br />challenge and reversal in federal court." Request at 2. Consequently, Appellants urge the Board <br />to "not approve TR-111 unless and until the Forest Service provides the Board with a legal <br />decision." Id. In support of their claim, Appellants do nothing more than append a lengthy <br />appeal brief they filed before the Forest Service, and which the Forest Service considered and <br />rejected. See Exhibit 2, Decision, June 2, 2008. Appellants thus ask this Board to independently <br />evaluate a federal agency's compliance with federal statutory environmental review <br />requirements. At the same time, Appellants themselves acknowledge that there is another forum <br />- federal court - specifically designed to handle such claims, and to which Appellants apparently <br />intend to resort. <br />48424129-1266\7 5