2008-06-09_PERMIT FILE - C1980007 (6)

Home Browse Search

Chapter 5 Table 5-1 DEIS Comments and Responses Commenter Comment Comment/Response al. for the exception. RESPONSE: Position statement. No additional response needed. Colorado Wild, et l lc Additionally, since the Forest Service issued consent for lease 67232 in al. March, 2006 (see DEIS at 6, fn 3), there is no "imminent" action required to reduce any threat. If the methane drainage wells were not constructed, mining would still have to be done under safe conditions, as required by the coal leases in effect. See DEIS at 2, fn 1. RESPONSE: The Dry Fork Lease-By-Application (COC-67232) FEIS (3/10/2006) and Record of Decision acknowledged that surface use might occur on the lease. The Dry Fork FEIS acknowledged that methane drainage may be needed for safe and efficient recovery of coal reserves in that lease area, and therefore acknowledged that a safety threat existed. The Dry Fork LBA Record of Decision (Dry Fork ROD) acknowledged that issuance of a lease would convey rights for surface use. The Dry Fork ROD further acknowledged that if surface use would be proposed in the future, such a proposal would be evaluated on its own merits; an additional NEPA analysis would be prepared, and decisions made on those specific activities. Any proposal for surface use would need to be framed in the context of the lease stipulations identified in this ROD. Lease COC- 67232 was issued with a lease notice regarding portions of it being subject to any roadless area rules in place at the time surface operations were proposed (project file). See also response Colorado Wild 9 & l la. Colorado Wild, et l ld Mountain Coal's ability to expand the mine and increase its economic al. recovery may be limited without the proposed new wells. DEIS at 2, 13. RESPONSE: The EIS acknowledges that without methane drainage wells, the currently leased federal coal reserves may not be minable (see EIS, Chapter 3, Health and Safety, Inventoried Roadless Area) and results in economic loss not only to the company, but also to the four hundred plus employees, 2 counties, and to the federal govenunent (EIS Chapter 3, Social and Economic Resources). Colorado Wild, et l le That, however, does not constitute the "imminent threat of [] catastrophic al. event" that is required if exception #1 is to apply. Therefore, the Forest Service cannot lawfully invoke exception 1 to approve road construction in the IRA. Clearly, this proposed project is not in response to an imminent threat -the threat would only arise from the proposed project itself. In other words, the "threat" would only arise as a result of the Forest Service's discretionary decision approving the expansion. RESPONSE: See response to comment Colorado Wild et al. #s 7, 11 a and 1 lc. Colorado Wild, et 12a Nor does exception 7 apply to road construction proposed for lease 67232. al. The Forest Service admits that exception 7 does not apply to the 160-acre extension of lease 1362, which was issued in October, 2001, after RACR went .i • 174 Deer Creek Ventilation Shaft and E Seain Methane Drainage Wells FEIS ~ I