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

Home Browse Search

Response to Comments • • Table 5-1 DEIS Comments and Responses Commenter Comment Comment/Response Clean Air Action The DEIS erroneously claims that a modification or revision of the existing (comment construction permit for the West Elk Mine will not be required due to the received 5/9/07- proposed 12-year, 168 well coal gas drainage project. The USFS claims on after comment page 38 of the DEIS that, "Activities under the proposed action are not period, no appeal anticipated to require a modification of existing or application for new standing) permits." This does not appear to be true. The proposed coal gas drainage wells constitute stationary sources that that are interrelated with the operation of the West Elk Mine and are owned and operated by the same mining company. Further, the best available scientific information strongly indicates that VOCs, a regulated pollutant, will be released by the proposed coal gas drainage wells over a 12 year period. Together with operations at the mine, the proposed coal gas drainage wells constitute a single stationary source under the Colorado SIP at 5 CCR 1001-5, Part A, Section I.B.41. Before the wells can be constructed, the air permit for the West Elk Mine must be amended or revised to include any and all required emission limitations and standards related to the construction and operation of the 168 coal gas drainage wells.3 RESPONSE: See Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action response #3. MCC deals directly with the State for its air quality permits. The Forest Service does not impose on the State any assertions for implementation of the Clean Air Act or the State's authorities as delegated by EPA. The State (DBMS) during its review of MCC's proposal has not indicated any change to the air permit is required at this time. Rocky Mountain 5 Global Warming Impacts Clean Air Action The DEIS is entirely silent on the impacts of the proposed methane releases in (comment terms of their contribution to global warming. This is yet another significant received 5/9/07- omission and calls into question the adequacy of the USFS' s analysis under after comment NEPA. "NEPA requires that the federal agency consider every significant period, no appeal aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action... [and] inform the standing) public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisioiunaking process." Earth Isla~zd v. United States Forest Service, 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003). "In order to accomplish this, NEPA imposes procedural requirements designed to force agencies to take a 'hard look' at environmental consequences." Id. "The purpose of NEPA is to require disclosure of relevant environmental considerations that were given a'hard look' by the agency, and thereby to permit informed public comment on proposed action." Lands Cou~zcil v. United States Forest Sewice, 395 F.3d 1019, 1027 (9th Cir. 2004) citing Muckleshoot bzdia~z Tribe v. United States Forest Service, 177 F.3d 800,809-810 (9th Cir. 1999). RESPONSE: Additional information has been added to the FEIS regarding contribution of greenhouse gases (see Chapter 3, Air Quality). Rocky Mountain 6 Overview of Global Warming Clean Air Action The enhanced greenhouse effect, or global warming from anthropogenic (comment greenhouse gas pollution, is as well understood as any phenomenon in the received 5/9/07- lanetary sciences. The Intergoverunental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Deer Creek Ventilation Shaft and E Seam Methane Drainage Wells FEIS 187