My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-11-10_REVISION - C1981022
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981022
>
2011-11-10_REVISION - C1981022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:44:56 PM
Creation date
11/14/2011 1:35:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981022
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/10/2011
Doc Name
ARO Response Final (Emailed)
From
Jim Kiger
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
PR6
Email Name
BFB
SB1
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.
/
30
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
Appeal Deciding Officer <br />The environmental analysis adequately addresses whether methane flaring or methane capture <br />are reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The record supports the deciding officer's <br />decision. Therefore, I recommend that the Forest Supervisor's decision be affirmed on this <br />point. <br />Appeal Issue II -C . THE EA FAILS TO ANALYZE CARBON OFFSETS AS A <br />REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO REDUCE THE IMPACTS OF THE LEASE'S <br />METHANE POLLUTION. <br />Carbon offsets are a tested, feasible, and practical alternative to allowing the Elk Creek <br />Mine to vent millions of cubic feet of methane into the atmosphere every day as a result of the <br />Lease Modification without mitigation or control. <br />An alternative consenting to Oxbow's proposed Lease Modification while requiring Oxbow to <br />purchase carbon offsets is consistent with the proposed action's purpose and need. Oxbow would <br />be able to expand its operations in the exact same manner as it proposed. A carbon offset <br />alternative would simply require Oxbow to purchase carbon credits from a reputable vendor. <br />The Forest Service's failure to properly analyze the reasonable alternative of carbon offsets <br />violates NEPA's mandate that an agency study, develop, and describe all reasonable alternatives <br />to the proposed action. See, e.g., Native Ecosystems Council, 428 F.3d at 1245 -47. In addition, <br />the Forest Service violated NEPA's requirement that an agency provide a reasoned explanation <br />why an alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis. See, e.g., id. at 1245 -46; Wilderness <br />Soc'y, 524 F. Supp. 2d at 1309. <br />Discussion: Also, see above discussion under Appeal Issue II, II -A, and II -B. <br />Emerging policy to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through a cap- and -trade program <br />presents mine managers with an opportunity to explore and develop methane utilization or <br />abatement projects that generate value from the monetization of carbon offset credits. Projects <br />that reduce methane emissions can generate carbon offset credits. <br />EA, 3. 1, Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions, starting on page 39_ <br />Elk Creek Mine - <br />The mine has been operating for 12 years and holds over 6,800 acres of Federal coal <br />leases, pending leases and private reserves.... Mine life is currently projected to last 2' /z <br />to 3 years (late 2013 to early 2014) based on existing leased reserves. <br />EA, 3.2, Air Quality, page 46: <br />Preliminary modeling results using EPA's SCREEN3 air model indicate that methane <br />concentrations from existing methane drainage wells ... would still be below the Mine <br />Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) level of 1 %. No new methane drainage wells <br />will be needed for mining this lease modification area (EA, page 46). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.