2011-11-10_REVISION - C1981022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appeal Deciding Officer 20 EA, 3.2, Carbon Credits, page 50: Purchasing of carbon credits is a voluntary financial investment that OMLLC may choose to entertain for business reasons The federal agencies are not involved in any financial investment decisions that OMLLC makes as a corporation. Conclusion and Recommendation: The USFS identified the cumulative effects of the mine methane emissions in the North Fork Coal EIS and the EA and discussed alternatives to venting, including the potential environmental and economic benefits associated with mitigating the mine methane. Alternatives that address the reduction of the impacts of methane pollution are duplicative of either the No Action or Proposed Action alternatives. The USFS analysis shows that the deciding officer understood both the environmental benefits of employing carbon credits or offsets. However, the USFS does not have authority to require the mine to purchase carbon credits. The environmental analysis adequately addresses whether carbon credits or offsets are reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The record supports the deciding officer's decision. Therefore, I recommend that the Forest Supervisor's decision be affirmed on this point. Appeal Issue III THE EA FAILS TO INCLUDE A REASONABLY COMPLETE DISCUSSION OF GREENHOUSE GAS MITIGATION MEASURES. In addition to requiring agencies to consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, NEPA requires agencies to provide a detailed statement of "any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented." 42 U. S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(ii). For these unavoidable impacts, an agency must adequately propose and discuss appropriate mitigation measures in an EA or EIS. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h), 1505.2(c), 1508.25(b)(3). This discussion of mitigation measures is required "precisely for the purpose of evaluating whether anticipated environmental impacts can be avoided." S. Fork Band Council of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 588 F.3d 718, 727 (9th Cir. 2009). An EA "should include sufficient discussion and analysis to allow the public or a reviewing court to evaluate the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures." Dine Citizens, 747 F. Supp. 2d at 1258 & n.39. And if "all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected" have not been adopted, the agency's record of decision must explain "why they were not." 40 C.F.R. § 1505.2(c). VAM combustion, methane flaring, and carbon offsets would all mitigate and reduce the Lease Modification's GHG emissions and climate change impacts. Thus, these are all practicable mitigation measures that the Forest Service should have properly analyzed in the EA. The Forest Service's failure to rationally justify why "practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected" were not adopted also violates NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. § 1505.2(c).