2011-11-10_REVISION - C1981022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appeal Deciding Officer 28 Appeal Issue IV -B: THE EA FAILS TO ANALYZE IMPACTS TO PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS The EA also fails to analyze impacts to concentrations of PM2.5. The EA fails to contain any analysis at all of the Lease Modification's impacts to PM concentrations, an oversight that violates NEPA. The EA merely notes that "Colorado does not regulate PM in permits." But a federal agency cannot rely on a state agency's failure to regulate a pollutant in a permit as a proxy for NEPA compliance any more than it can rely on an actual state permit. Where neither the EA, nor the EIS to which the EA is tiered, analyze a relevant environmental impact, NEPA has been violated. Discussion: See also general air quality discussion above in Appeal VI point. The EA clearly states in the air quality report (Section 3.2) that all particulates were considered and analyzed in the EA and the parent EIS as they are a standard within the NAAQS and CAA (Clean Air Act). It is also part of the analysis that all particulates are analyzed and implemented by the State of Colorado (via the CDPHE) through the authority delegated to by the CAA. The CDPHE has permitted the mine in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission and the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention Control Act. Additionally, the State of Colorado imposes limits on processing rates and diesel fuel consumption, and requires specific control measures (such as enclosure of transfer points, and enclosure and spray bars on crushers and screens). The EA also clearly shows that this lease modification does not measurably change the baseline air quality. It was referenced a larger action that the BLM analyzed for a nearby modification that stated the mine air quality including PM2.5 and PMIO would be less than current emissions. Therefore, the USFS modification is significantly smaller than that BLM analysis and not expected to exceed the NAAQS. The appellant commented on this issue during the scoping comment period and in the response to comments stated that modeling was done for this area and stated that "Relatively recent (2008) air dispersion modeling in the North Fork Valley which included regional impacts indicates that particulates would not cause ambient air quality impacts and no acid deposition or visibility impacts on the West Elk Wilderness (Class I airshed) would occur based on coal mining for which production rates have not changed since the model was run." In 2009, the State of Colorado issued a new permit that covers all of the NAAQS standards to ensure projects meet those air quality standards. Recommendation: I recommend that the Forest Supervisor's decision be affirmed on this point.