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 29 <br />Appeal Issue IV -C: THE EA FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE IMPACTS <br />TO VISIBILITY IN CLASS I AREAS <br />The Forest Service has an affirmative duty under the Clean Air Act to protect visibility in <br />Class I areas, which include national parks and wilderness areas. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(d)(2)(B). In <br />the EA, the Forest Service "tiers" to the 2000 Iron Point FEIS's visibility analysis — without <br />conducting any further analysis — to support its conclusion that the Lease Modification's air <br />quality impacts will not be significant. EA at 43 -44. While the 2000 Iron Point FEIS concluded <br />that the Mine's overall impacts on visibility would not be significant, it also stated that impacts <br />to visibility at portions of the West Elk Wilderness Area would potentially be significant and <br />exceed the threshold for significant impacts on the worst visibility days. <br />Even if the Forest Service's conclusion in 2000 that the Mine's overall visibility impacts were <br />insignificant was reasonable then, that is not a reasonable conclusion in 2011 without further <br />analysis. <br />When the underlying environmental conditions and air quality baselines have changed since an <br />earlier NEPA analysis, the Forest Service cannot "tier' to that earlier EIS to avoid conducting <br />up -to -date analysis that accurately gauges the environmental impacts of the current project. <br />Discussion: <br />See also the discussion above in Appeal Issue IV. <br />Air pollutants such as particulate matter (PM), sulfur oxides (SOx), and nitrogen oxides (NOx), <br />can reduce visibility across large regional areas, including national parks and wilderness areas. <br />The area surrounding the lease modification is designated a Class II area, as defined by the <br />Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provision of the Clean Air Act. <br />Federal /State Mandatory Class I Areas located in the analysis area include West Elk Wilderness <br />at approximately 10 miles south - southeast and Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park <br />approximately 25 miles southwest of Somerset, Colorado. Due to the nature of the project no <br />specific permit requirements apply to gaseous emissions. <br />Construction will be required to comply with fugitive dust provisions under Regulation 1 (5CCR <br />1001 -3) which requires that precautions be taken to control fugitive emissions (e.g., airborne <br />particulate matter) to levels below opacity (EA, page 42). See discussion under Appeal Issue IV. <br />The Elk Creek Mine currently operates under air emission discharge permits obtained from <br />Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Pollution Control <br />Division on July 29, 2009. The permit is valid for a period of 5 years (until July 29, 2014). This <br />time period covers the time period in which the Proposed Action Alternative would be <br />implemented. See Air Quality Impacts under Appeal Issue IV. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.