2011-11-14_REVISION - C1981022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appeal Deciding Officer 14 interpretation by the courts. However, since groups are interested in these activities they have been summarized below, but are outside the scope of this decision as these activities would not occur on the lease modif ication tract but do form part of the existing operating considerations. DN, Mitigation Measures & Methane Venting, page 5: Commenters further contend that the Forest Service should force OMLLC to capture or/use methane vented to the atmosphere. Methane v enting will not occur on the lease modification due to surface occupancy restrictions; however, it is not precluded on the parent lease, or other portions of the mine’s permit area. Additional discussion can be found in the EA, Section 3.2. Methane is curr ently an unregulated constituent under the Clean Air Act as managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and through their agent Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). I agree capturing or using methane would beneficial; howe ver, the Forest Service is not a permitting agency for underground coal mining activities nor do we have the authority to promulgate or enforce air quality regulations pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Since methane is released as a by -product of mining appro ved by other state and federal entities, I would be exceeding my authority by requiring such mitigation under 43 CFR 3432.3(d), other laws, and agency memorandums of understanding which specify that my role is to consent to leasing and prescribe protection s for NFS surface resources. Appeal Issue II -A : THE EA FAILS TO ANALYZE OXIDATION OF VENTILATION AIR METHANE AS A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO REDUCE THE LEASE’S METHANE POLLUTION. The largest source of methane emissions from approving the Lease Modificati on will be from the Mine’s ventilation system. This methane pollution, known as ventilation air methane (“VAM”), is distinct from methane removed by methane drainage wells. At the Elk Creek Mine, VAM accounted for 75% of all methane emissions between 2004 and 2006; in a recent environmental assessment for another expansion of this mine approved just a few months ago at Elk Creek, BLM stated that it expects similar rates of methane emissions at the Mine in the future. The Forest Service declined to consider in detail an alternative that would require Oxbow to mitigate or eliminate VAM emissions despite the multiple examples of successful VAM mitigation measures. EA at 32 -33. Data demonstrates that VAM reduction technologies are likely technically feasible at the Elk Creek Mine. Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) data from 2008 to 2009 shows that the Mine is producing methane in sufficient concentrations to operate a VAM oxidizer. The EA contains a handful of reasons for dismissing VAM reduction a s an option. But all of the EA’s excuses lack support. The EA’s failure to fully and fairly evaluate an alternative that would include a requirement that Oxbow reduce or eliminate methane in VAM emissions is arbitrary and capricious and must be set aside.