Laserfiche WebLink
Appeal Deciding Officer <br /> <br />25 <br />Further discussion in the air quality section of the EA (EA, Section 3.2, pages 41 -60) clearly <br />indicates this proje ct would be in compliance with NAAQS and CAA. The section further <br />indicates how modeling and calculations were conducted for emissions. <br /> <br />The appellant ascertains that the Elk Creek Mine has “emits substantial amounts of NOx and <br />particulate matter ” and “un controlled venting through drainage wells and through the <br />ventilation shaft that will operate to remove methane ” however as found in the record these <br />emissions are regulated by the State of Colorado through the Air Pollution Control Division by <br />which Oxbow Mining, LLC has a current and valid permit (APEN -Air Pollution Emission <br />Notice). The permit is valid for a period of 5 years until July 29, 2014. The permit sets limits on <br />the following: PM 10 , nitrogen oxides (NO x ), and carbon monoxide (CO). A detailed air quality <br />assessment, including modeling, of the original lease was conducted as part of the environmental <br />analysis for the Elk Creek Coal Lease Tract in 2000 (North Fork Coal FEIS, Tab 4). In this <br />FEIS, an air quality assessment was completed for the o riginal Oxbow mine, which was <br />permitted by the State to produce up to 4.8 million tons of coal annually (Section 3.1 and <br />Appendix M, North Fork Coal FEIS, Tab 4). This section of the FEIS identifies the permitted <br />mining processes at Oxbow Mining and the e mission increases included in the modeling (North <br />Fork Coal FEIS, Section 3.1.3 , Tab 4 ). <br /> <br />It is important to note that EPA periodically reviews the National Ambient Air Quality Standards <br />(NAAQS) and their scientific basis, and revises the standards as app ropriate to protect public <br />health and the environment. This means that over time Colorado Department of Public Health <br />and Environment may need to implement additional control measures to meet new, more <br />protective air quality standards. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />W here the State of Colorado has a threshold in law or regulation for air quality emissions, the <br />environmental analysis (both this EA and the FEIS for the parent lease) addressed the project’s <br />relationship to that threshold. I recommend that the Forest Supe rvisor’s decision be affirmed on <br />this point. <br /> <br />Appeal Issue IV -A: THE EA FAILS TO ANALYZE IMPACTS TO AMBIENT <br />OZONE CONCENTRATIONS <br /> <br />Ozone is a pollutant of concern for which the Clean Air Act has established a National Ambient <br />Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) to protect public health and welfare. It is particularly <br />important for the Forest Service to analyze and assess the Lease Modification’s impacts to <br />ambient ozone concentrations in light of increasing ozone trends in the Rocky Mountain West, <br />including weste rn Colorado, and the link between rising ozone and increases in VOC and NOx <br />emissions from oil and gas production and other activities. <br /> <br />While the EA briefly describes the basics of ozone formation, it fails entirely to analyze and <br />assess the impacts to am bient concentrations of ozone air pollution resulting from the Lease <br />Modification. Instead, the Forest Service alleges that (1) ozone analysis is a “complex process” <br />and better analyzed on a regional basis, rather than for an individual project; and (2) th e June <br />2011 EA “tiers” to a 2000 Iron Point FEIS for an adequate ozone analysis. EA at 42, 44. Neither