Laserfiche WebLink
Appeal Deciding Officer <br /> <br />26 <br />of these explanations excuses the EA’s failure to analyze and assess the Lease modification’s <br />impacts to ambient ozone concentrations. <br /> <br />The Forest Servic e’s argument that ozone analysis is too “complex” to perform contradicts both <br />federal land management agency practice and EPA’s recommendations for similar coal leases <br />and other sources in Colorado. For example, the Clean Air Act and EPA guidance require e very <br />new major source in a NAAQS attainment area to demonstrate that its emissions will not cause <br />or contribute to an ozone NAAQS violation, which involves the type of “complex” analysis that <br />the Forest Service declined to do here. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3), (e).59 Moreover, BLM conducted <br />a rudimentary ozone analysis in the draft EIS for the nearby Red Cliff coal mine in Colorado.60 <br />The Forest Service does not explain why BLM conducted an ozone analysis for a nearby coal <br />mine, but a similar analysis for the Le ase Modification would be too complex. Agencies must <br />rationally explain their actions and conclusions; the Forest Service failed to so do here. Motor <br />Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983); see also S. Utah <br />Wilderness Alliance v. Kempthorne, No. 08 -0411 (LFO) (D.D.C. Order Dec. 1, 2008) (rejecting <br />unsupported BLM determination that ozone analysis is “too costly and time consuming,” and <br />enjoining decision approving oil leases), attached as Exh. 40. <br /> <br />The Forest Service a ttempts to justify its failure to consider the Lease Modification’s impacts on <br />ambient ozone concentrations by asserting that “[a] detailed air quality assessment, including <br />modeling, of the original mine was conducted as part of the environmental analysis for the Elk <br />Creek Coal Lease Tract in 2000.” The 2000 Iron Point FEIS the Forest Service refers to, <br />however, did not analyze or assess impacts to ambient ozone concentrations. No agency expert <br />specifically analyzed the Mine’s impacts to ozone concentratio ns in the EA or the 2000 FEIS. <br /> <br />Even if the 2000 Iron Point FEIS had analyzed impacts to ambient ozone concentrations, that <br />analysis would be outdated and not appropriate for tiering for the EA. <br /> <br />The Forest Service’s efforts to “tier” to the 2000 Iron Poin t FEIS to justify the lack of ozone <br />analysis in the EA violate NEPA. <br /> <br />IV -A -1: THE EA FAILS TO ANALYZE NOx EMISSIONS <br /> <br />Despite the significant impact of NOx emissions on ambient ozone concentrations, the EA makes <br />no effort to quantify the NOx emissions that will result from the lease modification. Nor does the <br />EA analyze the impacts to air quality of the Lease Modification’s NOx emissions. <br /> <br />IV -A -2: THE EA FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE VOC EMISSIONS <br /> <br />While the Forest Service failed to analyze the scope of VOC em issions for the Lease <br />Modification, data from the nearby West Elk Mine – about five miles from the Lease <br />Modification area – shows that non -methane hydrocarbons (i.e., VOCs) there constitute <br />approximately 1% of the methane emissions from that mine’s methan e drainage wells. <br /> <br />The EA fails to analyze or disclose VOC emissions at all. Nor can the Forest Service rely on the <br />2000 Iron Point FEIS for an analysis of the VOCs. That FEIS mentions VOC emissions only