Laserfiche WebLink
Appeal Deciding Officer <br /> <br />28 <br />Appeal Issue IV -B: THE E A FAILS TO ANALYZE IMPACTS TO PM 2.5 <br />CONCENTRATIONS <br /> <br />The EA also fails to analyze impacts to concentrations of PM 2.5 . <br /> <br />The EA fails to contain any analysis at all of the Lease Modification’s impacts to PM 2.5 <br />concentrations, an oversight that violates NEPA. The EA merely notes that “Colorado does not <br />regulate PM 2.5 in permits.” But a federal agency cannot rely on a state agency’s failure to <br />regulate a pollutant in a permit as a proxy for NEPA compliance any more than it can rely on an <br />actual state permit. <br /> <br />Wh ere neither the EA, nor the EIS to which the EA is tiered, analyze a relevant environmental <br />impact, NEPA has been violated. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br />See also general air quality discussion above in Appeal VI point. <br /> <br />The EA clearly states in the air quality report (Sec tion 3.2) that all particulates were considered <br />and analyzed in the EA and the parent EIS as they are a standard within the NAAQS and CAA <br />(Clean Air Act). It is also part of the analysis that all particulates are analyzed and implemented <br />by the State of C olorado (via the CDPHE) through the authority delegated to by the CAA. T he <br />CDPHE has permitted the mine in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Colorado Air <br />Quality Control Commission and the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention Control Act. <br />Addit ionally, the State of Colorado imposes limits on processing rates and diesel fuel <br />consumption, and requires specific control measures (such as enclosure of transfer points, and <br />enclosure and spray bars on crushers and screens). <br /> <br />The EA also clearly shows that this lease modification does not measurably change the baseline <br />air quality. It was referenced a larger action that the BLM analyzed for a nearby modification <br />that stated the mine air quality including PM2.5 and PM10 would be less than current emissi ons. <br />Therefore, the USFS modification is significantly smaller than that BLM analysis and not <br />expected to exceed the NAAQS. <br /> <br />The appellant commented on this issue during the scoping comment period and in the response <br />to comments stated that modeling was d one for this area and stated that “Relatively recent (2008) <br />air dispersion modeling in the North Fork Valley which included regional impacts indicates that <br />particulates would not cause ambient air quality impacts and no acid deposition or visibility <br />impac ts on the West Elk Wilderness (Class I airshed) would occur based on coal mining for <br />which production rates have not changed since the model was run .” <br /> <br />In 2009, the State of Colorado issued a new permit that covers all of the NAAQS standards to <br />ensure proj ects meet those air quality standards. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />I recommend that the Forest Supervisor’s decision be affirmed on this point.