ELR Citation: 41 ELR 20338
No(s). 08-cv-02167 (D. Colo. Oct 31, 2011) (Krieger, J.)

A district court upheld the U.S. Forest Service's environmental review of a coal mine expansion project in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. An environmental group argued that the final EIS failed to adequately consider methane capture and flaring as reasonable alternatives to venting or as potential mitigation measures. But the Forest Service consulted with the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), the agency with final authority over mine safety issues, regarding a proposed flaring system, and the MSHA concluded that there were too many unanswered questions to render it an approvable alternative to venting. In addition, the Forest Service concluded that capture of the methane was not feasible because of the legal complexities involved in leasing the gas and the logistical and economic challenges involved in putting the methane to beneficial use. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the Forest Service to conclude that flaring and methane capture was impractical. And because the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in ruling out flaring and capture as feasible alternatives, it was reasonable for it not to provide an extended discussion of these methods as possible mitigation measures. The group also argued that the final EIS failed to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of methane venting on climate change. The Forest Service stated that it could not provide an estimate of the project's impact on global climate change because of the lack of appropriate models and research. Because the group failed to identify any method that would enable the Forest Service to describe with particularity how the project would contribute to overall climate change, the group failed to carry its burden to show that the Forest Service's actions were arbitrary and capricious.