Laserfiche WebLink
Compliance, Monitoring, and Reporting <br /> The EA describes compliance, monitoring, and reporting requirements that are required to <br /> ensure that areas with sensitive resource values are protected. These requirements are <br /> provided in Attachment B. <br /> Alternatives Considered <br /> The EA considered two alternatives: the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. BLM <br /> has selected the Proposed Action Alternative. <br /> The No Action Alternative was not selected because the No Action Alternative does not meet <br /> the purpose and need of this project and selecting the No Action Alternative would not preclude <br /> continued development of the Whirlwind Mine. According to 43 CFR 3809.411(d)(3), the <br /> proponent has a valid and existing right to develop the uranium resource if done so in an <br /> environmentally responsible manner. The analysis shows that development with BLM required <br /> conditions of approval and compliance, monitoring, and reporting requirements can be achieved <br /> without unnecessary or undue degradation excluding the need to select the No Action <br /> Alternative. <br /> Rationale for Decision <br /> The decision to authorize Energy Fuels' Plan of Operation has been made in consideration of <br /> the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action. The action is in conformance with the RMPs <br /> for the Grand Junction and Moab field offices. Energy Fuels has obtained a Conditional Use <br /> Permit from Mesa County Department of Planning and Economic Development, a Mine Permit <br /> from Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety, a Small Mine Permit from the Utah <br /> Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, and permits from the Colorado Department of Public Health and <br /> Environment. <br /> In May 1994, the BLM prepared a Programmatic Biological Assessment that addresses water <br /> depleting activities in the Colorado River Basin that would impact the endangered Colorado <br /> River fish. In response to BLM's Programmatic Biological Assessment, the U.S. Fish and <br /> Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a Biological Opinion (#ES/GJ-6-CO-94-F-017) on June 13, <br /> 1994, which determined that water depletions from the Colorado River Basin are likely to <br /> jeopardize the continued existence of the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and <br /> razorback sucker, and result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. <br /> The Biological Opinion included reasonable and prudent alternatives developed by the USFWS <br /> to allow BLM to authorize individual projects, such as the Proposed Action, which will result in <br /> water depletions of less than 125 acre-feet per year. Therefore, further consultation with the <br /> USFWS is not required. Energy Fuels is required to make a one-time payment of$434.08 to the <br /> National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. A discussion of potential impacts to the Colorado River <br /> Fish as a result of changes in water quality in the Dolores River was added to the Final EA as a <br /> result of public comment. It was determined that the potential for impact is immeasurable and <br /> therefore, would result in no effect to the endangered fish or their designated critical habitat. <br /> Several public comments focused on the potential use of an alternate haul route through Castle <br /> Valley and Moab (Route B in the EA). A discussion was added to the EA stating that this route <br /> would not be able to be used by haul trucks due to weight limitations on Utah State Highway <br /> 128. This route would only be used if the primary route and other alternate routes are <br /> Whirlwind Mine Decision Record 3 <br />