Laserfiche WebLink
.,IYI\ \1\\A Vl M,rl l ,l l/L\, ~l\'ll •'\I\v J11N 1 y.\Jl •W/1J <br />DECISION <br />Thi. decision re_arding the erar'el minim and rt~clam:uion of a preciously developed <br />quarry i. based upon review M'the EA. supporting materials rcl'crenccd in the EA, and <br />additional informalinn contained in thin Dlxision No[icc. <br />I hcmhy authorize PK Enterprises. Inc. ul implemcm ~_r.[~cl minim, and rslamation al <br />the Mule Crc~k Grtr•el Pit in accordance with the pre-prtxluctiun site preparation. <br />production. and reclamation plans and timcframc delineated in AI[cmative C. A Special <br />l.'sc Pcnnu for dte Mulc Crack Gravel Pit will he issued as a result of this decision and <br />rail! include the mitigation and monitoring measures detailed under Chapter S of the EA. <br />lntplcmcntation of ANcm:ttivc C inctudim~ the proptned miti~tation and monitoring <br />ntcacures will he in accnrdancr rvitlt the standards and guideline. cuntainrd in Chaplcr III <br />nfthc Forest Plan. <br />nay authority to approve the mining and reclamation operations on National Forest <br />System land is derived from: (11 The Oroanic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 (16 <br />U.S.C. 477); (2) The Forest Service Rc~ulations a[ 36 CFR 2iI. Suhpan 8: and. (3) The <br />Forest Service Manual, 2704.3 and R2 Supplement 2700-99-1, effective t?l23f99. <br />ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED <br />A description of the altematives evaluated as pur[ of the NEPA compliance process, <br />including the No Action Ahemative was presen[ed in the EA. It also included a <br />description of altematives that were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. <br />The alternatives studied in this EA were defined inconsideration of their technical. <br />environmental, and economic feasibility and their ability to rarest the purpose and treed <br />for the proposed project. <br />Given the geology and soils in Teller County, then •rre many readily available sources of <br />a~$reg:ue, and future demands for gravel could likely be met front the expansion of <br />existing sites located on private and state (ands. However, the U.S. Forest Service does <br />not havejunsdiction over the developmen[ on private and start lands. These options, <br />from the U.S. Forest Service perspective, would therefore be included in the No Action <br />Alternative. <br />The U.S. Forest Service has reviewed the status of other quarry sites located on National <br />Forest System (ands. The only quarry sites currently being operated in the Pike National <br />Forest arc several small .rites along the Gold Camp Road in the southeast corner of Teller <br />Cuunty. These sites are currently permitted exclusively to the county for main[enance of <br />Gold Camp Road. They arc too small and remotely located to be effectively operated for <br />meeting gavel needs in other parts of Teller County. <br />The alternatives analyzed in detail in the EA are summari~td below: <br />Nydmape~tloaow Cauulpnu. 1(10? WLnul Sui\e'_nD, n0uWCf. CO l030Z <br />