PERMFILE70852 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

pads aze located in areas that are not restricted by lease stipulations. Road building on existing coal leases is consistent with the January 12, 2001 Forest Transportation System Rule. Road building also would be consistent with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (January 12, 2001), if i[ were in place. The rule is currently enjoined from implementation by the Idaho District Court. Identification of the Environmental Documents Considered in Making the Decision This decision was made after carefully considering the contents of the EA, public comments, Forest Service response to comments, and the supporting project record. Socioeconomic information displayed in the affected environment section of the 2000 GMUG and BLM North Fork Coal EIS was considered. A socioeconomic report was prepared for this project and is attached as Appendix C4. Roadless character analysis and recommendations for leasing displayed in the 1993 Oil and Gas EIS were considered. The roadless chazacter analysis presented m this project EA was supplemented. The revised information is included in Appendix C 1. The public comments and environmental analysis performed for the Panel 14 and 15 methane drainage projects, the 2001 EA, and three 2001 Decision Memos for methane drainage activity within the project area were considered in making the decision for Panels 16 through 24. How Considerations Were Weighed And Balanced In Arriving At The Decision The Supplemental EIS For the 1993 amended Forest Plan described the Inventoried Roadless Areas on the GMUG NFs [ha[ would be managed for future wildemess potential. The West Elk IRA was not considered eligible in that EIS, (Page III-26, FSEIS 1993 Forest Plan) and was not recommended for wildemess in the Record of Decision for the amended Forest Plan. Forest plan dtrection for inventoried roadless areas not recommended for wildemess allows road construction (Forest Plan, page 5-23) and encourages mineral development (Forest Plan, pages III-62 through III-65). Existing coal leases underlay the surface, giving the leaseholder the right [o constmc[ roads on the surface needed to develop the coal, subject to the lease stipulations. Temporary roads for coal exploration have been approved, constmcted, then reclaimed in this portion of the West Elk IRA in the project area since 1972. The reclaimed roadbed remains visible in these past road corridors. The distribution and amount of past road construction is displayed in Figure 4 in the EA. The roadless character in this portion of the IRA has been compromised by repeated construction and reclamation of roads pemutted for coal exploration over the past 30 years (EA, section 3.6.2). It would not be reasonable for me to deny construction of roads in this area to protect the roadless character when the existing roadless character has been compromised and current Forest Plan direction allows road construction and encourages mineral development in [his area. I have deferred the decision to constmct roads and drill pads in Box Canyon and East Fork Sylvester drainages because more information is needed about the amount of methane drainage needed and the potential impacts in areas restricted by lease stipulations. The amount of methane that needs to be vented from Panels 18 through 22 is expected to be less than occurs in the other Panels to the south. Further exploration and experience in draining methane in Panels 16 and 17 in the summer of 2002 should allow MCC to better predict and plan their needs for methane drainage in Panels I S through 22. The FS Interdisciplinary Team did not have adequate field time to review the areas in Box Canyon and East Fork Sylvester that would require exceptions to lease stipulations. MCC did not submit their project proposal until I 1/1/Ol. The area was covered in snow while the team performed the environmental analysis. Throughout the winter of 2002, [he locations of spur roads and drill pads for these roads continued [o be adjusted on the map without field verification by MCC or the FS. In order to proceed with analysis of activities in these areas, MCC will need [o stake the locations of the proposed facilities. The ID Team then could study the proposal in the summer of 2002, supplement the EA and project record if needed, then recommend a decision during the fall of 2002 or winter of 2002/2003. A decision could [hen be made in a timely fashion to allow for continued production of coal if approval is provided. Constmction of Box Canyon Road is proposed in September/October of 2003, therefore, a decision by early 2003 should provide opportunity for resolution of issues if the decision is appealed. Relationship to Public Involvement Public comments were sought throughout this project (refer to Section V of this document for a summary of public involvement, and Section 2.1 of the EA). The environmental analysis was supplemented and the Conditions of Final Version 5/31/02 Page 10