REV14918 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

These decisions are consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policies (refer to Section VII of this document and EA Supplement, Sections 2.0 and 3.0). In particular, it is consistent with the current interim directives regarding transportation analysis (ID 2210-2001-3, effective December 14, 2001). This decision would also be consistent with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (January 12, 2001). currently enjoined from implementation by the Idaho District Court. Activities approved by this decision are on lands within existing coal leases (issued in 1967 and 1995), are consistent with rights issued under the federal coal leases, and are consistent with Forest LRMP direction for lands allocated to non-roadless uses. How Issues Were Considered. Potential effects described as Issues (EA Supplement, Sections 2A.3, 3B.3 and 3C.3), were analyzed and disclosed by resource in Section 3 of each project chapter. Consideration of Public Comments. Public comments were sought throughout this project analysis process (refer to Section V of this document for a summary of public involvement, and Sections 2.A2, 2B.2 and 2C.2 of the EA Supplement). The environmental analysis was supplemented and the management and mitigation measures .. described in the EA supplement were modified in response to public comment and IDT review. I considered public comment while making this decision. . I recognize that some who commented do not support coal production in this area. The decisions to lease coal in the project area were made in 1967 (C-1362) and 1995 (COC-56447). I recognize that users of the Minnesota Creek corridor, officials of Delta County and the Town of Paonia have voiced their concerns over the drilling traffic. I carefully considered these comments when making this decision. I recognize that some who commented believe that an Environmental Impact Statement should have been written because of impacts to the West Elk IRA, impacts on global climate change, significance of all impacts as a whole, and other reasons. I carefully considered the written comments expressing these concerns. I concluded [hat the environmental analysis performed, and the environmental assessment written, adequately studied the potential consequences of the proposed actions and the alternatives. I concluded that no significant impacts will occur as the result of this decision. I concluded that preparation of an EIS is no[ warranted for [his decision. Please refer to the Finding of No Significant Impact in Section V I. Identification of the Environmenta! Documents Considered in Makine the Decision. This decision was made after carefully considering the environmental analyses documented both in the 2002 Panels 16 to 24 EA and DN/FONSI, and 2004 EA Supplement to it, public comments, Forest Service response to comments, and the supporting project records. The public comments, environmental analysis and decisions prepared for [he Panel 14 and I S methane drainage projects, the 2001 EA, three 2001 Decision Memos, the 1996 EA for coal exploration, The Box Canyon Federal Coal Lease EA (1995) and the LRMP were also considered in making these decisions. In the event of any contradiction or conflict between descriptions or depictions of authorized actions, my decisions with respect to these projects are to be taken from the project documents in the following order of precedence: first the descriptions in this DN, second the representations on [he Decision Maps, and finally descriptions in the EA Supplement. Page 10