REV14918 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

similar to those of previous decisions regarding temporary road and drill pad building, coal mine related drilling within this project area and in adjacent NFS lands. Although both beneficial and adverse effects are disclosed, none are severe enough to be considered significant. None of the expected beneficial or adverse effects have a significant amount of intensity that would require documentation in an EIS. 2 Consideration of Public Health And Safety. Public health and safety issues pertaining to public safety on roads to be shared with drill traffic (EA SupplemenC, Section 3A.7) and safety of underground miners (EA Supplement, Sections 1.1 and 1B.2) were considered iu the analysis. This decision does not permit public use on the temporary road in Box Canyon. Some minor public use may occur on existing National Forest roads comtecting to the Meadow Road if it is used. This decision could continue the low risk of drill traffic sharing roads used by the public, however the traffic amount indicates Chat shared use is a small percentage of total traffic in the Town of Paonia, and there is a small percentage of public use outside the Town. This decision does not approve drill pad construction in areas where MDWs for panels 19, 20 and 21 would have been drilled. No MDWs in this area may lead to methane accumulation, although slowed mining and other in mine techniques could be used to ameliorate this situation. Although my decision could have minor effects to public health and safety, the amount of intensity is not extraordinary and does no[ require documentation in an EIS. 3. Consideration of Unique Characteristics Such As Proximity To Historic Or Cultural Resources Park Lands. Prime Farmlands, Wetlands, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Or Ecologically Critical Areas. Historic and cultural resources are addressed in the following Item 8. There are no prime farmlands, rangeland, or forest land as defined in the Secretary of Agriculture's Memorandum Number 1827, Supplement 1, identified on [he Gunnison National Forest. Wetlands would not be affected, as no delineated wetlands have been identified in the project area. If wetlands were unexpectedly encountered during layout of approved facilities, facilities would be designed to avoid them. Condition of Approval #25 in Appendix A of this Decision Notice requires that facilities planned in Water Influence Zones must be staked by a qualified soil scientist, hydrologist, geologist, or biologist. This mitigation will ensure that any unknown wetlands will be identified and will not be inadvertently damaged. There are no identified parklands or Wild and Scenic rivers in proximity to the project. The area of my decision has not been identified by any source as an ecologically critical area (Project File -Biological Assessment and Biologic Evaluation). 4. Consideration Of The Degree To Which The Effects On The Ouality Of The Human Environment Are Likely To Be Hiehly Controversial. This decision and its effects are not unique. Coal-related drilling decisions have been made on this National Forest fer [he past 30 years (EA Supplement, Table 1, Section 4.0).. Surface related impacts are expected to be similar to pas[ impacts from similar projects in this project area and elsewhere in the project vicinity. The quality and use of the human environment in the project area is understood, have been analyzed, and are not highly controversial. Monitoring of previously approved methane drainage wells has shown that revegetation and rehabilitation of impacted areas can successfully occur where ground conditions are conducive to their construction, and occupancy has been approved. Information or data that would demonstrate [he effects described in the EA are highly controversial have not been brought forward. The intensity of this factor does not require documentation in an EIS. 5. Consideration Of The Decree To Which The Possible Effects On The Human Environment Are Hiehly Uncertain Or Involve Unique Or Unknown Risks. This decision is not unique for this area, as coal-related drilling projects, including [hose to facilitate methane drainage have been previously approved in this, and other locations in proximity. The Forest Service has experience in managing and monitoring similar projects, the effects of which have been found to be reasonably predictable. After several years of implementing the methane drainage drilling project, and comparing the amount of gas vented to predictions from agas-in-place study, shows that the amounts of gas can be reasonably predicted (EA Supplement, Section 3B.8). Although there are fluctuations in the amount of gas vented have been noted, the amounts of methane have been reasonably estimated. No effects from this decision would be classified as highly uncertain or involving unique or unknown risks. The intensity of this factor does not require documentation in an EIS. 6. Consideration Of The Degree To Which The Action Mav Establish A Precedent For Future Actions With Significant Effects Or Represents A Decision In Principle About A Future Consideration. This decision is not precedent setting. The Forest has previously analyzed and perrnitted coala~elated drilling activities in adjacent areas, Page 16