GENERAL39459 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

hr the event of any contradiction or conflict between descriptions or depictions of authorized actions, my • decision is to be taken from the project documents in the following order of precedence: first the description in this ROD, second the representations on the Decision Map and legal descriptions (Figure 1), and finally descriptions in the FEIS. Reasons for the Decision Anulicable Laws, Regulations, and Policy The selected alternative meets requirements under the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the Colorado Surface Coa] Mining Reclamation Act, and other applicable laws and regulations (refer to the Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations section of this document and FEIS, Chapter 1, Authorizing Actions). How Issues Were Considered Primary issues of concern related specifically to the shaft and escapeway construction included socio- economic effects should the mine cease operations, effects to big game winter range if the shaft construction would occur over winter, and county road use. To address these concerns, the Forest Service created the alternatives described in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. With respect to socioeconomic concerns, the effects of the proposed action are addressed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. To assess potential effects to big game winter range, the GMUG had wildlife biologists review the • shafi/escapeway location and road access routes and consulted with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). According to CDOWs current GIS map layers for winter range, the shafl/escapeway and road access are outside of deer winter range and on the very edge of elk winter range; and, therefore, would not create adverse effects to winter range or animal use. The effects of activity occurring in big game winter range are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. With respect to road use for construction equipment, the FEIS discloses the effects of shaftlescapeway construction traffic (see Chapter 3). Oversize/over-length vehicles such as the drill rig and semi-trucks (large equipment transport) would access from the west through the town of Paonia, then via Minnesota Creek Road in Delta County, Gunnison County Road 710, and NFSRs 710 and 71 I. The estimated traffic associated with use of county roads for oversized vehicles is estimated at 5 round trips per year until project completion. For shaft construction activities where cement hauling is requved, an estimated 7 round trips per day with full-sized vehicles (not to exceed 20,000 pounds per axle) will use these routes. Estimated duration of cementing on shaft is fall 2007 through summer 2008. County road use was addressed and resolved between the company and the county through a maintenance ageement process. Concerns were also raised on the project with respect to activities occurring in the West Elk Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). This is not an issue that is germane to approval of the shaf]/escapeway and needed access, as they are not located within the IRA (FEIS, Figure 3). Other issues raised with respect to the shaft and escapeway and the effects of these activities are presented in the FEIS (Chapter 2 and 3). For all disciplines, Best Management Practices and Design Criteria will be implemented to minimize effects. Benefits will also occur from implementation of my decision. By allowing the shaft and escapeway, leased Federal coal reserves will continue to be mined and made available to supply energy needs of the • country. This will continue to provide economic benefit to the surrounding communities for the next ] 2 years.