GENERAL53904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 2000 Record of Decision Page 14 substantial progress in a collaborative way to address off-site impacts that fall outside the regulatory jurisdiction of the BLM and Forest Service. While we may have no jurisdictional authority over some of the community agreement provisions, we will notify potential bidders on the lease of the community efforts. Potential bidders would then be apprized of the community expectations for responsible resource development and would have the opportunity to obtain further information. More specifically, the socioeconomic analysis addressed the impacts of the lease/no {ease decision before the agencies. The analysis took a thorough look at the role of coal in the economy and the interrelationships of coal with other segments of the economy. In addition, after release of the Draft EIS we were able to obtain access to the locally developed "REDP" data (incorporated in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs LEIFA data set). The socioeconomic modeling was rerun and the results reported in the Final EIS, Generally, the results were within 10% and the causative factors were highlighted. Due to the longwall mining methods being employed, the effects of the decision between the no action decision and the decision to lease is not so much related to the levels of coal production per year, but rather the duration of coal production from the mines over time. Ultimately, when the current and any future mine reserves are depleted, the economy will feel the effects of the mine closures. Transportation issues focused on railroad issues. The railroad traffic necessary to transport coal to market will approximately double. This reflects the combined production of all three mines in the North Fork Valley, not just the two mines making the lease applications. The agencies believe they have no direct jurisdiction over railroad operations. Further, the agencies see no fair, reasonable or meaningful way within their authority to deal with the issue through indirect means such as setting production limits or levying additional monetary fees or contributions. As stated above, we will apprize potential bidders of the commitments expected in the community. The EIS analyzed the impacts of increased railroad traffic and especially focused on the public health and safety aspects at railroad crossings. For the Final EIS, an inventory of public railroad crossings was completed and some costing estimates for safety upgrades were prepared. Private crossings were not inventoried because they involve permits between private parties and the railroad. However, it is recognized that safety considerations are generally the same. This information is part of the administrative record and has been given to the community for their further use in prioritizing crossings, preparing grant proposals, etc. We believe the community efforts underway will be successful and will result in substantial crossing improvements. The effects of noise are primarily associated with the operation of the railroad. As stated previously, the agencies do not have direct jurisdiction over railroad operations. However, the noise section was rewritten to better disclose and consider the potential impacts. For example, the effects of whistles was specifically added to the discussion. The agencies determined that no additional studies or inventories would add to the decision making process and conseQuently were unnecessary at this time. We acknowledge that affects to individuals can be disturbing. This is especially true for residents close to the tracks during normal sleep periods. Under certain meteorological conditions, disturbances can occur at greater distances. We have identified other mitigation that is available or proposed in Chapter 3. Adoption of some or all of these measures could help lessen the noise impacts, Subsidence induced impacts to water resources was an important consideration. Alternative D, No Subsidence in Sensitive Areas, was specifically designed to address this issue and is the basis of the decision. The evaluation of the subsidence and potential impacts followed standard and accepted analysis practices. In addition, we subcontracted one of the foremost BLM - E!k Creek Coal Lease Tract