PERMFILE107011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Forest Service published a notice inviting conmrents for scoping on the proposed project in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, on August 1, 2003. A notification letter was sent to about 32 known interested parties on August 1, 2003. scoping comments were received from 3 parties. Documentation of project scoping input is included in the project £le. scoping input was reviewed, analyzed, and sununarized to represent the issues and concerns of the respondents. Based on the issues and concems of the respondents, and in response to the issues raised (Section 2.3 of the EA), alternatives were developed [hat address both the project issues and the propose and need for the project, as described in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the EA. this project was also included in the GMUG Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA); an accounting of on going projects on the forest that is updated quarterly. The SOPA is available on the Internet, and is mailed to about 15 addressees. The completed EA was sent out for 30-day public review and comment on December ], 2003. The EA was mailed to 9 addressees. A legal notice which announced the availability of the EA for public review and comment appeared in the in the Crand Junction Daily Sentinel on December 1, 2003. News releases appeazed in the Delta County /ndependent -North Fork Times on December 3 and 24, 2003. The BLM held a public hearing on December 15, 2003, to hear public comments on leasing the duct and on the EA analysis. Four members of [he public attended [he heaz'ing. A copy of the hearing transcript is in the project file. Pive (5) parties commented on the EA during the public comment period. A swttmary of the public comment and the Forest Service Response to Comments and an errata disclosure are contained in Appendix E of the EA. VI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based on my review of [he EA, public comments~on the EA, the agency responses to comments (Appendix E to the EA), the supporting project'record, and upon my analysis immediately below, I find that actions resulting from my • decision do not constitute major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 1508, section 27 (40 CFR ] 508.27) in terms of either context or intensity, and that an environmental impact statement need not be prepazed. Context !_ocality. This decision would directly affect about 577 acres ofNFS lands on the Paonia Ranger District. This number represents the acreage in the lease tract, and in relation to the reasonably foreseeable mine plan (EA, Section 2.9), about 260 acres would be subsided. In context of the surrounding area, about 10,000 acres of land aze currently under lease for the West Elk Mine. The acreage involved in this lease tract represents a small percentage of all [he lands (federal and private) currently committed to coal resource recovery. The West Flatiron lease tract is located in the West Elk IRA. The areas surrounding the lease tract have been subject to road building activities primarily associated with coal mining and exploration for the past 40 years. The roadless character of the area has been compromised, and retains little roadless character. Potential short-term impacts due to subsidence of the land surface are monitored or mitigated by application of the Coal Lease Stipulations in Appendix A of this document. Where longer-term, potentially more damaging impacts ~.vere identified, stipulations were included for protection of these resources. The effects on public land and users over both the short-term and long-term would remain consistent with that which is presently occtttring and has occurred in the past decade. No short or long term significant impacts ar'e expected as a result of this decision in the local context (EA, Chapter 3). Affected Interests and Affected Region. Affected interests for this project are permittees in the project area, people wlto use the project areas for recreation, people using public and Forest roads, residents in Delta and Gunnison Counties, the project proponent and other coal companies. This decision allows continued use of the area by . Page 6