Laserfiche WebLink
livestock permit holders, and recreatimtal users of the areas. Monitoring and mitigation measures in the form of <br />• lease stipulations are prescribed in this decision to protect and preserve other forest uses. Other required permits <br />would specify terms of use to further reduce effects on other forest uses. No sltot't or long term significant impacts <br />on affected interests az~e expected as a result of tltis decision in the regional context (EA, Chapter 3). <br />Society as a Whole. This decision provides the opportunity for federal coal reserves to be mined and contribute to <br />filling the nation's need for coal. This decision also ensures that mineable federal coal reserves are not bypassed, <br />Given the short-term duration (3 months of time over an anticipated three year period) and small amount of coal <br />reserve (2.3 million tons) there would be no impacts to society as a whole. <br />Intensity <br />1. Consideration Of Beneficial And Adverse Imnacts. Beneficial and adverse impacts were described in the EA <br />(Chapter 3) and considered in Section III of this Decision Notice. Impacts of this decision will be similar to those of <br />previous decisions regarding coal leasing and mining in this project area and in adjacent areas on the GMUG and <br />BLM lands. A benefit of this project will be the contribution of coal to the nation's energy needs. Although both <br />beneficial and adverse effects are disclosed, none are severe enough to be considered significant. None of the <br />expected beneficial or adverse impacts have a significant amount of intensity that world require documentation in <br />an EIS. <br />2. Consideration of Public Health And Safety. I considered public health and safety issues in this decision. Since <br />there aze no changes tothe existing coal transportation system (EA, page 2-3), that the coal would be mined from an <br />underground mine, the scale of this project, and the short-term duration of project activities, coupled with mitigation <br />measures, reduces the risk [o public health and safety to negligible levels. <br />3. Consideration of Unique Characteristics Such As Proximity To Historic Or Cultural Resources, Park Lands, <br />Prime Farmlands. Wetlands, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Or Ecoloeically Critical Areas. Historic and cultural resources <br />. are addressed in the following Item 8. There are no prime farmlands, rangeland, or forest land as defined in the <br />Secretary of Agriculture's Memorandum Number 1827, Supplement 1, identified on the Grand Mesa or Gunnison <br />National Forests (EA, page 2-3). Wetlands would not be affected, as no delineated wetlands are known to exist in <br />the lease tract (EA, Section 3.5). There are no identified pazklands or Wild and Scenic rivers in proximity to the <br />project. The area of my decision has not been identified by any source as an ecologically critical area (Project File - <br />Biological Assessment and Biologic Evaluation). The roadless character of the West Elk IRA will. not be altered _ <br />4. Consideration Of The Deeree To Which The Effects On The Ouality Of The Human Environment Are Likely To <br />Be Hiehly Controversial. This decision and its effects are not unique. Mineral-related (oil and gas, and coal) <br />leasing decisions have been made ou this National Forest for the past 30 years. Surface related impacts incident to <br />subsidence are expected to be consistent with past impacts from similar projects in this project azea and elsewhere in <br />the project vicinity. The quality and use of the human environment in the project area is understood, have been <br />analyzed, and are not highly controversial from a scientific standpoint. Given that activities will occur for short <br />periods of time at specific locations, there is very low risk of effects spreading to local communities. Monitoring of <br />subsidence in [he area has shown that small-scale impacts have occurred, but none that contribute substantially to <br />the landscape (EA, Section 3.2.2). Information or data that would demonstrate that the effects described in the EA <br />are highly controversial have not been brought forward. Given the small scale, localized impacts associated with <br />this project, the intensity of this factor does not require documentation in an EIS. <br />5. Consideration Of The Deeree To Which The Possible Effects On The Human Environment Are Hiehlv Uncertain <br />Or Involve Unique Or Unknown Risks. This decision is not unique for [his area, as mineral leasing projects have <br />been previously approved in close proximity to the project area. The Forest Service has experience in implementing <br />and monitoring similar projects, the effects of which have been found to be reasonably predictable. The risks <br />associated with subsidence are understood, and can be evaluated and reasonably predicted. No effects ft'om this <br />decision would be classified as highly uncertain or involving unique or unknown risks. The intensity of this factor <br />does not require documentation in an EIS. <br />6. Consideration Of The Deeree To Which The Action Mav Establish A Precedent For Future Actions With <br />Page 7 <br />