My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE111999
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE111999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:08:25 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 9:04:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
3/4/2002
Doc Name
USFS Decision Memo on Site 14-05
Section_Exhibit Name
Exhibit 80 Drilling Activities
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Jul 20 O1 11:52a PRONIR RRNGER DISTRICT 970-527-4151 <br />• will not increase the density of motorized roads and/or trails within the watershed since <br />utilized routes will be closed and reclaimed when the project is completed. <br />Dry Fork Grazing Allotment permiltees (via Dallas Hazding) were also contacted for the <br />Apri14 decision, and expressed concems for reclaiming the areas so that oakbrush is not <br />replaced, and cautioned about closing roads before knowing what the ultimate mine <br />needs would be. Utilization of the grazing allotment will be continued and coordinated <br />with the drilling operations. <br />Rich Rudin called voicing opposition to the proposal, and expressed the need to see long- <br />tenrl plans and that an EA should be prepazed. <br />The Delta County Commissioners commented that the project would be necessary to <br />ensure the health and safety of the miners, and that the proposal would not create a <br />significant impact to the area in question. <br />The District Wildlife Biologist (DWB) indicated there would be no effects to threatened, <br />endangered or sensitive species (project file). The Biological AssessmentBiological <br />Evaluations completed for previous lease NEPA reviews in 1995 and 1998 were <br />reviewed and detemrined to still be applicable with no changes (project file). <br />Management indicator species (MIS) analysis for the 1995 and 1998 decisions were <br />reviewed for direct, indirect and clunulative effects with this project. Goshawks and <br />• Lewis' woodpeckers were found to be "no effect". Elk and deer use the area as summer <br />range. Cleariug vegetation for drill pads and reclaiming by recontouring and seeding will <br />slightly increase potential elk and deer foraging areas. The project azea is within elk <br />winter range as mapped by the CDOW. Stipulations approved in previous Decision <br />Notices and Finding of No Significant Impacts associated with these sites restricts <br />drilling activities from December I through April 30 to protect big game winter range <br />and are still in place for this project. The DWB conducted a field visit with the CDOW <br />Wildlife Manager regarding winter range or other wildlife issues. After reviewing the <br />winter range resource conditions on the ground, the CDOW Wildlife Manager indicated <br />that long tenn yeaz round monitoring access by ATV is not anticipated to negatively <br />impact elk. Mitigation measures were developed with the CDOW Wildlife Manager to <br />prevent potential impacts for migratory birds and hunter conflicts. See Attachment B <br />Conditions of Approval. <br />Tlne District Range Management (DRM) specialist expressed concems regarding the need <br />to control noxious weed infestations on disturbed ground, and provided a recommended <br />seed mix for reclamation (project file and Attachment B). Eazlier NEPA documentation <br />(1995) for the area indicated that the Grand Mesa penstemon was present in the area, and <br />usually colonizes on disturbed ground. The Grand Mesa penstemon has since been <br />removed as a candidate species, and is no longer considered a Forest Service sensitive <br />species, so it's presence is not a concern. <br />p.4 <br />The Zone Archaeologist confirmed that previous archaeological surveys had been <br />• performed for these locations, and showed negative results (project File). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.