2007-11-14_REVISION - C1980007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A Draft EIS was prepared, and the Notice of Availability for comment appeared in the Federal Register on March 23, 2007. Legal notice of opportunity to comment appeared in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (April 5, 2007 and the Delta County .Independent (April 4, 2007). Seven (7) parties, comprised of other agencies and interested parties, submitted comments on the Draft EIS. Responses were prepared to all comments received and are contained in Chapter 5 of the Final EIS. The Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2007. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations To the best of my knowledge, this decision complies with all applicable laws and regulations. In the following, I have summarized the association of my decision to some pertinent legal requirements. Executive Order 13212 of May 18, 2001. This Order called the federal agencies to expedite their review of permits for energy-related projects while maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections. My decision is consistent with this Order. National Forest Management Act of 1976: The GMUG Forest.Plan was approved in 1983 and amended in 1991, as required by this Act. This long-range land and resource management plan provides guidance for all resource management activities in the Forest. The National Forest Management Act requires all projects and activities to be consistent with the Forest Plan. Bringing forward the consistency ofpost-mining land use with the Forest Plan, along with protections for non-coal resources (Design Criteria listed in Appendix C) in the concurrence to OSM's recommendation for Department-level approval, is consistent with the intent of the GMUG Forest Plan's long term goals and objectives listed in EIS. The project was designed in conformance with Forest Plan standards and incorporates appropriate Forest Plan guidelines for minerals management, big game winter range, livestock grazing and riparian area management (Forest Plan, pages III-63 to 69). Forest Plan Consistency No Forest Plan amendment, site-specific or otherwise, would be required for implementation of this project. All actions are consistent with the Forest Direction and Management Area standards and guidelines of the Plan. In specific, this project is consistent with the Forest Plan in the following ways: • All alternatives are consistent with the Clean Water Act and Forest Plan standards for water resources. The selected alternative is consistent with Forest Service Manua12580-Air Resource Management and the 1991 GMUG Forest Plan. The proposed action is consistent with Forest Plan standards for geology which establishes limits on ground-disturbing activity on unstable slopes and highly erodible sites. The proposed action is consistent with Forest Plan standards for soils that establish limits on ground-disturbing activity on unstable slopes and highly erodible sites. The proposed action is consistent with the Forest Plan, NFMA, FSM 2670 at 2670.22 -Sensitive Species, Executive Order 11990 -Protection of Wetlands, and Executive Order 131120 -Invasive Species. The alternatives would not result in a decline or reduction of viability of the populations of sensitive species identified to occur on the GMUG National Forests. All alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan regarding Management Indicator Species (MIS), In May 2005 the Forest Supervisor on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) issued an amendment that, in part, revised the list of Management Indictor 11