Laserfiche WebLink
Table 5-1 <br />DEIS Comments and Responses <br />Commenter Comment Comment/Response <br /> <br /> RESPONSE: In the EA and DN/FONSI for the Sylvester Gulch Road <br /> Construction and Long Draw Saddle Extension Upgrade (USDA, FS 2006), it <br /> was disclosed that some mine related traffic would continue to use County <br /> Road 710 (Minnesota Creek Road) and NFSR 710 to access the methane <br /> drainage project area with the drill rig. The Sylvester Gulch Road was <br /> approved and designed to handle traffic less than AASHTO standard WB-40). <br /> Therefore, it is not designed to support the type of traffic needed for the shaft <br /> construction (oversize and over-length vehicles). Further, as of the date of this <br /> FEIS, the Sylvester Gulch Road has not been completed (estimated <br /> completion July 2007). <br /> The FEIS has been revised to address the types of traffic that will need to use <br /> CR 710 and NFSR 710 as part of this project because they exceed the design <br /> ctiteria of the Sylvester Gulch Road. See FEIS, Chapter 3, Transportation. <br /> MCC has also developed a Maintenance Agreement with Delta County, see <br /> added letter from Delta County. <br />Colorado Wild, et 1 The analysis falls short of meeting NEPA's requirements and parts of the <br />al. project would be illegal. <br /> RESPONSE: Specifics of this position statement are discussed further in <br /> subsequent Colorado Wild, et al. responses. <br />Colorado Wild, et 2 Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, the Forest Service must: (1) <br />al. prepare a supplemental draft EIS that analyzes a true and complete range of <br /> reasonable alternatives; and (2) modify the proposed action. <br /> RESPONSE: For this Proposed Action, the FS is following the process for <br /> preparing an EIS consistent with CEQ regulations and FS NEPA policy. The <br /> FS prepared a DEIS that was released for public review and comment in <br /> March 2007. An FEIS was then be prepared that responds to commments raised <br /> on the DEIS analysis. A Supplemental EIS as suggested is not the appropriate <br /> document to prepare for this project and its place in the EIS process. <br /> With respect to the range of alternatives, the FS considered 9 alternatives in <br /> this analysis, three (3) of which were carried forward for detailed analysis. <br /> These alternatives collectively represent a range of reasonable alternatives <br /> (see FEIS, Chapter 2). <br /> Certain portions of the Proposed Action have been modified in response to <br /> comments received on the DEIS. See the FEIS, Chapter 2. <br /> See also responses Colorado Wild, et al. #15 -23. <br />Colorado Wild, et 3 We are particularly concerned about this project's potentially damaging <br />al. impacts to the West Elk Inventoried Roadless Area (hereafter "the IRA")... <br /> The Forest Service thus should provide not only a high level of protection for <br /> these areas (as required by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule), but also <br /> should ensure that its analysis of environmental impacts to such areas as <br /> required by law is of the highest quality. The DEIS fails on both counts. <br /> RESPONSE: Effects of road construction in the West Ells IRA is disclosed in <br /> the DEIS and FEIS, Chapter 3, Inventoried Roadless Area. The authority for <br /> the FS to a rove such activi is iven in the FEIS Cha ter 2, Pro osed <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />170 Deer Creek Ventilation Shaft and E Seam Methane Drainage Wells FEIS <br />