Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 5 <br />Table 5-1 <br />DEIS Comments and Responses <br />Commenter Comment Comment/Response <br /> <br /> seven sites, and one mile of road, on the roadless portion of this lease. DEIS <br /> at 19. Lease 67232 was issued in March 2007. It is a new lease, i.e., not an <br /> extension, renewal, or continuation ofpreciously-issued lease. The issue date <br /> is well after the decision of Judge Laporte of the United States District Court <br /> of the Northern District of California which found the 2005 Roadless Rule <br /> illegal and reconfirmed the applicability of the 2001 Roadless Area <br /> Conservation Rule (hereafter "RACR"). See DEIS at 6-7.[1]. <br /> Response: The FS agrees that Judge Laporte's decision would legally exclude <br /> the road construction on this lease. Road construction on lease 67232 ("Dry <br /> Fork Lease") has been removed from the Proposed Action in the FEIS. <br />Colorado Wild, et ~ Under RACR, road construction in inventoried roadless areas is generally <br />al. prohibited. 36 CFR 294.12 (2001). There are seven exceptions to this <br /> prohibition. The two that are cited as applying to the instant project (see DEIS <br /> at 20) read as follows: (1) A road is needed to protect public health and safety <br /> in cases of an imminent threat of flood, fire, or other catastrophic event that, <br /> without intervention, would cause the loss of life or property...(7) A road is <br /> needed in conjunction with the continuation, extension, or renewal of a <br /> mineral lease on lands that are under lease by the Secretary of the Interior as <br /> of January 12, 2001 or for a new lease issued immediately upon expiration of <br /> an existing lease. Such road construction or reconstruction must be conducted <br /> in a manner that minimizes effects on surface resources, prevents unnecessary <br /> or unreasonable surface disturbance, and complies with all applicable lease <br /> requirements, land and resource management plan direction, regulations, and <br /> laws. Roads constructed or reconstructed pursuant to this paragraph must be <br /> obliterated when no longer needed for the purposes of the lease or upon <br /> termination or expiration of the lease, whichever is sooner. 36 CFR 294.12(b). <br /> RESPONSE: Re-iteration of language in EIS. The FS has interpreted that road <br /> construction in the IRA can be done under Exception 7 where applicable. The <br /> EIS has been revised accordingly. <br />Colorado Wild, et 8 The Forest Service claims that exception #1 applies for all the proposed <br />al. activity in the IRA, because methane gas is a hazard to miners, and explosions <br /> could result in the loss of federal property (i. e., the coal resource) via <br /> explosions. Wells requiring roads in the IRA are, according to the DEIS, the <br /> only known way to vent the methane. DEIS at 20. <br /> RESPONSE: The EIS (Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated <br /> from Detailed Study) provides information on other ways of venting or using <br /> methane, and why they were not considered in detail. <br /> See response to comment Colorado Wild et al. #7. <br />Colorado Wild, et 9 The public health and safety exception in the 2001 RACR is narrow. By using <br />al. both the word "imminent" and the word "catastrophic," and by including only <br /> examples of natural disasters (fire and flood), the Forest Service intended this <br /> exception only to apply to emergency situations that were not created by a <br /> proposed project itself. As explained in RACR's Preamble, The public health <br /> and safety exception at paragraph (b)(1) in the final rule applies only when <br /> needed to rotect ublic health and safe in cases of an imminent threat of a <br />• <br />r~ <br />U <br />• <br />172 Deer Creek Ventilation Shaft and E Seam Methane Drainage Wells FEIS <br />