Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />5 <br />Table 5-1 <br />DEIS Comments and Responses <br />Commenter Comment Comment/Response <br /> <br /> RESPONSE: See response to Colorado Wild et al. comment #12a. <br />Colorado Wild, et 14 Modification of 160 acres each for leases 1362 and 56447 were issued in <br />al. October, 2001. DEIS at 6. This was during a time when RACR was in effect, <br /> and it is currently in effect. As noted above, the DEIS admits that exception 7 <br /> does not apply to the modification of lease 1362. This exception allows <br /> minimal-impact road construction where needed for continuation, extension, <br /> or renewal of a mineral lease that was in effect at the time RACR became <br /> effective, January 12, 2001. Since exception 1 has been mistakenly applied to <br /> this lease, as discussed above in section I.A. of these comments, there are no <br /> exceptions to RACR's prohibition on road construction in the IRA in this <br /> area. Therefore, no roads can be constructed on the lands covered by the 2001 <br /> modif cation of lease 1362. If exception 7 does not apply to the modification <br /> of lease 1362, it does also not apply to the modification of lease 56447, as this <br /> modification was also done in October, 2001, and the entire lease is in the <br /> IRA. DEIS at 6. The only difference between the two leases is that 564471ies <br /> entirely within an IRA, while most of 1362 does not. DEIS at 6. But exception <br /> #7 does not look to whether all of apre-existing lease is roadless. Rather, it <br /> requires that a lease extension be limited to "lands that are under lease by the <br /> Secretary of the Interior as of January 12, 2001." Therefore, no road <br /> construction can legally occur on lands covered by the October, 2001 <br /> extension of lease 56447, either. <br /> RESPONSE: See response to Colorado Wild et al. comment 5. <br />Colorado Wild, et 15 THE DEIS FAILS TO EXAMINE A FULL RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES. <br />al. The National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") requires that federal <br /> agencies "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to <br /> recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved <br /> conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." 40 U.S.C. § <br /> 4332(E). This requires an agency to "[r]igorously explore and objectively <br /> evaluate all reasonable alternatives[.]" 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). The <br /> consideration of alternatives is described as the "heart" of the NEPA analysis. <br /> Id. § 1502.14. However, the DEIS only examines two alternatives in detail, <br /> the proposed action and no action. It appears that there has not been any <br /> attempt to seriously consider ways to protect the IRA while still allowing <br /> some mining and methane venting. Indeed, an alternative that would not build <br /> roads or wells in the IRA was dismissed from detailed consideration because: <br /> An alternative that included acreage in the IRA separately was considered, but <br /> eliminated from detailed study because, with Regional Forester approval of <br /> access roads to [methane drainage wells] for health and safety reasons under <br /> 2001 [Roadless Rule] exception, it was determined uiulecessary to analyze <br /> separately. Roadless will instead be analyzed as part of the Proposed Action. <br /> In addition, some areas that do not fall under the exceptions of the 2001 <br /> RACR will not be implementable, but will be analyzed in the event the RACR <br /> is changed. <br /> RESPONSE: 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 does not define what number of <br /> alternatives is required other than a proposed action and a no action <br /> alternative and that we ri orousl ex lore and ob'ectivel evaluate all <br />• <br />~ <br />• <br /><: <br />r.; <br />r-.' <br />__ <br />176 Deer Creek Ventilation Shaft and E Seain Methane Drainage Wells FEIS <br />