My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-07-01_PERMIT FILE - X201322801 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
X201322801
>
2013-07-01_PERMIT FILE - X201322801 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:21:54 PM
Creation date
7/1/2013 2:30:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
X201322801
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
7/1/2013
Doc Name
BLM Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-CO-S050-2013-0027 EA)
Email Name
JDM
DIH
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.
/
56
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
BLM Uncompahgre Field Office Sunset Trail Area Coal Exploration Plan EA <br />The entire drill pad area will be re- seeded <br />using the following seed mix (Table 2). <br />After seeding, the cleared brush will be <br />redistributed over the drill pad area to act <br />as natural mulch. This method has <br />proven successful for the revegetation of <br />previous drill sites. <br />Sediment control measures include slash, <br />silt fence, erosion control blankets, or <br />straw wattles. <br />Newly developed access roads will be <br />graded to the original contour as closely <br />as possible and re- seeded. <br />The drill pad and access roads <br />1 d 1 d b This seed will be 99 percent pure live seed (PLS) and hand broadcast. <br />Table 2. Paonia Ranger District Seed Mix <br />Habitat <br />Type <br />Grass Species Mix <br />Seeds/ <br />Pound <br />Pounds/ <br />Acre <br />Mountain <br />Shrub <br />Mountain Brome <br />90,000 <br />5 <br />Prairie Junegrass <br />2,315,400 <br />4 <br />Western Wheatgrass <br />126,000 <br />6 <br />Indian Ricegrass <br />188,000 <br />4 <br />Cicer Milkvetch <br />145,000 <br />1 <br />Total <br />20 <br />Aspen/ <br />Spruce/ Fir <br />Slender Wheatgrass <br />160,000 <br />3 <br />Mountain Brome <br />90,000 <br />6 <br />Canby Bluegrass <br />926,000 <br />3 <br />Idaho Fescue <br />450,000 <br />2 <br />Total <br />14 <br />rec amation proce ure out me a ove <br />will apply only to newly disturbed areas. Existi <br />Forest's Travel Management Plan (USFS, 2010), <br />that observed upon ALC's entry into the area. <br />ig roads, as identified in the Gunnison National <br />will be left in a condition equal to or better than <br />After reclamation, newly constructed access roads to certain drill sites may be blocked and closed to <br />vehicle entry at the GMUG or surface owner's request. Alternate road closure methods may be <br />employed where practical after review with the Forest Service representative. <br />2.3 No Action <br />Under the no action alternative, the Sunset Trail Area Coal Exploration Plan will not be approved. <br />Based on MCC's assessment, not exploring the coal condition will result in an inability to acquire <br />the information necessary to develop a sufficient mine plan addressing the additional leased area <br />and; therefore, it is highly unlikely that mining will occur in these specific areas. For the purposes <br />of the analysis, no action would result in no mining on the lease modification areas. Under no <br />action, current reserves at the mine will be depleted in 9 to 11 years, followed by mine closure. The <br />mine life will not be extended approximately three years. The leases provide the right for MCC to <br />conduct exploration, therefore, no action is inconsistent with lease rights granted. <br />On -going land uses will continue including continued recreation and grazing. The land would <br />continue to be managed according to the amended Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, <br />1983) standards, goals, and guidelines. <br />2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis <br />An alternative may be considered during the environmental analysis process, but not analyzed in <br />detail. The agency must identify those alternatives and briefly explain why they were eliminated <br />from detailed analysis (40 CFR 1502.14). An alternative may be eliminated from detailed study if: <br />it is ineffective (does not respond to the purpose and need for the proposed action); <br />• it is technically or economically infeasible (considering whether implementation of the <br />alternative is likely, given past and current practice and technology); <br />June 2013 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.