My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-08-13_PERMIT FILE - X201323004 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
X201323004
>
2013-08-13_PERMIT FILE - X201323004 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:23:45 PM
Creation date
8/14/2013 2:02:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
X201323004
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/13/2013
Doc Name
NOI Application
From
Blue Mountain Energy
To
DRMS
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.
/
38
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
Decision Number/Page: 2 -7 <br />Decision Language: "Ensure that federal coal resources identified as acceptable for <br />further consideration for coal leasing, are available for exploration, leasing and <br />development." <br />REVIEW OF EXISTING NEPA DOCUMENTS: <br />List by name and date all existing NEPA documents that cover the Proposed Action. <br />Name of Document: White River Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan <br />and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS). <br />Date Approved: June 1996 <br />Name of Document: Blue Mountain Energy Coal Exploration License-DOI- BLM -CO- <br />110- 2011- 0080 -EA <br />Date Approved: October 5, 2011 <br />Name of Document: Blue Mountain Energy Coal Lease Application COC74813 -DOI- <br />B LM -CO -110- 2012 -0023 -EA <br />Date Approved: February 1, 2013 <br />NEPA ADEOUACY CRITERIA: <br />1. Is the new Proposed Action a feature of, or essentially similar to, an alternative analyzed <br />in the existing NEPA document? Is the project within the same analysis area, or if the <br />project location is different, are the geographic and resource conditions sufficiently <br />similar to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document? If there are differences, can <br />you explain why they are not substantial? <br />Documentation of answer and explanation: BME proposes to drill up to an additional 14 <br />exploration holes with an associated new surface disturbance of approximately 5.3 acres. <br />Four of the proposed exploration holes (approximately 1.3 acres) would be located on <br />pending federal coal lease COC74813 and the remaining ten (4.0 acres) would be within <br />Coal Exploration License COC74817 area (see Map 2). DOI- BLM -CO- 110 - 2012 -0023- <br />EA analyzed 56 acres of new surface disturbance of associated with drill holes, including <br />exploration holes, for the development of federal coal lease COC -74813 and DOI-BLM- <br />CO- 1 10-2011-0080-EA analyzed 7 acres of disturbance associated with 15 exploration <br />holes. The Proposed Action would occur during a similar seasonal time frame, utilize <br />similar equipment and methodology for exploration holes as analyzed in both EAs. <br />DOI- BLM -CO -110- 2012- 0110 -DNA <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.