Laserfiche WebLink
2. Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document appropriate with <br />respect to the new Proposed Action, given current environmental concerns, interests, and <br />resource values? <br />Documentation of answer and explanation: Two alternatives (Proposed Action and No <br />Action Alternative) were analyzed in both DOI-BLM-CO- 1 10-2011-0080-EA and DOI- <br />BLM -CO -110- 2012- 0023 -EA. No reasons were identified to analyze additional <br />alternatives and these alternatives are considered to be adequate and valid for the <br />Proposed Action. <br />3. Is the existing analysis valid in light of any new information or circumstances (such as, <br />rangeland health standard assessment, recent endangered species listings, updated lists of <br />BLM - sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that new information and new <br />circumstances would not substantially change the analysis of the new Proposed Action? <br />Documentation of answer and explanation: Authorizations that involve greater sage - <br />grouse habitat are to be evaluated in the context of BLM's interim management policies <br />and procedures for sage - grouse (Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2012 -043). <br />Guidance specific to delineated general habitat directs BLM to reduce adverse effects on <br />sage - grouse to the extent practical. Sagebrush habitats affected by the Proposed Action <br />are no longer known to support sage - grouse and there is no reasonable likelihood that <br />sage - grouse or their associated habitats would be adversely influence by this short-term <br />surface use. Presuming future population recovery and reoccupation of these ranges, the <br />only potential for persistent effects on habitat utility involves project - related access (i.e., <br />behavioral avoidance and disuse of adjacent habitat). Consistent with the approved <br />Exploration Plan for COC74817, these features are reclaimed and are normally <br />effectively abandoned once authorized use is no longer required. The BLM informally <br />consulted with the USFWS for DOI- BLM -CO- 110 - 2011- 0080 -EA and conducted a <br />formal consultation with DOI- BLM -CO -110- 2012 -0023 -EA. In addition the BLM <br />received and addressed comments from CPW in DOI- BLM -CO- 110 - 2012 - 0023 -EA. <br />4. Are the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from implementation of <br />the new Proposed Action similar (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed <br />in the existing NEPA document? <br />Documentation of answer and explanation: Yes, the direct, indirect, and cumulative <br />effects that would result from implementation of the new Proposed Action are similar <br />(both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed in the existing NEPA documents, <br />DOI- BLM -CO- 110 - 2011 - 0080 -EA and DOI- BLM -CO- 110- 2012- 0023 -EA. The <br />cumulative effects from the Proposed Action with the inclusion of past, present or <br />reasonable foreseeable future actions would not exceed what is analyzed in the White <br />River ROD/RMP due to the limited areal extent and short duration of proposed coal <br />exploration license. <br />5. Is the public involvement and interagency review associated with existing NEPA <br />documents adequate for the current Proposed Action? <br />DOI-BLM-CO-1 10-2012-01 10-DNA 4 <br />