Page 5 - gillibrand1991eis

The impacts identified were similar to the proposed action. (Table S-1, pg.
S-5)

Alternative 3 - Road Section D to Claim Group II

Alternative 3 requires construction of Road Section D going south from Claim
Group II and then west to meet with Road Section A. This was originally
planned as Road Section Bin 1989. The alignment of Road Section D has a
greater haul distance (6.5 miles) from Claim Group II to the plant compared to
the Road Section B distance of 3.4 miles, which is part of the proposed
action. The impacts on air quality, soils, water resources, and biological
resources would be higher. (Table S-1, pg. S-5)

Alternative 4 - No Action Alternative

Ths no action alternative disapproves the proposed action presented in the
preliminary Plan of Operations by P.W. Gillibrand Company. The affected
environment sections of this document describe the conditions that would
prevail if no action is taken.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

I considered five additional alternatives in reaching my decision: (1)
Alternative 5 - Moving the mill site to the mineral source; (2) Alternative 6
- Reducing the scope of the project; (3) Alternative 7 - Using the conveyor
transport only; (4) Alternative 8 - Using helicopter transport; (5)
Alternative 9 - Conducting underground mining.

These alternatives were eliminated from detailed study because they were found
to be infeasible for technical, cost, environmental effects, or operational
reasons. (Final EIS, pg. 2-16)

IV. MITIGATION AND MONITORING

The mitigation measures and related monitoring and enforcement activities that
~ere developed through the environmental process are fully described in
Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. They are grouped by resource subject and issue
area. Those mitigation measures and related monitoring activities which the
Forest Service listed are incorporated into this Record of Decision by
reference. Inclusion of these mitigation measures will provide for all
feasible means to avoid or substantially reduce environmental harm from the
Project.

V. REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The following are reasons for my choice of the selected alternative.

(1) The proponent has a statutory right under the General Mining Laws of 1872
to claim and develop the mineral resources on public land.

(2) This development of mineral resources contributes to the national mission
of the Forest Service for exploration and viable development of minerals
within the National Forest consistent with the use and protection of other
resource values, and to provide for the reclamation of those lands.

3