WSP01656 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Mitchell goes on to sUIP~rt the j 2nching community but in regard to mineral activity, le states, "We believe serious conflicts exist between large scale mining and renewable re- sources. Our research over the past two years has indicated that mining at high altitudes, high in watersheds, has irreversible impacts on the environment... Wilderness design'ltion will give these high mountain areas the protection they ne~d while con- tinuing to allow for mineral exploration and dev ,lopment. If current technologies cannot provide the surface J Jrotection neede( to preserve the wilderness resource, then the minerals will be reserved for future generations when critical National needs are apparent and when new technologies are in place. II 3, SCOPING PROCESS On Tuesday, March 17, 1981, a notice was printed in the Federal Register (Vol. 46, No. 51) outlining plans to prel.are an en- vironmental impact statement for the Oh-Be-Joyful Wilderness Study Area. At the same time, notices appeared iT! Gunnison county papers and a news release was issued listivg the alter- natives, issues and management concerns under consideration. Other agencies, organizations and individuals were invited to provide written comments to help identify addition~l issues and concerns by April 6, 1981. In addition, nining interests were contacted in an effort to obtain more inf)rmation about the mineral potential of the area. Twenty-on~ letters were received during the comment period, but an analysis identified no new issues or concerns that apply s~ecifical]y to Oh-Be-Joyful Wilderness Study ^rea. These comments WEre considered in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Inlpact Stab~ment. 4, REVIEW PROCESS The Drdft Environmental Impact Statement for the Oh-Be-Joyful Wilder-less Study was transmitted to the Environmentc"ll Protection Agency and the public on June 4, 1981. Two main a1 ,ernatives were consid,=red in the Draft Environmental Imp3.ct Sta tern! nt: 1) recorn- mendati.on of the entire Study Area as suitable for '. ilderness designition and 2) recommendation of the entire St'l<ly Area as unsui t,ible for wilderness designation. The unsui t )le alternative was co~sidered to be the current management direct )n from the East River Land Management Plan. The Draft Envirc nental Impact Statem~nt identified the unsuitable alternative as the Forest Servic2 preferred alternative. HearinJs to obtain public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were conducted in Crested Butte (July 7, 1981) and Denver (July 8, 1981). A 60-day public review period (after publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement) produced three hundred and sixty-two responses; 84% of which ~~re critical of the preferred alternative selected (unsuitable). \ sununary of 8