Laserfiche WebLink
CHAPTER 2 <br />ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES <br />2.1 INTRODUCTION <br />This chapter summarizes public and agency <br />involvement, identifies and describes the resulting <br />project issues and altematives, provides a <br />comparison of altematives relative to project issues, <br />identifies and describes actions that are considered <br />in the impact analyses in Chapter 3, and identifies <br />the Forest Service's preferred alternative. <br />2.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT <br />Comments on the project proposal were solicited <br />from the public and agencies. A Notice of Intent <br />(NOI) to prepare an EIS appeared in the Federal <br />Register on June 16, 2004 describing the Proposed <br />Action and asking for comments (pg. 33619 Vol. <br />69, No. 115). The project has been listed on the <br />GMUG Schedule of Proposed Actions since fall <br />2003. A scoping letter was also sent to 37 known <br />interested parties on June 16, 2004. A news release <br />inviting scoping comments appeared in the Delta <br />County Independent -North Fork Times on June <br />23, 2004. A legal notice for the project appeared in <br />the Grand Junction Sentinel on June 16, 2004. <br />Comments were accepted through July 29, 2004. <br />The proposed lease was also discussed with the <br />North Fork Coal Working Group, acollaboration- <br />based community interest group dealing with coal <br />issues in the North Fork Valley, at their scheduled <br />meetings in October 2003; April, June, July, August <br />and October 2004; and January 2005. <br />Seven written comments letters were received <br />during scoping. Scoping input was reviewed, <br />analyzed, and summarized to represent the issues <br />and concems of the respondents. Based on the <br />issues raised, alternatives to the Proposed Action <br />were developed to address both the project issues <br />and the purpose and need for the project. The <br />following sections identify and describe project <br />issues and altematives and how they were used to <br />develop the EIS. <br />2.3 ISSUES IDENTIFIED AND <br />FORMULATION OF <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />2.3.1 Issues <br />Issues were determined through review of <br />comments received during the public scoping <br />efforts, and Forest Service specialists' knowledge <br />of issues related to mineral leasing activities. Many <br />of the public's comments were centered on surface <br />disturbance related to post-leasing activities such as <br />MDW drilling, associated road constmction, and <br />other surface uses. <br />The issues identified were assigned to the following <br />categories. The issues and concems in each <br />category are discussed below. More detailed <br />information on the comments can be found in the <br />Dry Fork Scoping Summary located in the project <br />file. <br />2.3.1.1 Issue or Concern Used To Develop <br />Alternatives <br />Some comments received expressed general <br />opposition to coal mining. These comments are <br />addressed with Altemative A, the No Action <br />Alternative, which would not lease the coal. <br />One comment suggested analyzing an altemative <br />that includes leaving some coal un-mined in order <br />to protect surface resources (roads, water resources, <br />wildlife habitat). This comment was used to help <br />develop Alternative C (No Subsidence of Deep <br />Creek). <br />One comment suggested evaluating an altemative <br />that does not impact, temporarily or otherwise, the <br />West Elk Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) or <br />undesignated roadless lands. Altemative A (No <br />Action) addresses this issue. <br />Dry Fork Lease-By-Application DEIS 2-1 <br />