|
not be permitted under Deep Creek or within a buffer zone on either side of the creek. The
<br />buffer zone is defined by projecting, a 25-degree angle of draw (from vertical) from the surface
<br />expression of the creek to the top of the coal seam to be mined."
<br />I did not select Alternative C because the site-specific and condition-specific effects analysis in
<br />Section 3.3 of the EIS, coupled with the local experience gained from monitoring subsidence
<br />effects on a portion of Deep Creek that had been subsided previously (EIS, page 3-22), gave
<br />sufficient scientific basis to accuT'ately anticipate that the potential effects would be minor, and
<br />could be mitigated. Therefore, I elected to consent to BLM leasing the tract, without a specific
<br />stipulation prohibiting or limiting mining under Deep Creek
<br />D. Public Involvement
<br />As described in the background, the need for this action arose in September 2003. A proposal to
<br />consent to leasing National Forest System lands in the Dry Fork LBA tract for development and
<br />production of federal coal reserves, consistent with applicable laws and regulations, including
<br />terms and conditions for protecting non-coal resources was listed in the Notice of Intent that
<br />appear in the Federal Register on June 16, 2004. The proposal was provided to the public and
<br />other agencies for comment during scoping from June 16, 2004 through July 29, 2004. In
<br />addition, as part of the public involvement process, the GMUG listed the project on the Schedule
<br />of Proposed Actions beginning in Fall 2003. A scoping letter was sent to 37 known interested
<br />parties on June 16, 2004. A news release inviting scoping comments appeared in the Delta
<br />County Independent - North Fork Times on June 23, 2004. A legal notice for the project
<br />. appeared in the Grand Junction Sentinel on June 16, 2004. Comments were accepted through
<br />July 29, 2004. Seven written comments letters were received during scoping. Copies of the
<br />scoping clocuments and the public input are in the project file.
<br />The proposed lease was also discussed with the North Fork Coal Working Group, a
<br />collaboration-based community interest group dealing with coal issues in the area at their
<br />scheduled meetings in October 2003, April June, July, August and October 2004, and January,
<br />April and July 2005.
<br />Using the comments from the public and other agencies, the interdisciplinary team identified
<br />several issues regarding the effects of the proposed action (see EIS, Section 2.3). Main issues of
<br />concern included potential impacts of underground mining-induced subsidence on surface and
<br />ground water resources (including perennial streams); wildlife (including threatened,
<br />endangered, sensitive and management indicator species); topographic surface, land stability,
<br />soils and -cologic hazards; vegetation (including impacts to riparian vegetation and associated
<br />habitat); cultural resources; existing land uses, including recreation, roadless character, existing
<br />roads/fi.lcilities, visual resources and livestock management, and cumulative impacts (see EIS
<br />pages 2-1 to 2-4). Other primary. issues were related to the effects of'post-leasing surface
<br />activities on water resources, vegetation, wildlife (including threatened, endangered, sensitive
<br />and management indicator species), I'cund use, recreation, roadless character, visual resources and
<br />socioeconomics. To address these concerns. the Forest Service created the alternatives
<br />described above.
<br />The Draft EIS was released for the 45-cLt? public review and comment period on April 1., 2005.
<br />A !notice of Availability appeared III the Fedcrul Re,(',i,sier on April I. 2005. EPA published a
<br />0
|