2009-09-02_REVISION - M1998022 (4)

Home Browse Search

Alternatives Considered Two alternatives were considered in detail: No Action and the Proposed Action. Under No Action, no mineral materials permit would be issued and no rock harvesting would take place. Current management plans would continue to guide management of the area. The No Action alternative was used as a baseline to compare the effects of the Proposed Action. A summary comparison of the two alternatives can be found in the EA on pages 12 and 13. Public Involvement preliminary information about the proposal was sent to 25 individuals, organizations, and other agencies for scoping on September 18, 2008. Consultation with affected Tribes was also initiated at this time. Additionally, public notices and news releases were published in the Aspen Daily Times, Glenwood Springs Post Independent, Crystal Valley Echo & Marble Times, and Daily Sentinel between September and October 2008. Several phone calls, emails, and letters were received in response to this early public notice. Based on this early input, I determined that scenery, noise, transportation, air quality, vegetation, and wildlife were key issues to be analyzed in the EA. These issues also helped us identify design criteria to be followed during project implementation. The EA was prepared and published in late February and a legal notice of opportunity to comment appeared in the Aspen Times, the newspaper of record, on March 1, 2009. Twenty- seven comments were received during the 30-day notice and comment period, which ended on March 31, 2009. A few additional comment letters were received after the deadline. A majority of comments came from residents living near the project area, with primary concerns related to noise and visual impacts. These concerns are what prompted me to require adding the hours of operations and rock staining stipulations discussed earlier. These additional design criteria will help reduce short-term noise impacts and avoid long-term visual impacts. Other comments did not present any new issues or required changes to the EA. These other comments are addressed in the Finding of No Significant Impact. Finding of No Significant Impact After considering the context and intensity of environmental impacts described in the EA, I have determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. My determination is based on the following criteria outlined in the implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.27). Context This project is a site-specific action that by itself does not have statewide, regional, national, or international importance. As disclosed in the EA, up to 23.33 acres of NFS lands could be affected; this acreage represents approximately 1/1000` of the entire White River National Forest. Environmental impacts would be limited to the area described in the EA and will have little influence upon regional or state resources. Within in this area and over a potential 30-year timeframe, a total of 37,320 tons of rock could be removed. This figure is a theoretical maximum because, as stated before, continuation of the rock harvesting will be subject to re-evaluation on an annual basis and additional NEPA review. Removal of rock is considered an irreversible Decision Notice and FONSI for Conger Rock Harvesting 3