REV09738 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public Involvement Scoping for this project involved review of the management direction in the Forest Plan, review of other resource data sources, inquiries of other Forest Service resource specialists and contact with local interest groups. A Legal Notice was published in the Delta County Independent on June 5, 1996 and copies of the Notice along with copies of MCC's proposal letter were sent to people who had commented on the April 1996 Environmental Assessment. The comment period closed on June 21, 1996. One letter was received (WSERC) which commented on the proposal. Four areas of concern were expressed. 1. This proposal has the appearance of piecemealing NEPA and "violates requirements to evaluate direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed action". 2. The Forest Service should evaluate the proposal in the context of the total drilling package proposed by MCC and should consider direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of a permanent vent facility. 3. New roads cause elk habitat effectiveness minimum percentage outlined in the Forest Plan to be exceeded. 4. Mitigation is needed in the event that downhole, free flowing water is encountered during drilling. Responses to these four concerns are: 1. The two additional holes require minimal disturbance and are proposed on the heels of changes in mining conditions and thus mine plans. Due to the use of a smaller rig than anticipated earlier, actually less area will be disturbed than planned for in the EA even with the addition of sites II and EE Twin. 2. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects were adequately covered in the most recent EA (Decision Notice of April 4, 1996) and particularly discussed with regard to the potential vent shaft facility in Sylvester Gulch. More detailed analysis than was discussed in the EA is not feasible at this time, due to the lack of a definitive proposal. The drilling of sites EE and EE Twin will be particularly useful to evaluate parameters which will in turn help determine the extent of development needs in this drainage. 3. Both roads are accessible through MCC property. This property is closed to public access and to all activity not related to coal mining. The road to II dead ends a short distance (approximately 1000') beyond the drill location. These new travelways will not be bladed and will be reclaimed after drilling is completed. The additional upgrading of .2 miles of road access proposed for drill sites II and EE Twin will decrease habitat effectiveness slightly while road work and drilling operations take place. Motorized (ATV's and vehicles) access to II is only feasible from MCC privately owned lands. Since MCC controls access to these lands it is not expected that an increase in motorized use will occur in the area after drilling operations. Access to site EE Twin can also be reached along an unimproved trail from FS lands. The proposal to drill this site creates an additional 660 feet of temporary travelway (no bladework), however this small amount of road is not expected to increase motorized use. If mitigation measures are applied which are described in the E.A.