PERMFILE137694 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CaalMethane braixaRe Project - Panek rG24 Wen E!k Mine • Paee 2-1 2.0 ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES This chapter summarizes the public and agenry involvement process, identifies and describes the resulting project issues and alternatives, provides a comparison of alternatives relative to the project issues, and identifies and describes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that aze considered in the impact analyses in Chapter 3.0. 2.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Project scoping comments for the project proposal were solicited from appropriate agencies, specific interested pazties, and the general public. Section 4.2, Public Involvement Summary, provides a complete list of persons of groups that provided input. There has been a high level of public interest in coal projects in the azea during recent years. A collaborative process has been established through the work of the North Fork Coal Working Group (NFCWG) among the agencies, local governments, environmental advocacy groups, interested citizens, and the mining companies. The NFCWG assisted the USFS with project scoping efforts. The USFS published notices inviting comments for scoping on the proposed project in the Delta Connty Independent-Notth Fark Timer on November 14, 2001, in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel on November 16, 2001 and January 17, 2002; and in the Denver Post on January 17, 2002. A notification letter was sent to 26 known interested pazties on November 16, 2001. USFS and MCC representatives met with representatives of the Norih Fork Coal Working Group (NFCWG, a community-based public interest group working on coal-related issues) on December 14, 2001 and February 5, 2002. The NFCWG publicized and sponsored a community roundtable discussion and issued a press release describing the project, published in the Delta County Independent-North Fork Timer on January 2, 2002. Approximately 48 individuals attended the original community roundtable discussion, held at the Paonia Town Hall, on January 9, 2002. A second community roundtable discussion on the project is scheduled for March 6, 2002. scoping comments were received from 10 sepazate public pazdes in the form of 7 comment letters (1 letter included comments from 3 separate pazties) and notes from a personal visit by one public parry with the USFS Paonia Ranger District Geologist. The USFS Resource Specialists submitted 2 comment letters. An additional agency cotnment letter was received from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expressed interest in the environmental analysis process for this project in a telephone conversation (documented by P. Bode -USFS). Questions and comments presented in the community roundtable discussion were documented and included as additional scoping input. Documentation of project scoping input is included in the project file. scoping input was reviewed, analyzed, and summarized to represent the issues and concems of the respondents. Based on, and in response to the issues raised, altematives to the proposed action were developed that address both the project issues and the purpose and need for the project, as described in Section 1.3. The following sections identify and describe the project issues and alternatives resulting from the public involvement and scoping process and inter-disciplinary analysis. 2.2 PROJECT ISSUES Project issues and resource of subject categories were determined through review of scoping documentation, identification of specific comments, distillation of comments to brief issue statements or statements of concern, and categorization of similaz issues and concems under appropriate resource or subject categories. Identified issues were then reviewed with respect to. relevance and consistency with the project purpose and need, as described in Section 1.3, and a determination was made of which issues would be considered in the analysis and which issues were beyond the scope of Enumnmental.4uerrment r~mr...:.uc/~+/o..h r/.IOrE~V1FJ f/s/ozw