Proposed Land Exchange Between the DCNR, Bureau of Forestry and ISP Minerals, Inc.

Transcription

1 Proposed Land Exchange Between the DCNR, Bureau of Forestry and ISP Minerals, Inc. Summary of Public Comments March 24, 2011 Method of Comment Submission petition 48% phone 11% verbal 2% 5% letter 34% The proposed exchange was advertised in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and public comment was solicited from January 21 to February 28, 2011 per standard Department policy. This period provided an additional week of opportunity which the Department granted based on the level of public interest in the proposed exchange. Public notice was also advertised once per week for a period of three consecutive weeks in newspapers located in proximity to the proposed exchange. The newspapers included Waynesboro, Chambersburg, Gettysburg and Hagerstown MD. 1 P age

2 All comments were meticulously recorded and organized. A total of 278 unique comments were received during the comment period. Duplicates received through various medium were counted as a single response but included all identified concerns or comments. All comments were recorded in database format. We received several examples of written comment which were endorsed by multiple individuals. As such, these comments were considered as a petition and duly recorded. 300 Total Comments by Method of Submission letter petition phone verbal TOTAL Method of Submission 2 P age

3 The Bureau of Forestry established a web page following public notification in the Pennsylvania Bulletin where stakeholders could review information regarding the proposal including a map of the lands involved and the internal State Forest Environmental Review which is conducted for all proposed land acquisitions and exchanges. The following chart depicts web page activity during and after the comment period. Comment Summary by Opinion Favored Requested Information 17 Issued Concerns 111 Opposed TOTAL Each piece of correspondence was reviewed. Correspondence could be organized into four groups: requested additional information; issued concerns but provided no definitive position on the proposal; favored the exchange or opposed the exchange. Public Opinion 3 P age

4 By Submission Method and Opinion letter petition phone verbal Submission Method Favored Requested Information Issued Concerns Opposed 4 P age

5 As the comments were reviewed, it became apparent that recurring comments and concerns were emerging. A list of these concerns or comments was included into the database to accurately capture all of a stakeholder s individual comments. Several individuals provided their position on the proposed land exchange but did not specify the reasons that influenced that decision. In addition, an other option was created to address the numerous unique comments that did not fit the list of recurring comments or concerns. Public Comment Summary company value and contributions to local economy 141 quality local jobs 139 company compliance with environmental quality standards 139 water quantity and quality concerns 71 contrary to local support for organized land conservation intiatives 71 other 5 exchange value not equal or greater 4 Comments and Concerns land conversion concerns not in best interest of Commonwealth or its citizens noise, soil, or air pollution concerns historical concerns aesthetic impact concerns false accusations and public misinformation lack of transparency request public meeting threatened and endangered species concerns request extension of comment period 7 record of properly restoring mined lands 4 operations pre-date local residences P age

6 Public Comment Summary by Opinion company value and contributions to local economy quality local jobs company compliance with environmental quality standards water quantity and quality concerns contrary to local support for organized land conservation intiatives other exchange value not equal or greater land conversion concerns not in best interest of Commonwealth or its citizens noise, soil, or air pollution concerns Comments and Concerns historical concerns aesthetic impact concerns false accusations and public misinformation request public meeting lack of transparency specifics not provided threatened and endangered species concerns request extension of comment period record of properly restoring mined lands operations pre-date local residences supported requested information issued concerns opposed P age