1.10 Scoping

Project scoping began at an introductory meeting at the Modoc National Forest Supervisor’s office in Alturas, California on April 18, 1997. The meeting was attended by the Project Steering Committee, interdisciplinary team (IDT) representatives of the Modoc National Forest, and Environmental Management Associates, Inc. (EMA), the agency-selected third-party contractor retained to prepare the EIS/EIR. Subsequent internal meetings were conducted among responsible agency representatives, agency IDT members, and other consulting and trustee agency representatives.

1.10.1 Public Notice

The SCAPCD circulated a Notice of Preparation for the joint EIS/EIR for the Project on May 16, 1997 to responsible state and federal agencies and to trustee agencies responsible for natural resources which may be affected by the Project. Formal public scoping began on May 20, 1997 when the Environmental Protection Agency published the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the joint EIS/EIR for the Proposed Action and to amend, if necessary, the Forest LRMP in the Federal Register. An Interested Parties (IP) letter was distributed to the approximately 800 individuals and entities on the interested parties mailing list, which included entities which had previously expressed interest in geothermal development activities in the Medicine Lake area.

1.10.2 Scoping Meetings

Announcements of public scoping meetings were published in four local newspapers. In addition, the IP letter included an announcement and invitation to interested parties to attend the scheduled public scoping meetings. Formal public scoping meetings were conducted in Yreka, Dorris, Tulelake, and MacArthur, California on June 9, 10, 11, and 12, 1997, respectively. As a result of local public interest, a supplemental scoping meeting was also conducted in Mt. Shasta, California on July 1, 1997, and the formal public scoping period was extended through July 15, 1997. Project presentation meetings were conducted with the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors in Yreka and the National Park Service at the Lava Beds National Monument headquarters office on June 10 and 11, 1997, respectively. Presentation meetings were also conducted with Pit River Tribe representatives on July 2, 1997, and with Klamath/Modoc Tribes representatives on September 9, 1997.

1.10.3 Identified Issues and Concerns

1.10.3.1 Comments Received During Scoping

Approximately 660 written comments were received during the formal scoping period. A bulleted summary of the environmental issues or concerns identified during scoping by interested public and responsible agencies was sorted into relevant environmental resource topics using the topical organization of this EIS/EIR (see Exhibit 1).

1.10.3.2 Comments Received on Previous Projects

In addition to the issues and concerns that were identified during the formal scoping period for the Project, the respective agencies had previously conducted public/agency scoping for previous exploration and development of the geothermal resource within the Medicine Lake Highlands. Between 1994 and 1996, the BLM, USFS and SCAPCD conducted formal agency/public scoping for three geothermal exploration/development proposals. These projects included: the Glass Mountain exploration proposal by CEGC; the Fourmile Hill exploration proposal by Calpine Corporation; and the Fourmile Hill geothermal power plant proposal by Calpine Corporation. The issues and concerns identified for these earlier projects were reviewed for their applicability to the Telephone Flat Project proposal and, if appropriate, have been incorporated into the analysis provided in this EIS/EIR.

1.10.3.3 Key Issues

The following list of concerns regarding the proposed Project were identified as key issues, based on either preliminary assessment of potential impacts, observed public interest, or potential controversy. Concern that geothermal development in the Medicine Lake Highlands may affect groundwater resources and adversely impact the quality or quantity of flow observed in the Fall River headwater springs group. These springs support threatened and endangered species and aquatic and riparian habitat, support a highly regarded sports fishery, contribute to hydroelectric power downstream of the springs, and provide a substantial portion of the recharge to Shasta Lake. Concern that geothermal development is industrial-like in nature and could conflict with the natural, serene existing environment in the Medicine Lake area. Project construction, well drilling, and power generation operations could conflict with existing land uses since the Project is located in the Medicine Lake Basin near developed residential properties and concentrated recreational facilities around Medicine Lake. Conflicts could result from Project visibility, noise, air emissions, and/or traffic. In particular, the proximity of the power plant site to residential properties may result in intrusive noise impacts. Concern by Native Americans, in particular the Klamath/Modoc and Pit River Tribes, that geothermal development in the Medicine Lake area would adversely impact areas or resources historically used by the Tribes or affect places of spiritual significance to the Tribes. Concern that malodors resulting from hydrogen sulfide emissions released during well drilling, well testing, power plant facility emissions, or intermittent venting of geothermal steam during power plant operations could be detected in publicly accessible portions of the Medicine Lake Basin. Concern that Project facilities, in particular geothermal fluid pipelines, could be obstructions, create safety hazards, or affect the aesthetic experience of snowmobile users in the Project area. Concern that the utility corridor alternative which is routed through the Medicine Lake Basin in close proximity to Medicine Lake would be visible from residential properties and campgrounds around the lake. Concern that proposed geothermal development, and cumulative or expanded geothermal development, could change the area and may lower the value of private properties in the Medicine Lake basin. Concern that geothermal development would compete with other groundwater users for limited groundwater resources in the Medicine Lake Basin, particularly during drought conditions. Unintentional releases via wells, pipelines, or spills could impact the quality of surface waters and/or groundwater. Concern that Project facilities and operations could adversely impact wildlife, in particular, potentially harmful fluids in surface impoundments could be an attractive nuisance and endanger wildlife, potentially harmful components of aerial emissions from the Project could impact wildlife, and production and injection fluid pipelines could restrict wildlife movement in the area. Concern that Project facilities and operations could represent a health and safety risk to the public from exposure to air contaminants, burns from hot pipelines and surface facilities, and chemical exposures from spills or releases of geothermal fluid. The key issues are addressed in the relevant resource sections of this EIS/EIR.

1.11 Public Participation on the Draft EIS/EIR

Both NEPA and CEQA require that a Draft EIS/EIR be made available to the public for review and comment. NEPA requires circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR in 40 CFR Part 1502.19 and the requesting of comments in 40 CFR Part 1503.1. CEQA requires agencies to notify the public of the availability of the Draft EIS/EIR for review and comment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087). These requirements are intended to provide the public with sufficient opportunity to review the environmental analyses and findings of the environmental document and to comment on the Draft EIS/EIR. Both NEPA and CEQA require that substantive comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR be included in the Final EIS/EIR, and that good faith, reasoned analysis be provided in the responses to these comments (see 40 CFR Part 1503.4 for the NEPA requirement and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088).

1.11.1 Public Notice

The lead agencies conducted a public participation program in accordance with NEPA and CEQA. Public notices advising of the preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR were issued during the EIS/EIR process, including the following: In February 1998, an Interested Parties letter was mailed to approximately 1300 individuals, agencies and groups with a return mailer to the USFS that allowed the Interested Parties to request the full text of the Draft EIS/EIR or only the Executive Summary of the Draft EIS/EIR. On May 13, 1998, a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIS/EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse. On May 13, 1998, a request was submitted to the EPA for the publishing of a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS/EIR in the Federal Register. On May 22, 1998, the Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register initiating a 60-day public comment period scheduled to close on July 22, 1998. On May 22, 1998, the Siskiyou County Clerk posted the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS/EIR. Public notices of the availability of the Draft EIS/EIR were also published in area newspapers including the Siskiyou Daily News and Modoc County Record on May 22, 1998.

1.11.2 Draft EIS/EIR Distribution

Approximately 600 copies of the full text document of the Draft EIS/EIR for the Telephone Flat Geothermal Development Project and over 400 additional copies of an Executive Summary of the Draft EIS/EIR document were distributed to individuals, agencies and groups. The full text Draft EIS/EIR was also available for review at the Modoc National Forest office in Alturas, California and the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District office in Yreka, California. In addition, the Draft EIS/EIR was made available for public review at public libraries in Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, California and Klamath Falls, Oregon.

1.11.3 Public Comment Period

Following distribution of the Draft EIS/EIR, a public comment period was provided to allow the public an opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIS/EIR for the proposed Project. Although the Draft EIS/EIR was initially distributed on May 13, 1998, the public comment period for the document officially began on May 22, 1998 when the EPA published the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS/EIR in the Federal Register. The comment period was scheduled for a duration of 60 days, to close on July 22, 1998; however, in response to requests for an extension of the comment period, the deadline to receive comments on the Draft EIS/EIR was extended another 33 days and officially closed on August 24, 1998. Public comments received by the lead agencies through September 29, 1998 were accepted for responses. Thus, the official public comment period for the Draft EIS/EIR was 93 days, with comments accepted for response over a period of 129 days.

1.11.4 Public Meetings

Open-house public meetings on the Draft EIS/EIR were conducted to provide interested parties the opportunity to meet with the lead agency representatives and the environmental professionals that prepared the resource sections of the Draft EIS/EIR to discuss any concerns they may have had about the methods or the findings of the evaluations. Both agency and Project Applicant representatives were present and opportunity was provided for individuals to draft written comments at each of the meetings. The public meetings were held at the following locations: Tulelake, California on July 6, 1998; Mt. Shasta, California on July 7, 1998; Yreka, California on July 8, 1998; and McArthur, California on July 9, 1998.

1.11.5 Agency and Public Comments

A total of four hundred twenty-four (424) comment letters and completed public meeting comment forms were received on the Draft EIS/EIR. These were comprised of 406 comment letters or comment forms from agencies, groups, and individuals, 11 different form letters, and 7 petitions (see the Comments and Responses to Comments volume of the EIS/EIR). Written comments were also received at the four (4) open-house public meetings held during the public comment period. More than 1,700 individual comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and comments in support of, or opposition to, the Project were identified among the comment letters and completed comment forms submitted to the NEPA/CEQA lead agencies during the public comment period.