Laserfiche WebLink
- - _.~ __9 <br /> <br />--~; - - <br />c>- <br />u <br />position is consistent with our letter of June 10, 1975, in vahich we <br />suggest that a complete EIS be prepered prior to major Federal actions <br />:~ such as resumption of coal leasing, end approval or' mining plans or <br />proposals involving Feda•ral actions for ccal conv;~rsion. <br />'~ There is, hax~ever, a short-tena leasing alternative which EPA may <br />find ertvirenmentally acceptable pending revisions of the E^.4, This <br />alternative consisi:s of (1} restricting the sho:•t-ierm lease tract to <br />that ::mount or coat trhicit rrould be required in order to meet the first <br />t*ru yzars of the applicant's coal sales contract (i.e, no morn i:han <br />1C0,000 tons per year}; (2) stipula~ians in both the lease and any <br />approved mine plan that satisfactory mitigative measures (such as ade- <br />quately designed, constructed >,nd oporatzd syst~rs to control runoff <br />and zrosion, a revegetation pla,i, stag of the art waste disposal sys- <br />tc~ns, ate.) will be inipl~~:entad; and (3) r;ithholding approval of any <br />•• furth~ar lease sales or other actions that could accelerate the pace of <br />`' znargy development in the study area until completion of the regional <br />•°•, EIS process. <br />EP.4 shares the concerns of the State of ~oiorado about boom town <br />gr-~•,vth r.,-,us2J by too rapid develnpr,:2nt or" energy projects. 1de feel <br />that a regioral CIS should be prepared in order to analyze the environ- <br />mental effects of any major Feue_ral decision ti~hicin could accelerate <br />such grc:rzh, EPA 15 also concerned, hot:ever, about maintaining rcason- <br />aola C:~j+loysent opportunities 1~:ifEn th~;y a;e compatible with exisi:~ng <br />levels or daveloi;mcn~t and sttbla oattci•ns of eruploym~nt, For this rea- <br />son, :•:e 5uppori short-term =dditions ±,.r the coal resources of qual(fied <br />e;,isting rp~r;,tians trhen suf-~icient ini-ormation is available to s~iaw <br />that tlr~ primary and set:ondar~~ impacts of such actions will not b~ <br />significant. <br />in addition to:th~ altcrna~iv~ suyyested above. we have a number <br />of sp~ci~iic concc;ns about en•vi,•on.;~:~:tta' baseline conditions and impacts <br />tftzt r•rc hope gill be ad~Jressed ~in the ~in~l .~,',IZ. These concerns are <br />zd:lr~~ssed in detailzd corri,ients attacf:~_•d to *_hi5 letter. Upon revie!v of <br />tiie rival docWnent and your agr-nCy's selection of a recernrznd2d a1tFr- <br />n:`cive, EPA Brill make jf:s final c;i:t,rninat•ian regarding the need L'o <br />prepare an 2nv~lror~r~r,:nta1 impact statement .addressing the alternative of <br />a sltert-*orr, lease pr•G'fidiny for substantially reduced level of devclop- <br />mznt aid production. !!e do not believe that extensive revisions of the <br />t•~tt rri l I require an inordinate r1Cl;,y in orderly daveln~a:.~nt of coal in <br />the s-~udy area since ii is likelyrhat zry mining plan will require a <br />signi~icant period of tune for preparation, submission, and revie~,v prior -. <br />to api?rova1 and may, in i•"t3t~if be subject to an EIS ii apre-leasing or <br />regional EiS is not fir,c prep:.red. <br />- - ~ ~" <br /> <br />