Laserfiche WebLink
Page S-4 Summary February 2000 <br />• Surface Water/Groundwater: Identify and minimize impacts to water quality and hydrology <br />to maintain the integrity of watersheds within and surrounding the lease tract areas. <br />Maintain adequate flows to drainages and ditches above underground mining activities; <br />" Transportation: Address truck and train traffic impacts created by coal mining in the North <br />Fork of the Gunnison Valley and the potential for accidents; <br />" Vegetation: Address the impacts to vegetation as a result of mining and exploration <br />activities; <br />" Wetlands: Identify and minimize impacts to wetlands/riparian areas; and, <br />" Wildlife: Minimize disruption to terrestrial wildlife and wildlife habitats. <br />5-2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION <br />The discussion of alternatives is the foundation of the EIS process. The BLM and Forest Service have <br />explored and evaluated numerous ideas and options during the selection and development of the <br />alternatives which includes a No-Action Alternative and several Action Alternatives including the plans <br />as submitted by the applicants for the exploration license and the coal lease Vacts. In total, four <br />alternatives (including the No-Action Alternative) were developed for evaluation in the EIS. <br />Alternatives were developed and analyzed to respond to the purpose for and need of the proposed <br />actions, to address social and environmental issues, to respond to public and agency concerns and <br />• input, and to satisfy NEPA regulations. <br />Under the action alternatives considered, the BLM would hold coal lease sales for the Iron Point and <br />Elk Creek Coal Lease tracts, subject to coal lease stipulations of the BLM and the Forest Service, as <br />well as any coal lease stipulations developed as part of the EIS process. It should be noted that the <br />LBA process is, by law, an open, public, competitive, sealed-bid process whereupon the coal lease <br />would be granted to the highest qualified bidder. <br />S-2.1 Alternative A - No-Action <br />This alternative assumes no leasing would occur and that the exploration license would be denied. <br />NEPA requires that a `No-Action" alternative be considered in environmental documents. Under the <br />No-Action Alternative, the coal operations would continue operating under the appropriate production <br />levels permitted by the Colorado DMG. For further information, please refer to the response to <br />comment 16-21 in Appendix O, Public and Agency Participation and Involvement in the Draft EIS. This <br />appendix is part of the Final EIS. <br />S-2.2 Alternative B -Proposed Action <br />This alternative was generated based on the original coal lease applications submitted by Bowie and <br />Oxbow. <br />The proposed action for the Iron Point Coal Lease Tract assumes a northern boundary south of the <br />Terror Creek Reservoir, along with an area that would provide access under Teror Creek to coal <br />• reserves to existing federal coal lease (C-37210) in an area known as the Bowie No. 1 "pod." There <br />would be no subsidence under the Curecanti-Rifle 23/345 kV electric transmission line which <br />essentially is parallel to Teror Creek. Production from the Iron Point Coal Lease Tract was assumed <br />to be 5 million tons per year from the D coal seam via longwall mining techniques. <br />