GENERAL46211 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Summary ~~ from 43 CFR 3461, the Forest Plan, policy, and law. Other lease stipulations have also been identified through the NEPA analysis. Alternative C: No Subsidence of Deep Creek This alternative would allow the lease to be offered for competitive bid, but would require that mining occur in such a way as to prevent subsidence of Deep Creek. The alternative would be the same as the Proposed Action, with the same stipulations, standards, and terms, and would also include the following stipulation for protection of Deep Creek. • Mining will not be permitted under Deep Creek or within a buffer zone on either side of the creek. The buffer zone is defined by projecting a 25-degree angle of draw (from vertical) from the surface expression of the creek to the top of the coal seam to be mined. This restriction on subsiding Deep Creek would mean that mining would stop at a point west of Deep Creek according to the buffer zone described above. Mining would not occur under the creek or resume on the eastern side. It would be uneconomical to mine the reserves east of the creek under this alternative (MCC 2004; BLM 2005). It was suggested that analysis of this altemative should include the method far saving some of the total BTUs, number ofjobs created, greenhouse gas emissions avoided, cost of mine-worker retraining, and differentiation between one-time costs and benefits. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Capture and Flare Vented Methane Gas Public scoping comments called for considering an altemative that entails capture and flaring of vented methane gas. This alternative was considered but not studied in detail because it is outside the scope of a leasing analysis. This alternative may be considered if and when afollow-up NEPA analysis is completed at the time a mine operations plan is proposed and identiftes the needs for methane vents. Potential future actions will be considered in cumulative impacts. Energy Efficiency A comment was received that suggested developing an energy efficient alternative that includes the following: identification of Energy Returned on Energy Invested, BTUs of burned coal, BTUs needed to mine, BTUs to transport product, operating efficiency of mining facility, average distance electrical energy travels, efficiency of electrical lines utilized, and social and economic impacts on j obs. Development of alternative energy sources and energy conservation are more appropriate for consideration on a national rather than a site- specific basis. These evaluations have been made in the Final EIS on the Federal Coal Management Program (BLM 1979). This alternative was considered but not studied in detail because the issues it addresses are outside the scope of a site specific coal leasing decision, and it does not meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action. No Mining Under the Inventoried Roadless Area A comment suggested an altemative be considered that halted the mining at the boundary of the IRA. About a third of the Dry Fork lease tract lies within the West Elk IRA. In 1972, the West Elk IRA was identified. The IRA included approximately 230,000 acres adjacent to and surrounding the north, west, and south sides of the West Elk Wilderness (established in 1964). The 1979 Roadless Area and Review Evaluation (RARE II) recommendation for the West Elk IRA included wilderness recommendation for over half of the IRA and multiple use management recommendation for the remaining acres. As a result, 133,000 acres of the West Elk LRA was added to the West Elk Wilderness in the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980 (PL 96-560). The remaining portion, 98,287 acres, was not recommended or selected for wilderness then ar in the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993. The 1983 Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and the 1991 Amended LRMP recognized Dry Fork Lease-By-Application DEIS S-5