GENERAL46211

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 3/25/2005
• Doc Name: Draft EIS Dry Fork Lease
• From: US Forest Service
• To: DMG
• Permit Index Doc Type: Other Permits
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Alternatives
Chapter 2
from 43 CFR 3461, Forest Plan standards, policy,
and law (see Appendix A). Other lease stipulations
have also been identified through the NEPA
analysis. A complete list of required and potential
stipulations is located in Appendix C.
2.6 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 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).
2.7 ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED BUT
ELIMINATED FROM
DETAILED STUDY
2.7.1 Capture and Flare Vented
Methane Gas
Public scoping comments catled for considering an
alternative 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 approved, and
identifies the needs for methane vents. Potential
future actions will be considered in cumulative
impacts.
2.7.2 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 jobs.
It was suggested that the analysis of this alternative
should include the method for saving some of the
total BTUs, number ofjobs created, greenhouse gas
emissions avoided, cost of mine worker retraining,
and d fferentiatton between one-time costs and
benefits.
Development of alternative energy sources and
energy conservation are more appropriate for
consideration on a national rather than asite-
specifrc basis. These evaluations have been made
in the FEIS 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 asite-specific coal leasing decision,
and it does not meet the purpose and need of the
Proposed Action.
2.7.3 No Mining Under the
Inventoried Roadless Area
A comment suggested an alternative be considered
that halted the mining at the boundary of the IRA.
About one-third of the Dry Fork lease tract lies
within the West Elk IRA. In 1972, the West EIkIRA
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 a
wilderness recommendation for over half of the IR,4
and multiple use management recommendations for
2-6 Dry Fork Lease-By-Application DEIS