GENERAL47522 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alternatives The Dry Fork LBA tract as delineated by the BLM would be offered for lease by competitive bid. The tract would be offered with special coal lease stipulations for the protection of non-coal resources as determined through the NEPA process, in addition to the BLM Standard Lease Terms, and terms of the Notice for Lands under the Jurisdiction of the USDA (see Appendix C). This alternative assumes that the successful bidder would extract coal in the lease tract using underground longwall methods (see Section 1.8.1). 2.5.1 Design Features of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action includes conditions for protection of non-coal resources in the form of lease stipulations derived from restrictions developed from application of the Coal Unsuitability Criteria 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). Chapter 2 2.7 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY 2.7.1 Capture and Flare Vented Methane Gas Public scoping comments called for considering an alternative that entails capture and flaring of vented methane gas. Thls alternative was considered but not studied in detail because it is oulslde the scope of a leasing analysis. This alternative may be considered if and when afollow-up NEPA analysis is completed at the rime a mine operations plan is approved, and ident~es the needs for methane vents. Potential future aetions 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, member of jobs created, greenhouse gas emissions avoided, cost of mine worker retraining, and d~erentiation 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- specific basis. These evaluations have been made in the FEIS on the Federal Coa! Management Program (BLM 1979). This alternative was considered but not studied in detail because the issues it addresses are outside the scope of a sire-specific coal leasing decision, 2-6 Dry Fork Lease-By-Application FEIS