GENERAL47522 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

compromised. My decision is consistent with the current status of roadless area direction and rule making. I recognize that some parties are concerned that the coal lease stipulations are too prohibitive on mining in favor of protecting surface resources, specifically with respect to protection of other permitted uses of NFS lands and wildlife habitats. It is my responsibility to consider itt my decision where protection for non-coal resources is needed and appropriate to ensure that the uses of, and the ecosystems present on, the national forest are preserved (EIS, Sections 13 and 1.6). I also recognize the concern that potential surface use and road building may occur on the lease tract. This is a decision to lease. If the lease were issued, it would grant the successful bidder the right to develop the minerals on the tract, and would acknowledge rights for surface use. At this leasing stage, there are no specific surface uses proposed (EIS, Sections 1.6 and 1.8.2). If surface use is proposed in the future, such a proposal would be evaluated on its own merits; an additional NEPA analysis would be prepared, and decisions issued that may or may not approve the proposed activities. Any proposal for surface use would need to be framed in the context of the lease stipulations identified in this ROD (Appendix A of this ROD, and Appendix C of the EIS). C. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, I considered seven (7) other alternatives, two (2) of which were analyzed in detail. The two other alternatives analyzed in detail are discussed below. Altemative C offers the least risk to surface resources, and would be the environmentally preferred altemative. A more detailed comparison of these al[ematives can be found in the EIS on Table 2-2, and on pages 3-1 to 3-78. The alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail as discussed in the EIS, Sec[ion 2.7. Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the Dry Fork LBA tract would not be offered for competitive sale and no mining would occur in these specific areas. I[ is assumed [hat Mountain Coal Company would continue its present coal mining activities at the West Elk Mine. Impacts from mining would not occur on this tract, and the effects from on-going land uses would continue. The land would continue to be managed according to Forest Plan standards, goals and guidelines. Altemative A - No Action (EIS, Section 2.4) was not selected because it would not meet the Forest Plan direction to "encourage environmentally sound energy and minerals development" (Forest Plan, page II-61). Additionally, Alternative I would not meet the purpose and need for• the project because it would not consider leasing federal coal reserves. Alternative C - No Subsidence of Deep Creek. The key issue driving Alternative C was the potential effects of subsiding Deep Creek, a perennial stream. This altemative would allow the lease to be sold, but require that mining occur in such a way as to prevent subsidence of Deep Creek. The altemative would be the same as the proposed action, with the same stipulations, standards and terms, and would have included the following stipulation for protection of perennial streams: "Mining that will cause subsidence will 5