Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />CNAPTERTWO Proposed Action and Alternatives <br />The environmental conditions, as described in Chapter 3, would continue to exist unchanged by <br />activities related to this mining proposal. <br />2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED <br />Additional alternatives were identified in the initial stages of project development or were <br />suggested during the EIS scoping process. The following four altematives were identified and <br />evaluated based on environmental, engineering, and economic factors, and were eliminated from <br />further consideration in this EIS for the reasons identified. <br />' 2.5.1 Single-Site Alternative <br />This altemative was American Soda's original project proposal. At the time it was under serious <br />consideration, the proposal was to mine approximately 840,000 tons of nahcolite per yeaz, and, <br />as such, it was asmaller-scale project than the current Proposed Action. In brief, the Single-Site <br />Alternative would have featured development of all project facilities at the Piceance Site, <br />including the final product processing operation. Accordingly, this alternative would have <br />precluded the need for the product pipeline and water return pipeline and the development of <br />processing facilities at the Pazachute Site. <br />Afrer cazeful consideration of developing the project at the Piceance Site exclusively, the <br />following two key issues led to its elimination as a viable altemative. <br />• Development of the entire operation at the Piceance Site would have required utilization of <br />water resources from groundwater aquifers underlying the Piceance Site and/or Piceance <br />Creek. Use of groundwater resources beneath the Piceance Site is considered a consumptive <br />use of Piceance Creek due to appazent hydrologic connection between the groundwater <br />aquifers and Piceance Creek. The use of Piceance Basin groundwater would have required <br />either the purchase of a senior agricultural water right or acquisition of a junior water right <br />and development of an extensive plan to replace water used by the project during the <br />imgation season. <br />The purchase of a senior water right would be extremely costly and would result in the water <br />being retired from agricultural use and converted to industrial use. Because agricultural <br />water use is only about 20 percent consumptive, the agricultural water rights that would need <br />to be acquired would have to be about five times the amount of water actually used by the <br />project. The result would be a substantial loss of agricultural production in the Piceance <br />Basin. <br />Replacement of the water that would be used by the project during the irrigation season under <br />' a junior water right would be problematic. Trucking water from another source to Piceance <br />Creek is not viable because of the lazge volume of water required, because of the high cost, <br />and because it is unlikely that the State of Colorado would consider trucking to be an <br />acceptable long-term solution. Construction of a pipeline from the White River to the <br />Piceance Site was evaluated but was eliminated because the route would cross extensive <br />private property and was excessively costly. <br />2-35 <br />