Laserfiche WebLink
CHAPTERTWO Alternatives <br />This chapter describes the process used to develop the proponent's proposed action and the <br />additional alternatives that have been considered, including the alternative of no action. <br />2.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS <br />This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared in compliance with the Council <br />on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental <br />Policy Act (NEPA) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508). According to CEQ <br />guidelines, "Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from a technical <br />and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the <br />standpoint of the applicant' (CEQ 1981). Additionally, the CEQ requires an explanation of why <br />other alternatives considered were eliminated from detailed study (40 CFR 1502.14). For the <br />Bureau of Land Management (BLM), any alternatives considered must either be consistent with <br />the Grand Junction Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM 1987) and the North <br />Fruita Desert Management Plan (BLM 2004) or meet requirements to amend these plans. <br />Alternatives are developed based on the applicant's proposed action. The objective is to <br />determine if there are reasonable alternatives that meet the purpose and need for the project and <br />that could implement the proposed action in a less environmentally damaging manner. <br />Alternatives are also developed in response to input received from public and agency scoping. <br />Alternatives that have no obvious advantages, are not practicable, or are unreasonable from a <br />development or cost basis are not carried through the EIS for detailed study. <br />2.1.1 Agency Coordination <br />The BLM conducted early coordination with the Sacramento District of the U. S. Army Corps of <br />Engineers (USAGE) and other agencies and local entities including the Office of Surface <br />Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement (OSM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), <br />Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety <br />(CDRMS), U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), City of Fruita, Mesa County, Garfield County, <br />Colorado State Parks, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to assure <br />involvement of participating and cooperating agencies. <br />2.1.2 Project Component Alternatives <br />The proposed action includes a number of components/facilities (Section 1.2, Background) <br />required to meet the purpose of mining and selling coal. Alternatives to individual project <br />components were developed to determine if they could be used to meet the purpose and need, <br />were practical and feasible, and reduced environmental impacts and/or addressed public and <br />agency concerns. Some of the component alternatives examined were suggested during public <br />scoping for the project (BLM 2006). A wide range and variety of alternatives were examined, <br />with a focus on the following issues: <br />• Means of transporting the coal <br />• Coal transportation routes and delivery locations <br />• Means and routes for delivering the required electrical power to the mine facilities <br />2-1 <br />