Laserfiche WebLink
Alternatives <br />Chapter 2 <br />Given that the Dry Fork LBA tract is immediately <br />adjacent to the West Elk Mine, it is unlikely that <br />any other mining firms besides MCC would be able <br />to economically extract this resource. This <br />alternative was considered but not analyzed given <br />current reasonable expectations that the coal in the <br />lease tract would be extracted by MCC. If' a <br />successful lessee (besides Ark Land) decides that a <br />separate mining operation should be completed,, it <br />would be necessary to undertake additional <br />environmental analysis to determine the surface <br />impacts, which would be different than the impacts <br />if the coal is removed through the existing <br />underground workings and surface facilities of the <br />West Elk Mine. Further, the most likely scenario if <br />another company obtained the Dry Fork LBA tract, <br />would be that it would subcontract MCC to mine it <br />from the existing mine, rather than build new <br />facilities (BLM 2004). <br />2.8 COMPARISON OF <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />Table 2-1 indicates how well each alternative meets <br />the purpose and need described in Section 1.2. <br />Table 2-2 summarizes the effects each alternative <br />would have on resource issues. <br />• <br />Table 2-1 <br />Meeting the Purpose and Need and Forest Plan Standards <br />Resource Issue Alternative A <br />No Action Alternative B <br />Proposed Action Alternative C <br />No Subsidence <br />Meets the stated Purpose and Need? No Yes Yes <br />Meets Forest Plan standards and guidelines? Yes Yes Yes <br />2-8 <br />Dry Fork Lease-By-Application FEIS <br />• <br />• <br />