EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-1

ES.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1.1 Background

In November 2004, a lease by application (LBA) was filed by Alton Coal Development, LLC (ACD) to 

mine federal coal, using primarily surface-mining methods, near the town of Alton, Utah (Case Number 

UTU 081895). This application was filed under the regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

3425, Leasing on Application. This original application included nearly 2,683 surface acres and 

approximately 38 million tons of recoverable coal. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) reconfigured 

the tract to include approximately 898 additional acres. Acreage added to the tract during tract 

reconfiguration was based on the identification of additional recoverable coal reserves not included in the 

original LBA and on additional surface acreage deemed necessary for mine operations and some 

additional recoverable reserves. The Alton Coal Tract LBA (hereafter the Alton Coal Tract or tract), as 

reconfigured, contains approximately 3,581 surface acres and approximately 44.9 million tons of 

recoverable coal reserves. 

To process an LBA, the BLM must establish the fair market value of the coal in the tract by evaluating 

many factors, including the quantity and quality of the coal reserves. Any subsequent mining plan must 

achieve maximum economic recovery of the tract’s coal resources in the context of applicable laws, 

regulations, and lease stipulations. In addition, before the BLM can issue a decision to offer a tract for 

lease, the BLM must fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by 

evaluating the potential environmental impacts of leasing and recovering the federal coal. If the tract is 

leased, the successful lessee would also have to obtain a permit from the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and 

Mining (DOGM). The DOGM permitting process is described in the following paragraphs.

On November 28, 2006, a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the Alton Coal Tract was published 

in the Federal Register (71:68834–64435). This was followed on November 4, 2011, with a notice of 

availability (NOA) for the Alton Coal Tract Lease by Application DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) (Federal Register 76:68501–68502). Based on comments received on the DEIS, the BLM decided 

to prepare a supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) for public review prior to preparing and distributing a final EIS

(FEIS). On June 18, 2015, an NOA for the Alton Coal Tract Lease by Application Supplemental Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (the SDEIS) was published in the Federal Register (80:34931–34932). 

For a summary of comments received on the DEIS, see Section 5.1.2.1. Substantive comments received on 

the DEIS resulted in changes presented in the SDEIS. A summary of responses to substantive comments

on the DEIS and formal responses to substantive comments received on the SDEIS are provided in 

Appendix C of the FEIS.

This EIS has been prepared to evaluate the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental 

impacts of leasing and recovering the federal coal included in the tract, based on ACD's preliminary plan 

and reasonable alternatives. The BLM will use the analysis in this EIS to decide whether to a) hold a 

competitive, sealed-bid lease sale for the tract; b) hold a competitive, sealed-bid lease sale for a modified 

tract; or c) reject the lease application and not offer the tract for sale at this time. However, the final 

BLM-accepted mine plans could be different from the conceptual mine plan analyzed in the EIS. The 

impacts of mining the coal are considered in this EIS because mining the coal is a logical consequence of 

issuing a lease. A record of decision (ROD) will be issued, and if the decision is to offer the tract for 

lease, a sale will be held. If a lease sale is held, the bidding at the sale would be open to any qualified 

bidder; it would not be limited to the applicant. A lease would be issued to the highest bidder at the sale, 

provided that the high bid meets or exceeds the fair market value of the coal, as determined by BLM's 

economic evaluation and if the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) determines that there would be no 

antitrust violations. 
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-2

In return for receiving a lease, the successful lessee must pay the federal government a bonus equal to the 

amount it bids at the time the lease sale is held (the bonus can be paid in five yearly installments), make 

annual rental payments to the federal government, and make royalty payments to the federal government 

when the coal is sold. Federal bonus, rental, and royalty payments are nearly equally divided with the 

state in which the lease is located. A federal coal lease grants the lessee the exclusive right to seek a 

mining permit for, and to mine coal on, the leased tract. The lessee is subject to the terms of the lease, the 

mining permit, and applicable state and federal laws. Before a new leased tract can be mined, the lessee 

must have their detailed plans approved (in the permit application package) to conduct mining and 

reclamation operations.

Coal production in the United States fell by 187 million short tons (16%) between 2008 and 2014 because

declining natural gas prices made coal less competitive as a fuel for electricity generation (Energy 

Information Administration [EIA] 2015). If the Clean Power Plan1is rescinded, United States annual coal 

production is expected to increase through 2020 to more than 800 million short tons as a projected rise in 

natural gas prices improves the competitiveness of existing coal generating units, and would increase 

further through 2040 to approximately 850 million short tons (EIA 2017a). However, coal’s share of total 

annual electricity generation is expected to fall from 33% in 2015 to 26% in 2040, even under a no–Clean 

Power Plan scenario (EIA 2016a). Under a no–Clean Power Plan scenario, natural gas–fired generation is 

expected to decline between 2016 and 2020 in response to growth in wind and solar capacity (EIA 

2016a). However, after 2020, natural gas’s share of total generation is expected to increase steadily, 

overtaking coal before 2030 and accounting for 34% of total generation in 2040 (EIA 2016a). In Utah, 

approximately 76% of electrical energy is generated from coal (Vanden Berg 2016). Although most 

(approximately 90%) coal consumption in the United States is in the electric power sector, coal is also 

used (approximately 10% of total demand) in the industrial sector. In the industrial sector, coal is used in 

the manufacture or production of cement, paper, chemicals, food, primary metals, and coal-based 

synthetic fuels (coal-to-liquids). It is also used in the industrial sector as a direct source of heat, as a feed 

stock, as boiler fuel for the production of process steam and electricity, and in the production of coke, 

which is used as an energy source and as a raw material in steel production. Additionally, coal exports are 

expected to increase gradually between 2015 and 2040 (EIA 2015).

According to the Utah Geological Survey, coal production in Utah decreased from 24.3 million short tons 

to 17.0 million short tons (30%) between 2008 and 2013 because of reserve depletion and difficult mining 

conditions (Boden et al. 2015); however, coal production increased by 10.5% between 2013 and 2014, to 

17.9 million short tons (Boden et al. 2015). Fuel switching or closure at United States coal-fired power 

plants outside of Utah is, however, keeping demand for Utah coal near historic lows. Utah coal 

production in 2015 decreased to 14.5 million short tons and decreased to 13.7 million short tons in 2016

(Utah Geological Survey 2017a). Utah coal mines are facing steady reserve depletion and difficult mining 

conditions. Demand for Utah coal has also sharply decreased the past few years as power plants have 

switched from coal-fired to natural gas–fired generation. The City of Los Angeles has stated that it will no 

longer purchase power from the Intermountain Power Plant (IPP) after its current power purchase 

agreement expires in 2027, unless the IPP converts to natural gas or implements carbon capture and 

storage technology. Thus, demand for Utah coal could drop significantly after 2027 (Boden et al. 2015). 

However, IPP recently announced plans to convert to natural gas by 2025 because of the expiration of its 

coal-fired power purchase agreement with the City of Los Angeles (O’Donoghue 2017). Utah's long-term 

(50 years and beyond) coal future is also shifting because currently accessible coal reserves are being 

depleted in the Book Cliffs and Wasatch Plateau coal fields. This makes it necessary for the coal industry 

 

1 The Clean Power Plan is a policy that was proposed by the EPA in 2014 to address human-caused climate change. The EPA 

issued a final rule in 2015 requiring states to meet specific reduction goals for carbon dioxide emissions from electrical power 

generation by 2030 (Federal Register 80:64661–65120). President Trump signed an executive order on March 28, 2017, 

mandating the EPA to review the Clean Power Plan and to initiate proceedings to suspend, revise, or rescind the plan, if 

appropriate (White House 2017).
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-3

to look to other Utah coal fields to meet future demands for coal. Further, most Utah mining companies 

have leased coal reserves for approximately 10 to 15 years of production; however, they are having 

difficulty adding new leases to extend their reserves. As a result, Utah coal production is outpacing 

tonnage leased (Vanden Berg et al. 2012).

All coal reserves in the Alton Coal Tract are federally owned, though surface ownership is mixed. Under 

Alternative B (the Proposed Action; discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2), approximately 2,280 surface 

acres of the tract are in federal (BLM) ownership and 1,296 surface acres are in private ownership (eight 

different private surface owners). Private surface owners may be qualified to give consent to mine federal 

minerals under the private surface owner’s estate2according to 43 CFR 3400.0-5. Surface ownership 

under Alternative A (No Action Alternative), Alternative C, and Alternative K1 is also discussed in 

greater detail in Chapter 2. If this EIS process results in a competitive lease sale for the tract, a final 

determination of private surface-owner qualification and private surface-owner consultation would take 

place prior to leasing. All surface owners have been notified of the Proposed Action. Further, both 

hardcopy and electronic versions of this EIS have been distributed to surface owners.

ES.1.2 Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of the federal action is to respond to an LBA for federal coal reserves on up to 3,581 acres of 

BLM-administered and private surface in Kane County, Utah, near the town of Alton. The need for the 

federal action is established by the BLM’s responsibilities under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) and the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), as amended by the Federal Coal 

Leasing Act Amendments of 1976. Private development of federal coal reserves is integral to the BLM 

coal leasing program under authority of the FLPMA and MLA. The MLA requires that all public lands 

not specifically closed to leasing be open to lease for the exploration and development of mineral 

resources. Further, a primary goal of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is to add energy supplies from diverse 

sources, including domestic oil, gas, and coal, as well as hydropower and nuclear power.

ES.1.3 Public Involvement

ES.1.3.1 Public Scoping

The public scoping process was initiated on November 28, 2006, when the BLM published an NOI to 

prepare an EIS to offer the tract for competitive leasing. Five public scoping meetings followed. Each 

meeting was conducted in an open house format with BLM and ACD personnel present to answer 

questions and provide information. Other resources available at the public scoping meetings included 

informational display boards; one video explaining the conceptual mining and reclamation sequence; one 

video explaining a potential transportation route, including truck details; and comment forms on which to 

submit comments at the meetings. Informational display boards and comment forms are available in the 

Alton Coal Tract LBA EIS Public Scoping Report (SWCA Environmental Consultants [SWCA] 2007a), 

which was prepared following completion of the scoping process. Copies of the videos are available at the 

BLM Kanab Field Office (BLM-KFO). The 90-day scoping period closed on February 26, 2007.

 

2 Under the regulations under 43 CFR 3400.0-5(gg)(1), (2), and (3) qualified surface owner means the natural person or persons 

(or corporation, the majority stock of which is held by a person or persons otherwise meeting the requirements of this section) 

who: 1) hold legal or equitable title to the surface of split estate lands; 2) have their principal place of residence on the land, or 

personally conduct farming or ranching operations upon a farm or ranch unit to be affected by surface-mining operations; or 

receive directly a significant portion of their income, if any, from such farming and ranching operations; and 3) have met the 

above conditions for a period of at least three years, except for persons who gave written consent less than three years after they 

met the above requirements. In computing the three-year period the authorized officer shall include periods during which title 

was owned by a relative of such person by blood or marriage if, during such periods, the relative would have met the 

requirements of this section. A qualified private surface owner is legally qualified to give consent to mine federal minerals under 

the private surface owner's estate.
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-4

ES.1.3.2 Comment Process on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement and Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

The comment process on the DEIS was initiated on November 4, 2011, when the BLM published an 

NOA of the Alton Coal Tract LBA EIS. Five public meetings, including one public hearing, followed. 

Each meeting was conducted in an open house format, with BLM personnel present to answer questions 

and provide information. Other resources available at the public meetings included informational display 

boards, hard copies of the DEIS, and compact disc copies of the DEIS. The Fair Market Value Hearing 

was conducted to comply with the BLM’s coal leasing regulations at 43 CFR 3425.1. The Fair Market 

Value Hearing was part of the Cedar City public meeting. The public comment period on the DEIS was 

scheduled for 60 days. However, the public requested an extension of the public comment period. 

Ultimately, the 85-day public comment period on the DEIS closed on January 27, 2012.

The public comment period on the SDEIS began on June 12, 2015. Five public meetings followed. Each 

meeting was conducted in an open house format, with BLM personnel present to answer questions and 

provide information. Other resources available at the public meetings included informational display 

boards, hard copies of the SDEIS, and compact disc copies of the SDEIS. The original public comment 

period on the SDEIS was intended for 60 days. After receiving several requests, the BLM extended the 

comment period for an additional 30 days, ending on September 10, 2015. 

ES.1.3.3 Summary of Issues

Issues and concerns raised during the public scoping process can be divided into three categories: 1) those 

to be addressed through implementation and documentation of certain elements of the NEPA process; 2) 

those to be addressed through analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts; and 3) those to be 

addressed through the formulation of alternatives. 

The public and agencies provided substantive comments on the DEIS. Per the BLM NEPA Handbook 

(BLM 2008a) definition, substantive comments do one or more of the following:

• Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the EIS

• Question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of, methodology for, or assumptions used for the 

environmental analysis

• Present new information relevant to the analysis

• Present reasonable alternatives other than those analyzed in the EIS

• Cause changes or revisions in one or more of the alternatives

Substantive comments on the DEIS were addressed in the SDEIS. A summary of responses to comments 

on the DEIS are published, along with formal responses to comments on the SDEIS, in Appendix C of the 

FEIS. The substantive issues and concerns are outlined below.

ES.1.3.3.1 LEASING TIMELINE

When is the appropriate time to begin the analysis of the EIS and consideration of leasing? Is it following 

submission of a detailed mining plan, or following a commitment to mine and sell coal?
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-5

ES.1.3.3.2 PREVIOUS DECISIONS AND LEGISLATION AND NEED FOR AN 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Previous studies of coal mining at Alton have been completed. Why is additional environmental analysis 

required? How would the proposed lease meet the suitability requirements of Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977? 

ES.1.3.3.3 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT'S ROLE AND POLICIES

REGARDING PUBLIC LAND USE

What is BLM's responsibility to protect the public lands, while providing for their use and sustainability? 

ES.1.3.3.4 SCOPE

Is coal mining on private lands and public (BLM) lands a connected action under NEPA, which would 

require an analysis in a single EIS? 

ES.1.3.3.5 PURPOSE AND NEED

What are the public purposes and needs for this action and how will they affect the eventual decision to 

offer the tract for leasing or not? How will energy demand affect BLM's decision to lease the tract?

ES.1.3.3.6 ALTERNATIVES

What reasonable alternatives to the applicant's proposal to lease and mine federal coal reserves in the tract 

should BLM consider? 

ES.1.3.3.7 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS ANALYSIS

What would be the effects of the coal mine on the natural and cultural environment in and near the tract 

and on the human values connected to those resources and their uses? 

ES.1.3.3.8 DATA AND EXPERTISE FOR IMPACTS ANALYSIS

What data and scientific literature must be collected and analyzed to ensure an adequate analysis of the 

effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives? 

ES.1.3.3.9 COOPERATING AND CONSULTING AGENCIES

What role will BLM's partners play in the EIS analysis of the Proposed Action and the alternatives? 

ES.1.3.3.10 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

What opportunities for public involvement should BLM provide to ensure disclosure of information and 

informed decision making? 

ES.1.3.3.11 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DECISIONS

What role will local residents play in the decision-making process? How will impacts to Bryce Canyon 

National Park affect the Alton LBA tract leasing decision?
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-6

ES.1.3.3.12 AESTHETIC RESOURCES

What effect would noise created by coal mining and coal truck traffic have on the relative noise levels 

existing in the area, including the town of Alton, adjacent public lands, and nearby parks and monuments? 

What effect would the coal mining operation, coal truck traffic, and dust and smoke caused by mining 

have on the local landscape (scenic quality) and surrounding viewshed? How would lighting for nighttime 

mining operations affect the darkness of the night sky from key nighttime-sky viewing points such as 

Bryce Canyon National Park?

ES.1.3.3.13 AIR RESOURCES 

How would the development and operation (e.g., construction, heavy equipment use, and transportation of 

coal) of the coal mine affect local and regional air quality? What effect would deposition of dust and other 

pollutants produced by mining have on water, wildlife, vegetation, recreation uses, and structures in and 

adjacent to the mining operations? What contribution would emissions produced from the mining 

operation, transportation of coal, and ultimate use of the coal add to the cumulative effect of carbon 

emissions on global warming?

ES.1.3.3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES

What impact would coal mining and transporting coal have on prehistoric and historic cultural resources

in the tract and along transportation routes? How would coal mining and transporting coal impact existing 

and eligible National Register sites and traditional cultural properties?

ES.1.3.3.15 FIRE MANAGEMENT

What impact would coal mining, including truck traffic to transport coal, have on air quality; and how 

would those changes in air quality affect BLM's ability to conduct prescribed burning in wildland-urban 

interface areas to reduce threats of wildfire? What impact would revegetation required for tract 

reclamation have on wildland fire frequency and severity?

ES.1.3.3.16 GEOLOGY AND MINERALS

How would coal mining on the tract affect geologic and mineral resources present there? What geologic 

hazards exist on and near the tract and how would they be affected by mining operations and vice versa? 

What is the potential for underground coal fires and what are the environmental consequences of an 

underground fire?

ES.1.3.3.17 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

What impact would generation, temporary storage, and disposal of hazardous materials (such as those 

regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the 

Toxic Substances Control Act) have on people and the environment?

ES.1.3.3.18 LAND USE AND ACCESS

What impact would development and operation of a coal mine have on local private property values and 

future development potential of those lands? What effect would coal truck traffic have on private property 

values along transportation routes (e.g., KFO Route 116 and U.S. Highway 89 [US-89])? What impact 

would development and operation of a coal mine have on the town of Alton (e.g., air quality, aesthetics, 

water quality, and public health and safety)? How would public lands be used and managed following 

reclamation of the coal mine?
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-7

ES.1.3.3.19 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

How would coal development, mining, and reclamation affect grazing and pasturelands around Alton

(e.g., removal of vegetation and restricted access to grazing land for ranchers), and how would that affect 

short-term and long-term livestock grazing and production? How would road dust and exhaust from 

passing coal truck traffic affect vegetation growth and palatability of the vegetation for livestock forage? 

ES.1.3.3.20 PALEONTOLOGY

How would surface disturbance (e.g., surface mining, road construction, and facilities construction) 

created by coal mining impact fossils in the tract? 

ES.1.3.3.21 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

How would coal truck traffic through towns along potential transportation routes affect public safety in 

those towns and along the travel routes? What risk of injury and adverse health effects would the mine 

workers and local public face as a result of mine development? (Public Health and Safety issues are 

addressed in the socioeconomics section of Chapter 4.)

ES.1.3.3.22 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

How would coal mining impact the air quality, viewshed, and nighttime sky of Bryce Canyon National 

Park? How would coal mining impact the resources (air quality, viewsheds, recreation, etc.) of other 

nearby parks and monuments, including the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; Arches, 

Canyonlands, and Zion national parks; Kodachrome State Park; and Red Canyon and other public lands? 

How would the noise and presence of coal truck traffic affect the visitor experience at these parks, 

monuments, and public lands? (Issues related to special designations are addressed in the aesthetic 

resources, air resources, and recreation sections of Chapter 4.)

ES.1.3.3.23 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

How would development and operation of a coal mine impact special status species and their habitat, 

including Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens), 

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Golden Eagle (Aquila

chrysaetos), pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis), Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), Ferruginous 

Hawk (Buteo regalis), Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii utah), and Utah Physa (Physella 

utahensis)? What effect would noise from coal truck traffic have on special status species? How would 

wildlife mortality from vehicle collisions affect wildlife populations? (Special status species issues are 

addressed in the special status species section of Chapter 4.)

ES.1.3.3.24 SOCIOECONOMICS

What opportunities for employment would development and operation of the coal mine create? How 

would development and operation of a coal mine affect local businesses and tourism? How would 

development and operation of a coal mine affect tax revenues to Kane and Garfield counties? What, if 

any, additional county services (ambulance, firefighting, sheriff, etc.) would be required to support the 

mine? What effect would coal truck traffic have on tourism and local businesses along potential 

transportation routes? What are the economic benefits of development and operation of a coal mine? How 

would development of the tract contribute to the supply of coal available for use in the region?
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-8

ES.1.3.3.25 SOILS

What impact would development and operation of a coal mine (including final reclamation) have on 

productivity of soils, including biological soil crusts? How would coal mining affect farmland 

productivity? What impact would development and operation of a coal mine have on soil stability and 

rates of erosion? What effect would road and coal dust and exhaust from mine-related traffic have on soil 

productivity in proximity to roads in the tract and along potential transportation routes? 

ES.1.3.3.26 VEGETATION

How would coal development, mining, and reclamation affect vegetation communities in the tract? What 

effect would coal mining, including truck traffic to transport coal, have on the introduction and spread of 

exotic vegetation? What effect would road and coal dust and exhaust from mine-related traffic have on 

the health and growth of vegetation adjacent to roads in the tract and along potential transportation 

routes? 

ES.1.3.3.27 WATER RESOURCES

What effect would development and operation of a coal mine have on surface-water and groundwater

quality and quantity? How would mining operations impact riparian areas and wetlands? How would coal 

mining affect the possible existence of an alluvial valley floor (AVF) near the town of Alton? How would 

road and coal dust and vehicle exhaust, resulting from operation of coal trucks, impact the quality of 

water bodies adjacent to transportation routes? 

ES.1.3.3.28 WILDLIFE

What effect would development and operation of a coal mine, including reclamation and coal truck 

traffic, have on wildlife and wildlife habitat, including nocturnal wildlife?

ES.1.3.3.29 ALTERNATIVES

This section summarizes the comments provided in the public scoping process and comment process on

the DEIS that specifically refer to or specifically indicate the need for the development of alternatives to 

the Proposed Action. Issues summarized above were also considered in the alternatives development 

process along with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Chapter 2 provides a complete description of the alternatives analyzed in detail and those alternatives 

considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. A brief rationale for the dismissal of alternatives is 

provided there.

Decision to Lease

• Should the BLM delay offering the tract for lease until less-impacting extractive processes are 

developed?

• The BLM should consider leasing all known recoverable coal resources rather than just the tract 

in question for which an LBA was received.

• Based on the analyses in the DEIS, the BLM should update their coal unsuitability determinations 

in the KFO RMP, as amended, and reconfigure the tract to match these updated determinations.

Mining Methods and Coal Production

• What are practical alternatives to surface mining in the tract?
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-9

Energy Conservation and Alternative Sources of Energy

• The BLM should consider foregoing the coal lease and instead promote energy conservation and 

the development of alternative forms of energy such as solar, wind, and natural gas.

Air Quality

• How would operations be designed and controlled to prevent the release of unsafe levels of 

nitrogen dioxide?

• How would operations be designed and controlled to ensure no violations of National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)?

Special Designations

• Coal mining should be designed, and modified if needed, to reduce impacts to Bryce Canyon 

National Park.

• Is it feasible and reasonable to consider alternative locations for leasing rather than the LBA tract 

currently under consideration?

Transportation

• What methods of coal transportation (e.g., slurry, rail, and truck) should be considered to reduce 

impacts to the environment, nearby communities, and public safety?

• Construction of a power plant next to the mine should be considered as a way to eliminate 

impacts from coal truck traffic.

• Restrictions on coal truck traffic before sunrise and after sunset should be considered to improve 

public safety and reduce transportation-related impacts to wildlife.

Cultural Resources

• The BLM should consider an alternative tract configuration that excludes all cultural resources

sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Wildlife and Special Status Species

• The BLM should consider an alternative that places seasonal timing restrictions on the entire tract.

ES.1.4 Alternatives

Four alternatives are analyzed in detail in this EIS: Alternative A (No Action), Alternative B (the 

Proposed Action), Alternative C (Reduced Tract Acreage and Seasonal Restrictions), and Alternative K1 

(Reduced Tract Acreage).

Department of Interior regulations (43 CFR 46.425) suggest that departmental agencies should identify 

preferred alternatives in draft EISs but do not require them to do so. The BLM did not identify a preferred 

alternative or preferred alternatives in the Alton Coal Tract LBA DEIS published in November 2011, 

because no such preference existed at that time. A preferred alternative was also not identified in the 

SDEIS. In the FEIS, the BLM identifies Alternative K1 as its preferred alternative. In developing the FEIS, 

the BLM has conducted extensive consultation and coordination activities with its cooperating agencies

and other agencies with special expertise (see Section 1.3 and Chapter 5). The BLM has also expanded the 

range of alternatives analyzed in detail, with the inclusion of Alternative K1 for detailed analysis.
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-10

ES.1.4.1 Alternative A: No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, ACD’s application to lease the coal included in the Alton Coal Tract 

under the Proposed Action, Alternative C, or Alternative K1 would not be approved, the LBA tract would 

not be offered for competitive lease sale, and the coal included in the LBA tract would not be mined.

Rejection of the application would not affect existing mining activities on private land adjacent to the 

tract (i.e., the Coal Hollow Mine). The Coal Hollow Mine consists of approximately 635 acres of land and 

approximately 5 million short tons of recoverable coal leased from private surface and mineral owners. 

Average annual coal production is anticipated to be approximately 2 million tons, and mining activities 

are expected to employ approximately 160 persons during full production (100 at the tract and 60 for coal 

trucking operations); initial operations and startup would employ much less (approximately 16 

employees). Rejection of the application would also not affect an anticipated permit application from 

ACD to mine fee coal on private lands adjacent to the tract to the north. 

To compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining these lands versus not mining 

them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption that the tract would not be mined in the near future if 

the No Action Alternative is selected. Under the No Action Alternative, the public lands within the tract 

would continue to be managed in accordance with the Kanab Field Office Record of Decision and 

Approved Resource Management Plan (KFO RMP), as amended (BLM 2008b). The area would be 

managed for livestock grazing, recreation (primarily hunting and off-highway vehicle [OHV] use), and 

wildlife habitat. Vegetation treatments (wildlife habitat treatments, watershed treatments, livestock 

rangeland treatments, wildland fire use, fuels treatments, and stewardship contracting) would occur in 

support of the BLM’s Healthy Lands Initiative. Private lands within the tract would continue to be used 

for livestock grazing, farming, and dispersed recreation (especially hunting).

ES.1.4.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 

approximately 25 years using 1) surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be less 

than approximately 200 feet, and 2) underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall 

mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden would exceed 

approximately 200 feet. The choice of mining method, however, can vary from the 200-foot overburden 

threshold depending on the coal thickness, overburden type, overburden (highwall) stability, underground 

mining techniques available, operating and capital costs, and coal market economics. (The analysis 

considers surface disturbance for surface mining up to approximately 200 feet of overburden removal.) 

Approximately 2 million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial 

overburden removal have occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the 

estimated 25-year life of the mine and would be followed by a minimum 10-year reclamation and 

revegetation monitoring period.

BLM independently evaluated the coal resources in the tract. BLM estimates that the tract under the 

Proposed Action consists of approximately 59.6 million tons of in-place coal and that an estimated 44.9 

million tons of coal would be recoverable from the tract. BLM estimates that in areas where coal would 

be mined by surface-mining methods, approximately 90% of the estimated in-place coal reserves could be 

recoverable. However, in those portions of the tract that must be mined by underground mining methods, 

approximately 50% of the in-place coal reserves could be recoverable. These percentage recovery 

estimates are based on assumptions about the depth to which the use of surface mining methods is 

feasible and the extent of the no-coal zone.

Details on mining methods, facilities, reclamation, and operations can be found in Chapter 2 of the EIS.
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-11

ES.1.4.3 Alternative C: Reduced Tract Acreage and Seasonal 

Restrictions

Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion (Block 

NW) of the tract near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the 

tract (Block S) would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local Greater SageGrouse population. Under Alternative C, the modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, 

competitive lease sale, subject to lease stipulations developed for the tract. 

Consistent with the purpose and need for the federal action, the intent of Alternative C is to resolve, in 

part or in full, the following: issues related to the local sage-grouse population, noise, and visual impacts 

to the town of Alton, and issues related to conflicting land uses (agriculture versus surface mining). 

Alternative C may also reduce impacts to other resources such as springs and surface waters, wildlife, 

soils, public health and safety, paleontological resources, cultural resources, and vegetation. 

Under Alternative C, the tract would be modified to exclude Block NW. The modified tract would 

encompass approximately 3,173 acres, of which approximately 2,280 acres are federal surface and 

mineral estate and 893 acres are split estate; private surface estate and federal mineral estate. As under the 

Proposed Action, not all surface estates, private or federal, have coal reserves underlying them. 

Under Alternative C, recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over approximately 

21 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden is approximately 200 feet or less, 

and using underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, 

and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds approximately 200 feet. The 

choice of mining method, however, can vary from the 200-foot overburden threshold depending on the 

coal thickness, overburden type, overburden (highwall) stability, underground mining techniques 

available, operating and capital costs, and coal market economics. Approximately 2 million tons of coal 

per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal have occurred. 

Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 21-year life of the mine 

and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Although 

reclamation would be concurrent with mining, due to seasonal timing restrictions required under 

Alternative C for Block S of the tract, the length of time between initiation of the mining process and 

concurrently occurring reclamation activities would be extended for some pits.

BLM estimates that the tract configuration under Alternative C includes approximately 52.1 million tons 

of in-place coal and that an estimated 38.1 million tons of coal would be recoverable from the tract. 

Percentage coal recovery estimates for surface versus underground mining are the same under Alternative 

C as they are under the Proposed Action.

Details on mining methods, facilities, reclamation, and operations can be found in Chapter 2 of the EIS.

ES.1.4.4 Alternative K1: Reduced Tract Acreage (BLM’s Preferred 

Alternative)

In the DEIS, the BLM eliminated Alternative K1 from detailed analysis. However, based on public 

comments on the DEIS, the BLM decided to consider Alternative K1 in detail in the SDEIS and this 

FEIS. Under Alternative K1, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude Block NW and Block S. 

Under this alternative, the modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease 

sale, subject to lease stipulations developed for the tract.
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-12

Consistent with the purpose and need for the federal action, the intent of Alternative K1 is to resolve, in 

part or in full, the following: issues related to the local Greater Sage-Grouse population; noise and visual 

impacts to the town of Alton; and issues related to conflicting land uses (agriculture versus surface 

mining). Alternative K1 may also reduce impacts to other resources such as springs and surface waters, 

wildlife, soils, public health and safety, paleontological resources, cultural resources, vegetation, and air 

quality. 

Under Alternative K1, recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over approximately 

16 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden is approximately 200 feet, and 

using underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, 

and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds approximately 200 feet. The 

choice of mining method, however, can vary from the 200-foot overburden threshold depending on the 

coal thickness, overburden type, overburden (highwall) stability, underground mining techniques 

available, operating and capital costs, and coal market economics. Approximately 2 million tons of coal 

per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal have occurred. 

Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 16-year life of the mine 

and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period.

BLM estimates that the tract configuration under Alternative K1 includes approximately 40.9 million tons 

of in-place coal and that an estimated 30 million tons of coal would be recoverable from the tract. 

Percentage coal recovery estimates for surface versus underground mining are the same under Alternative 

K1 as they are under the Proposed Action.

ES.1.4.5 Reasonably Foreseeable Coal Loadout Location and

Transportation Route

Future foreseeable transportation of mined coal reserves from the tract to market would be dictated by 

existing roads and market conditions at the time of sale of mined coal. The applicant (ACD) is currently 

planning on moving mined coal from the tract to market via development of a rail loadout at Iron Springs, 

approximately 11 miles west of Cedar City, Utah. To access this loadout, coal transportation would occur 

via KFO Route 116 continuing north through the town of Alton, north on US-89, west on State Road 20

(SR-20), and finally south on Interstate 15 exiting at exit number 59 in Cedar City. For analysis in this 

EIS, the construction and use of the rail loadout at Iron Springs would be the reasonably foreseeable 

loadout location associated with the tract, and the approximately 110-mile route would be the reasonably 

foreseeable transportation route linking the tract and the loadout. Map 2.6 shows the rail loadout location 

and the transportation route.

If the BLM decides to hold a competitive lease sale and a lease is issued to ACD, it is reasonably 

foreseeable that they would use this rail loadout and transportation route, as conditions dictate, to 

transport and market the federal coal reserves in the tract. A successful bidder other than ACD may 

identify a different loadout location, transportation route, or both, to move mined coal from the tract to 

market. Given that BLM cannot predict the plans of a successful bidder other than ACD, the following 

would be speculative: attempting to guess at loadout location (or locations), transportation route (or 

routes), or both, that may be used by a successful bidder other than ACD. Therefore this EIS gives no 

consideration to other potential loadout locations and transportation routes.

Though transportation of mined coal reserves would not be regulated under the leasing action, all coal 

haul trucks used for transporting mined coal reserves from the tract would be operated as per federal and 

Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) requirements. For analysis of all actions alternatives in this 

EIS, it is anticipated that in addition to the operation of permitted and regulated haulage from the tract to a 

reasonably foreseeable rail loadout, the use of best available control measures to minimize and/or 
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-13

eliminate fugitive coal dust along the transportation route would be installed on all coal haul vehicles. 

Operation of the rail loadout facility would be regulated by DOGM (under their coal regulatory program). 

In addition to various federal, state, and local regulatory requirements for its operation, it is also 

anticipated that best available control measures for fugitive coal dust would be implemented at the 

associated loadout facility.

ES.1.4.6 Permits, Approvals, Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, 

and Monitoring

There are certain permits, approvals, and regulatory compliance, mitigation, and monitoring measures that 

would be required under the action alternatives. These are related to 1) compliance with existing local,

state, and federal rules and regulations with respect to surface coal mining and 2) special requirements 

(i.e., design features) developed for the tract. See Table 1.5.1 in Chapter 1 and Table 2.6.1 in Chapter 2 

for a summary of permits, approvals, and regulatory compliance requirements for the successful bidder.

ES.1.4.7 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

Aside from the Proposed Action, Alternative C, and Alternative K1, 19 alternatives were considered 

during the course of alternatives development and following publication of the DEIS. Each of these was 

eliminated from detailed analysis in the EIS. Chapter 2, Section 2.7.1 provides descriptions of these 

alternatives along with the rationale for eliminating each of them from detailed analysis. 

In addition to the alternatives eliminated, certain components of the federal action would be independent 

of the elements of any alternative. In the EIS, these were considered options, any one of which could be 

chosen in combination with any alternative and would not necessitate changes in the alternative, or vice 

versa. Those options that were considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis are described in 

Chapter 2, Section 2.7.2 of the EIS.

ES.1.5 Affected Environment

ES.1.5.1 General Setting

The tract is in Kane County, Utah, approximately 0.10 mile south of the town of Alton and 2.9 miles east 

of US-89. The tract occurs at approximately 6,900 feet above sea level in the semiarid foothills of the 

Colorado Plateau Semidesert Province (Woods et al. 2001a) of south-central Utah. The tract is in the 

Alton Amphitheater between the Paunsaugunt Plateau to the northeast, Long Valley (Virgin River) to the 

west, and approximately 5.0 miles north and northwest of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument. Mean annual precipitation in the town of Alton was approximately 16.7 inches from 1915 to 

2016, and mean annual maximum temperature for this same time period was 60.0°F (Western Regional 

Climate Center 2016a). The Colorado Plateau province receives most of its precipitation in the form of 

snow during the winter months; summers are generally hot and dry with a mid- to late-summer monsoon 

period when frequent thunderstorms occur (Western Regional Climate Center 2006). The tract is 

characterized by a series of low-rising hills and benches cut by the north-south-running Kanab Creek and 

by long diagonal washes that flow from the surrounding mountain ranges. Vegetation in the tract is 

typical of the Colorado Plateau and includes large open areas of bunchgrass, perennial grasses, and 

sagebrush interspersed with dense stands of juniper (Juniperus spp.) and pinyon pine (Pinus edulis). Tall 

fir trees are apparent on the more rugged mountains to the northwest of the tract. Generally, the 

vegetation cover is continuous across most of the tract, broken by two-track dirt roads and fence lines. 
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-14

Under the Proposed Action, the tract includes approximately 3,581 acres of land. All coal resources 

within the tract are federally (BLM) owned and managed. Approximately 2,280 surface acres of the tract 

are under BLM management, and the remaining 1,296 surface acres are under private ownership. Under 

Alternative C and Alternative K1, the tract includes approximately 3,173 acres and 2,114 acres of land, 

respectively. As under the Proposed Action, all coal resources under these tract configurations are 

federally (BLM) owned and managed. Surface ownership under Alternative C and Alternative K1 is split 

between the BLM (2,280 acres under Alternative C and 1,235 acres under Alternative K1) and private 

owners (893 acres under Alternative C and 880 acres under Alternative K1). Coal reserves are known to 

occur beneath approximately 1,750, 1,454, and 869 acres of the tract under the Proposed Action, 

Alternative C, and Alternative K1, respectively. 

The entirety of the reasonably foreseeable coal haul transportation route also occurs in southern Utah, 

more specifically in Kane, Garfield, and Iron counties near Alton, Hatch, Panguitch, and Cedar City. The 

total length of the route is approximately 115 miles. Existing vehicle traffic consists of local residents; 

tourists to Bryce Canyon National Park, Dixie National Forest, and BLM-administered lands; and 

commercial truck traffic. Transportation infrastructure associated with the tract and the coal haul 

transportation route includes numerous unimproved, dirt roads, KFO Route 116, US-89, SR-20, Interstate 

15, and SR-56. The Union Pacific Railroad 21-mile branch to the Salt Lake City-Los Angeles line is west 

of Cedar City, Utah, and is the nearest railroad facility to the tract.

ES.1.6 Environmental Consequences

Table 2.8.1 in Chapter 2 of this EIS summarizes the potential impacts to each element of the environment 

under each alternative. Detailed descriptions of the impacts are provided in Chapter 4, along with a 

discussion of potential mitigation measures, residual impacts, short-term uses versus long-term 

productivity, and irretrievable and irreversible commitments of resources that would result from 

implementation of the alternatives. Cumulative impacts to resource values and uses of the tract that would 

result from implementation of the alternatives are also discussed in Chapter 4. A summary describing the 

general conclusions of the effects analysis is presented below.

ES.1.6.1 Aesthetic Resources

Increased ambient noise levels, short-term modifications to visual resources, and perceptible increase in 

nighttime skyglow would occur from the implementation of the action alternatives. The town of Alton

would experience the greatest increases in ambient noise levels from the mining activities in Block NW 

under Alternative B. An initial lumens cap of 3.15 million lumens would be applied to all action 

alternatives to limit nighttime skyglow effects. Full cut-off shielding would also be required under all 

action alternatives for fixed position lighting at centralized facilities.

ES.1.6.2 Air Resources

Under the action alternatives, emissions of criteria air pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, nitrogen oxides, volatile 

organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide) and hazardous air pollutants (benzene, toluene, 

xylenes, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein) would occur as a result of mining and transporting 

coal. Based on the near-field modeling results, all air pollutant concentrations resulting from emissions 

would be within NAAQS under the Proposed Action and Alternative K1 for the 200-foot overburden

removal scenario. Air pollutant concentrations resulting from emissions under Alternative C would also 

be within NAAQS for all pollutants except PM10 (24-hour standard), which would be violated under the 

200-foot overburden removal scenario.
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-15

Air quality impacts in the far-field (for criteria pollutants as well as visibility) would be within regulatory 

limits for the three action alternatives. Nitrogen and sulfur deposition would likewise be below threshold 

values.

ES.1.6.3 Cultural Resources

Archaeological sites eligible for the National Register would be adversely impacted from the 

implementation of the action alternatives due to surface-disturbing activities associated with mining 

operations. Underground mining may impact unidentified archaeological sites. Native American 

traditionally cultural properties would be subject to adverse effects for the life of the mine under the 

action alternatives. The Panguitch Historic District and Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer 

Heritage Area (US-89) would be subject to adverse effects for the life of the mine under the action 

alternatives. Sites that are not directly impacted by surface mining or facilities construction would be 

subject to a greater degree of threat for vandalism, looting, or unintentional destruction due to an 

increased human presence in the area.

ES.1.6.4 Fire Management

Under the action alternatives, vegetation would be removed during mining and construction activities. 

The revegetation of the disturbed areas would lead to reduced Fire Regime Condition Class ratings. 

Increased movement to and from the tract by construction equipment and coal haul trucks would increase 

the risk of fuel leakage and/or sparking that could lead to wildfires in the tract and adjacent transportation 

corridors. Construction of centralized and dispersed facilities could lead to an increased risk of humancaused wildfires from construction activities in undisturbed vegetation on and adjacent to the tract

ES.1.6.5 Geology and Minerals

The action alternatives would result in long-term adverse effects to topography, physiography, and 

stratigraphy. Removal of coal by underground mining methods would cause subsidence on portions of the 

tract overlying the area of coal removal. There would be a slight fault hazard from underground mining, 

and a risk to structures occurring on landslide deposits. Impacts to coal resources would occur from the 

production of recoverable coal over the life of the mine. Oil and gas resources would be unavailable for 

extraction for the life of the mine. 

Because most of the burnt shale deposits in the tract have been or would be mined by the time a decision 

is made by the BLM on this EIS, direct impacts to burnt shale resources are unlikely. However, if mining 

operations expose burnt shale in the tract, they would likely be lost as economically recoverable resources 

because they would be mixed with other overburden during reclamation. If segregated from other 

overburden sufficiently, they may remain usable.

Salable pediment gravels in the tract would be directly impacted under the Proposed Action due to mixing 

with other overburden following surface mining.

It is not known how common septarian nodules are in the tract, or if they are present in sufficient density 

to be economically viable for development. However, any nodules present at or near the surface in areas 

that would be surface mined would be at risk of burial during reclamation, and therefore may be less 

accessible for development. The nodules would not be removed and would therefore still be available as a 

resource, but their development would likely be less economically viable and their concentration in any 

area would likely be reduced.
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-16

ES.1.6.6 Hazardous Materials

Movement to and from the tract by service vehicles and coal haul trucks has the potential to increase the 

risk of fuel leakage or solid waste spills in the tract and adjacent transportation corridors. Accidental or 

inadvertent leakages from storage tanks would also be possible. Spills would have adverse effects on soil, 

water, vegetation, and wildlife resources. Potential impacts would be mitigated through standard 

operating procedures and through the creation of other plans and policies that relate to hazardous 

materials disposal, transport, and emergency response.

ES.1.6.7 Land Use and Access

Under the action alternatives, lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation

access during mining activities (life of mine). Agriculture, tourism, and recreation activities would also be 

prohibited or restricted during the life of the mine.

ES.1.6.8 Livestock Grazing

The action alternatives would result in the temporary loss of forage as a result of restricted access, spread 

of noxious weeds, and/or decreased palatability from construction dust and the temporary loss of water 

sources and range improvements, such as fences and cattle guards. In addition, the action alternatives 

would result in a loss of animal unit months within allotments over the life of the mine and reclamation

period. Impacts to livestock could occur from mortality from vehicle collisions.

ES.1.6.9 Paleontology

The coal extraction process would result in the permanent removal of fossils from the Dakota Formation

and from the Tropic Shale in the tract, resulting in a long-term decrease in the productivity of 

paleontological resources in the area. It is anticipated that a large number of significant fossils would be 

destroyed or removed from context, particularly in the Tropic Shale.

ES.1.6.10 Recreation

The action alternatives would have some adverse effects to recreation resources. Lands available for 

dispersed recreation would be lost from mining over the life of the mine. Some designated OHV routes 

would be temporarily removed over the life of the mine. In addition, there would be some indirect adverse 

effects from displacement of recreational users onto adjacent public lands, which would affect 

recreational experiences of users on those lands.

ES.1.6.11 Socioeconomics

Implementation of the action alternatives would result in an increase to the number of jobs, income, and 

additional taxes, fee, and payments. There would be an adverse impact to recreation, and adverse impacts 

to sense of community, social well-being, and tourism-related businesses. There would be impacts to 

population, housing, public health, safety, and environmental justice populations. The environmental 

justice impacts would result from noise and visual impacts to the town of Alton from mining activities 

under all action alternatives. Environmental justice impacts to the town of Alton would also occur from 

potential exceedances of the NAAQS for PM10 under Alternative C.
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-17

ES.1.6.12 Soils

Implementation of the action alternatives would result in disturbance of soil resources through large-scale 

removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils during mining. The disturbance (impact) caused by 

removing and replacing soils would be long term. Most of the impacts (caused by facilities, some roads, 

etc.) would be long-term impacts, persisting for the life of the mine.

ES.1.6.13 Transportation

The action alternatives would result in an increase in commuter traffic and coal truck traffic through 

Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch. However, levels of service are not expected to change under any of the 

action alternatives.

ES.1.6.14 Vegetation 

Vegetation would be removed for surface mining, construction, and road relocation under the action 

alternatives. Lands would be susceptible to weed invasion. All disturbed acres would be reclaimed and 

revegetated after the life of the mine.

ES.1.6.15 Water Resources

Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function, the associated riparian

corridor, and water quality.

The action alternatives would result in the diversion of runoff to retention ponds, and an associated loss of 

surface water from evaporation and infiltration would occur. There would be small sediment loads into 

streams from dispersed facilities and road relocation. The loss of instream dilution could increase 

concentrations of total dissolved solids over the state water quality standard of 1,200 milligrams per liter. 

Reduced instream flows could result in less water available for irrigation downstream. There would be a 

small risk of surface-water contamination from accidental spills on 13.8 miles of stream that are within 

100 feet of the reasonably foreseeable coal haul transportation route. There would also be a small increase 

in fine particles in streams associated with deposition of fugitive dust and coal dust.

Groundwater would be affected by the action alternatives through the use of groundwater for dust 

suppression, the removal of groundwater as moisture contained in coal, and the evaporation of 

groundwater exposed in pits.

There would be a direct removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas due to 

surface mining and construction of dispersed facilities. Impact to wetlands and riparian areas would 

include the loss of habitat, loss of water filtration, and destabilization of streambanks. 

Because probable AVFs occur only within the tract’s no coal zone there would be no direct impacts to 

these water-related features from pits. Both floodplains and AVFs would be adversely affected by the 

construction of dispersed facilities. Approximately 60,565 linear feet of ephemeral and intermittent 

drainages are within the surface-mining areas of the coal zone associated with this alternative. 

Approximately 17,102 linear feet of perennial (including 96 linear feet of Kanab Creek), intermittent, and 

ephemeral drainages are within the underground mining area. Floodplain functions that could be lost 

include some degree of flood storage and attenuation, groundwater recharge, and erosion prevention. 

Although ground disturbance would occur in probable AVFs, the essential hydrologic functions of these 

areas would not be impacted and the physical capability of the land to be irrigated would not be changed.
Alton Coal Tract LBA Final EIS Executive Summary

ES-18

ES.1.6.16 Wildlife: General

Direct and indirect impacts from the action alternatives would include habitat fragmentation, alteration, 

loss, and displacement due to surface disturbance, noise, ground vibration, night lighting, and increased 

risk of vehicle mortality associated with coal haul trucks. Potential mule deer habitat disturbance under 

the action alternatives would include up to approximately 29 acres of crucial summer habitat and

approximately 920.1–1,803.3 acres of substantial value summer habitat. Potential elk habitat disturbance 

under the action alternatives would include approximately 920.1–1,807.5 acres of substantial value 

summer habitat and up to approximately 24.8 acres of year-long substantial value habitat. Raptors, 

migratory birds, and amphibians are also expected to experience potential habitat loss under the action 

alternatives.

ES.1.6.17 Wildlife: Special Status Species

Direct and indirect impacts common to all action alternatives would be the same as those described above 

for general wildlife. Special status species that are expected to experience habitat disturbance under the 

action alternatives include Utah prairie-dog, pygmy rabbit, kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), certain bat species, 

certain raptor species, certain migratory bird species, certain amphibian species, Bonneville cutthroat 

trout, and Greater Sage-Grouse. The action alternatives would disturb approximately 1,012–1,992 acres of 

occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Vegetation treatments and other actions described in the Alton

Coal Tract LBA Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan (Appendix E) are designed to mitigate impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and would be applied to all action alternatives as design features. Vegetation 

treatments would be required to outpace surface disturbance caused by mining activities at an acreage 

ratio of 4 to 1.

ES.1.6.18 Potential Mitigation Measures

Potential mitigation measures are also proposed for individual resources in Chapter 4 of the EIS. Residual 

impacts that would persist following implementation of mitigation measures are also addressed for each 

resource in Chapter 4. The proposed mitigation measures that are applied as lease stipulations will be 

decided during the preparation of the ROD.

ES.1.7 Consultation and Coordination

Initial involvement with respect to BLM's receipt and review of ACD's LBA and details on the public 

notification, public scoping process, and the cooperating agencies are described above. Chapter 5, 

Consultation and Coordination, provides further detail on consultation and coordination for the proposed 

tract and preparation of this EIS. 

ES.1.8 Next Steps

The FEIS is not a decision document. Rather, it is a document that will inform the BLM's final decision 

on whether to hold a competitive lease sale for the tract and, in the event that the BLM decides to offer 

the tract for competitive leasing, what lease stipulations would be attached to the lease. The EIS is being 

released to inform the public and interested parties of the potential impacts associated with implementing 

one of the action alternatives. 

After a 30-day waiting period, a ROD will be prepared and signed. The ROD, which will be signed by the 

authorized officer, will document the decisions made regarding the Proposed Action and alternatives. The 

BLM decision will apply only to public lands.