Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT <br /> levels of air emissions from the stationary and mobile sources at the mine would be roughly the same as <br /> those estimated and analyzed for the Proposed Action but would end prior to 2023. Section 2.2.1.4 of the <br /> TRR(OSMRE and BLM 2019) identifies the regional air quality in detail and shows that all NAAQS are met. <br /> With the Proposed Action eliminated, the PM impacts would decrease to maintain attainment. Gaseous <br /> and hazardous pollutant emissions are somewhat limited at the mine and their removal would not change <br /> the impact of the regional air quality significantly but is still a reduction from the Proposed Action. <br /> Impacts to climate change would be slightly less as 3.2 mt of coal would be mined from King II (assuming <br /> 800,000 tpy from 2019 through the end of year 2022). It is not known whether end users of this coal would <br /> purchase other coal (i.e., same/similar GHG impacts) for fuel or whether alternative fuels would replace <br /> the coal used in cement kilns (i.e., natural gas, tires, etc.). Total coal production would be reduced from <br /> 17 mt during the life of the Proposed Action to 3.2 mt, which is only 18.8 percent. Also, the low-cover <br /> crossing construction would not occur under the No Action Alternative.The CARMMS data suggests that <br /> the overall air quality impacts surrounding the mine would be negligible when compared to other <br /> potential sources in the state of Colorado. <br /> indirect Effects <br /> It is likely that all of the indirect sources would continue operating regardless of the availability of the King <br /> II coal given their economic incentives to do so. These indirect sources would continue to incrementally <br /> contribute GHG emissions to the biosphere,which could contribute to climate change.The emissions from <br /> the burning of this specific coal would not occur, and there is uncertainty as to continued operation and <br /> fuel sources for the existing cement plants under the No Action Alternative. <br /> Cumulative Actions and Effects <br /> Cumulative effects would likely not change much under the No Action Alternative because the total coal <br /> production from the Project is not substantial when compared to all other national and international <br /> sources of coal production.The emissions from the burning of this specific coal would not occur,and there <br /> would be uncertainty as to continued operation and fuel sources for the existing cement plants under the <br /> No Action Alternative. For further details, please refer to the CARMS section of the TRR(OSMRE and BLM <br /> 2019). <br /> 3.4.2 Resource Issue-Water Quality and Quantity <br /> What would be the effects of the alternatives on groundwater and surface water quality and quantity in <br /> the local area, and on nearby domestic/residential water wells? <br /> 3.4.2.1 Affected Environment <br /> The La Plata River,located approximately two miles north of the Project Area,is the main perennial stream <br /> in the area, and water is diverted from the La Plata River along Hay Gulch for irrigation use. The main <br /> water-bearing geologic units in the vicinity of the King II Mine are the Cliff House, Menefee, and Point <br /> Lookout formations of the Mesa Verde Group.The Quaternary alluvium in the Hay Gulch area overlies the <br /> Late Cretaceous Mesa Verde units and is the most important hydrologic unit for water supply(RHS 2016a). <br /> For a more detailed description of the affected environment, please see Section 2.3.1 of the TRR. <br /> Dunn Ranch Area Coal Lease by Application COC-78825 and Mine Plan Modification EA 3-12 <br />