2020-06-24_REVISION - C1981035 (2)

Home Browse Search

Submission# Organization/Agency Name Commenter Type Comment Comment Response,' 45 015 Kirby Maclauren-Sustainability Organizations/Non It[coal]is no longer market competitive-however coal is used renewable energy sources Comment noted. Alliance of SW Colorado -profits are a cheaper alternative when the 25-30 year lifetime of solar(wind longer)is factored with ROL 46 015 Kirby Maclauren-Sustainability Organizatiom uNon Externalized cost:Environmental impacts of poisonous releases by coal combustion; The potential impacts to air quality,including those from mercury,are detailed in the TRR(Section 2.2)and Alliance of SW Colorado -profits including particulate matter,strongly implicated as a primary cause in 4 of the 5leading summarized in the EA(Section 3.4.1).The ELM determined that it is highly unlikely ambient air quality would urs of tleath.Coal is the primary source of particulate matter,also mercury,a powertul be impacted to a degree that the public(for which the nearest potential receptor is about a 0.5 mile[800 otoAn. meters]away)would experience an elevated exposure risk based on EPA's exposure assessment uidelines. 47 015 Kirby Maclauren-Sustainability Organizatiom uNon Coal releases almost twice the carbon per unit energy as natural gas and more than any Comment noted. Alliance of SW Colorado -profits other fuel source by far.Carbon is the primary driver of climate change,which according to 97%of climate exerts will destroy 0r ecosystems. 48 016 Philip Riff Individuals I know that there will be job loss if thisexpansion is not approved and that is a concern.But Comment noted. there will be much greaterjob loss,and the possible extinction of our species if we do not deal with climate change.We need to take action everywhere and immediately.The King II Coal Mine expansions should not be approved. 49 017 Kara Armano Individuals Our reliance on coal for any use needs to stop.It is detrimental to workers health at the Comment noted. in n e site,at the r site,and to local residents alongthe haul routes. 50 017 Kara Armano Individuals Asa homeowner on the transportation corridor,I'm also greatly concerned about the See response Line 26 and Line 42. increased truck traffic as well as their speeds.This is dangerous for the residents,their families and pets. 51 018 Jordan MCCourt-GCC Individuals I am in favor of the laws by application. Comment noted. 52 019 Louise Teal Individuals There is no reason to expand coal production at this time. Comment noted.This comment is beyond the scope of and purpose and need for this EA. 53 020 Laura Fletcher Individuals We are in support of this pro'act Comment noted. 54 021 Mark J Ludwig Individuals The FONSI(Finding of No Significant Impact)clearly finds the GCC LEA in good standing Comment noted. and should be approved.Natural resources are the basis ofthis great economy and need to be supported by the public.Please approve this LEA 55 022 Jennifer Boyer Individuals I am opposed to the extension and expansion of the King II Coal mine lease Comment noted. 56 022 Jennifer Boyer Individuals As for the comments on the truck traffic,living right on the highway I hear the trucks driving See response Line 26 and Line 42.The 2017 EA analyzed the impacts to transportation infrastructure in the 24 hours a day down 140.The weight of the trucks is not good for our highways at such a affected area.As a mitigation measure,GCC agreed to improve the route used by haul trucks through a RIA constant volume.One positive mention for GCC is that we have observed the drivers being and each scheduled improvement in the RIA would create an improved and safer condition in the existing the more courteous drivers through the slow zone of 140.So I do commend GCC for their roadway from the existing condition. drivers actually driving the speed Iimitthrou h the town of Hes er 57 023 Dave Harris Individuals We areagainst the expansion of this cal mine Comment noted. 58 023 Dave Harris Individuals The ELM should be creating qualityjobs by encouraging the installation of solar and wind Comment noted.This comment is beyond the scope of and purpose and need for this EA. energy on its land-not permitting the extraction of coal which is expensive than those wables and further tl ratles our alreatl unstable environmen�re 59 023 Dave Hams Individuals The mine is a public nuisance to those neighbors that either live a ountl it or by the road Comment noted.The EA provides the baseline conditions of and impacts to air quality(Section 3.4.1),water oar which thousands of truckloads of coal are moved annually-creating untold dust, quality(Section 3.4.2),and noise(Section 3.4.4). lotion,and noise. 60 024 Christopher Lish Individuals I strongly urge you not to finalize GCC Energy's plan that would expand coal mining in Comment noted. southwestern Colorado 61 025 Julia Dengel Individuals Since this is a very large project,I request the comment period be extended so that those of Comment noted.Please see response Line 7. us who work full-time have more time to review the many pages of the EA and supporting technical documents to be able to better review antl understand all the otential im cts 62 025 Julia Dengel Individuals ..Am writing to oppose the proposed lease and expansion and urge you to choose Comment noted. Alternative B,No Action Alternative. 63 025 Julia Dengel Individuals EA notes that the alluvium of Alkali Gulch will be affected by the crossing(which is a The Alkali Gulch construction project is a relatively short term project(approximately 6 months)and will have in assive construction project)but appears to minimize the potential impact.For example, only a temporary impact on Alkali Gulch,an ephemeral drainage.A 50-year precipitation event is not likely. the HOPE pipe that will be installed during construction is only the size of an estimated 5- GCC is planning to mitigate the more probable 5-year storm event.Mitigation of a 50-yr event is not practical year sort water runoff event.What will happen if we have a 50-year runoff event in that or wen feasible.In the event more water flows down Alkali Gulch than anticipated,GCC will use all means period?I am concerned that there will be unanticipated negative consequences for those of available to divert or control the flow to minimize impacts to downstream private property.The lining over the in the vicinity and downstream.Also,I understand there will be a lining put under the fill low cover crossing is very localized and would affect a very small area when compared to the total infiltration that will not allow water seepage back into the gulch where the tunnels will be located.I am area of the Alkali Gulch drainage.Seepage would not be lost but would occur on either the upstream or rned about how that loss of seepage will effect how the gulch feeds or relates to downstream side of the low-cover crossing.The lining is necessary to ensure the safety of mine workers undee rountl water sources. utilizin the tunnels in the low cover crossing. 64 025 Julia Dengel Individuals While you responded to criticism of the distant hearing by having an open house in Breen, While ELM tlitl not hold a public hearing to accept verbal comments at the August 5 public meeting in the you tlitl not hold a hearing in Breen and accept public comments at that event. Breen Community Center,ELM and OSMRE tlitl accept receipt of written comments at that meeting.Further, the public had the opportunity to ask questions of agency staff and management about the project in a one- - context.The agencies also provided the public the opportunity to compose and submit their written comments at that meeting.All comments,whether submitted in written form orverbally at the hearing are considered a uall b the a ences B-4