2020-10-27_PERMIT FILE - C1981035 (23)

Home Browse Search

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This alternative would extend mining operations much further from the portal than the Proposed Action, which would result in substantially increased costs for additional ventilation, conveyor belts, conveyor drives, electrical stations, and cable, as well as require extensive inspections, and maintenance of extensive existing mine workings.Additionally, requirements for new personnel trained in blasting as well as new licenses for the use of explosives would substantially increase costs. Lastly, the sandstone mined would be of no economic value with no financial return on the mining required, and the mined sandstone would need to be hauled to the King I Mine refuse pile at additional cost.The aggregate of these additional and increased costs would make this alternative economically infeasible when combined with the greater adverse impacts than the Proposed Action.Therefore,this alternative would have greater environmental impacts than the Proposed Action and is eliminated from further consideration. 2.4.2 Northern Mine Area Surface Access Alternative This alternative access to the LBA considered joining the existing mining operations to the LBA across the Gulch in a location and orientation like the alternative considered above (Section 2.4.1) but, in this case, the access would be developed on the surface. The access would start at the farthest north area of the mine,then run northwest across the upper reach of the Gulch to access the LBA area near its most eastern boundary. In this location the coal seam is approximately 85 ft above the canyon floor.To cross the canyon in this area, GCCE would either need to build a bridge about 85 ft in height, approximately 1,000 ft long, and rated for a 60-ton weight limit or construct steep switch back roads on both sides of the canyon. In addition, for either sub-option this alternative would require constructing an enclosed conveyor belt system across the Gulch to bring mined coal out of the LBA Area and to the existing mine surface facilities, as well as new portals on each side of the Gulch, a new mine ventilation system for the LBA area, and new surface electrical facilities. For this alternative, any new surface disturbance outside of the current 26- acre site at King II would require a new LPC land use permit adding costs and time to the Project. For the bridge sub-option,the cost of the engineering design alone for this type of complex bridge would be prohibitively high. In fact, it is estimated that the engineering design cost alone would exceed the expected budget for construction of this sub-option. The design cost would be in addition to the bridge construction costs, as well as the costs of the other required new surface structures and facilities described above, as well as structure and road maintenance. In addition, the size and weight of the equipment that would cross such a bridge would be too hazardous to consider this option further, especially in view of the frequent inclement weather conditions, especially snow and ice,to which driving across the bridge would be subject. The combination of the additional and increased costs would make the bridge sub-option for this alternative economically infeasible, and therefore it was eliminated from further consideration. Likewise, constructing and utilizing steep switch back roads on both sides of the Gulch would also pose significant hazards to heavy equipment and drivers due to the grade of the roads.As with the bridge sub- option, severe weather events, especially in the winter, would heighten the level of hazard probability. The road would need to be maintained all year round, and during weather events the road would have to be maintained at all hours of operation for safety. Accidents on the bridge or roads would result in delays Dunn Ranch Area Coal Lease by Application COC-78825 and Mine Plan Modification EA 2-11