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

Home Browse Search

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 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. The area disturbed for this alternative would be greater than for the Proposed Action,and the disturbance would be long term rather than the temporary disturbance for the Proposed Action. The new road and structures constructed would have long term impacts on the visual resources for the area rather than the temporary visual impacts of the Proposed Action. In addition,vehicle traffic crossing the Gulch as well as operation of the new ventilation system would result in noise and vibration impacts on public health and safety not associated with the Proposed Action.Vehicle accidents on the road,a threat heightened during inclement weather, would impact worker safety and could also result in delays in moving supplies and workers between the existing mine and the Project Area that could pose an additional threat to worker safety. This alternative would result in substantially greater adverse environmental impacts than the Proposed Action, including greater impacts to miner and public health and safety, and therefore was eliminated from further consideration. 2.4.5 Smaller Amount of Coal Alternative This alternative considered but dismissed a smaller overall amount of coal to be mined (e.g., a 10-year supply rather than the estimated 22 years). The rationale for this alternative was to give the federal agencies more flexibility to move away from coal as a fuel source for cement or energy. This alternative was not considered for further analysis as it does not meet the purpose and need as stated in Section 1.2. Reducing the amount of coal reserves proposed to be mined would alter the proposed mine plan which may result in the permanent bypass of recoverable federal coal. Upon completion of this EA and when BLM makes its leasing decision, the agency does have the discretion as provided under the applicable regulations to offer a smaller LBA parcel than was applied for by GCCE, if it is within the analysis area for this EA. In this case, a separate NEPA analysis would not be needed because the impacts are already analyzed under the Proposed Action. 2.4.6 Mandatory Methane Flaring and/or Capture Alternatives Methane is a known greenhouse gas and a byproduct of coal mining. This alternative would include methods for flaring or otherwise capturing methane produced at the King II Mine.This alternative was dismissed as the previous Lease Modification EA (BLM and OSMRE 2017) determined that methane concentrations are naturally low in the King II Mine.The highest ever recorded by MSHA at the mine is 0.2 percent due to the area's naturally low occurrence of the gas in the coal formation. Exposure of the coal seam in outcrops at the surface, as well as the thin overburden covering the coal seam has allowed methane gas that was originally contained in the coal to naturally vent to the atmosphere over geologic time. These same conditions characterize the coal in the LBA area. Therefore, no additional methods of methane flaring, or capture are required because they are not technically or economically feasible. Dunn Ranch Area Coal Lease by Application COC-78825 and Mine Plan Modification EA 2-13