My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE53089
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE53089
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:56:38 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 3:35:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
X200521710
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/29/2005
Doc Name
Environmental Assessment Spruce Stomp Federal Coal Exploration License
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
EnvimnmenW Assessment Bowie Resources, L.L.C. <br />August 2005 Spruce Stomp Federal Coal Exploration License (150- 2005 -43) <br />to allow the seed sprouts to penetrate soil. Slopes that are 3:1 or less should be drill <br />seeded while slopes greater than that should be broadcast seeded. <br />2.2 Alternatives <br />NEPA requires development of a reasonable range of practicable alternatives to the Proposed <br />Action in response to the following: <br />• Purpose and need of the Proposed Action; <br />• Concerns identified by the public during public scoping; and <br />• Concerns identified by the Interdisciplinary Team. <br />The Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative have been analyzed in Chapter 3. A brief <br />description of the No Action Alternative is presented below, as well as well as alternatives that <br />were considered but not analyzed in detail. No additional alternatives identified through scoping <br />or the responsible agencies meet the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action. <br />2.2.1 No Action Alternative <br />Analysis of the No Action alternative is required by CEQ 40 CFR Part 1502.14(d). Under this <br />alternative, implementation of the SSCEL exploration drilling plan would not be approved. <br />Exploration holes would not be drilled in the SSCEL, and the associated roads would not be <br />reconditioned or constructed. <br />2.2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail <br />Other alternatives as discussed below were considered for analysis in the EA, but were not be <br />' carried forward given the reasons provided. <br />Airlifting ¢ f Exploration Equipment <br />' A comment received during public scoping suggested airlifting exploration equipment to the <br />proposed drilling locations as an alternative to use and /or reconditioning of existing roads and <br />construction of temporary roads for ground transportation of equipment. This alternative was <br />considered but not analyzed for the following reasons: <br />Helicopter portable equipment is necessarily small and light and is appropriate for some <br />relatively shallow drilling applications. However, the limitations in torque, pull -back, and drill <br />pipe diameter, render helicopter portable drills incapable of relatively deep (2,000 feet +) drilling <br />in general and are not capable of reaching even lesser depths in difficult ground conditions. <br />Manufacturers of helicopter portable drill rigs advertise their rigs to be capable of reaching 2,000 <br />feet + depths with light drill rod. However, this claim is based on ideal conditions in crystalline <br />granite rock, where squeezing clay or unstable rock is not present. Experience has shown that <br />the tremendous increase in friction against the drill pipe that occurs when unstable, broken, or <br />clay -rich "squeezing" formations, together with groundwater, are encountered. Strong drill pipe <br />capable of flushing relatively large volumes of drill cuttings, and high torque and pull -back are <br />required to prevent getting the drill pipe permanently "planted" (or stuck) in the hole. <br />2 -12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.