My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV14918
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV14918
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:26:10 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:58:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/3/2004
Doc Name
Decision Notice and Findings of No Significant Impact April 2004
From
Forest Service
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
MR302
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.
/
29
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
Decision Notice And Finding of No Significant Impact <br />Supplement to the Coal Methane Drainage Project Panels 16 to 24 <br />Environmental Assessment <br />For <br />Sylvester Gulch Temporary Road Construction <br />and <br />Box Canyon Methane Drainage Wells and Temporary Road Construction <br />and <br />Environmental Assessment <br />For <br />Box Canyon Shallow Seismic Survey <br />- - ~ Federal Coal Leases C-1362 and COC-56447 <br />USDA Forest Service <br />Rocky Mountain Region <br />Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests <br />Paonia Ranger District <br />Gunnison County, Colorado <br />I. INTRODUCTION <br />Mountain Coal Company, (MCC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Arch Western Resources, LLC, operates West Elk <br />Mine, an underground longwall coal mine, located near Somerset, Colorado on the North Fork of the Gunnison <br />River. The mine currently produces approximately 6 million tons annually of high BTU, low-sulfur coal using high- <br />capacity longwall mining methods. This coal is in high demand due to its conformance with the Phase II standards <br />as required by the Clean Air Act. Coal fired electrical generation plants in several eastern and mid-western states <br />use this coal to provide energy so they can meet State and federal air quality standards. <br />hi 2002, the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre=Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) prepared an environmental assessment <br />(EA) that considered a project proposed by Mountain Coal Company (MCC) for liberating excess methane from the <br />underground mine workings at [he West Elk Mine. The project proposed use of methane drainage wells (MDWs) <br />drilled from the land surface into the mine to evacuate methane from the mine. Called the Coal Methane Drainage <br />Project -Panels 16 to 24 (Panels 16 to 24 EA), the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact <br />• (DN/FONSI) prepared for the project approved installation of 58 MDWs from 46 drill locations, and constmction of <br />10.6 miles of temporary road to access the drill locations. The DN also prescribed Conditions of Approval for use of <br />National Forest System (NFS) lands. Use of NFS lands for access, construction and operation of MDWs at the West <br />Elk mine has been occurring since 2001. <br />In the 2002 DN/FONSI, the Forest Service approved a road alignment in Sylvester Gulch consistent with Altemative <br />4 of the Panels 16 to 24 EA. This Decision authorized a road to be built on the side slopes above the drainage <br />bottom (outside the water influence zone (WIZ)), and granted an exception to the no surface occupancy stipulation <br />for slopes greater than 60 % for the road (Panels 16 to 24 DN/FONSI, Sections IL2 and I1.5). The 2002 Panel 16 to <br />24 EA found no other appropriate alternative for the location of [he road. Actual road constmc[ion approval was to <br />be given after the Forest Service approved MCC's road design, specifications and use standards. The approved road <br />was to be temporary, and used for the duration of the coal methane drainage project. In 2002, MCC along with the <br />Forest Service and the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (CDMG), evaluated five potential routes on the <br />Sylvester Gulch slopes. Field recotmaissance of the five routes raised questions regarding the feasibility based on <br />slope stability, slope steepness, engineering and/or reclamation concerns. <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.